Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

[Steve]

What is it that you can’t understand, Steve?

1. Hank is making the claim that Oswald killed JFK.

2. I ask him on what evidence he is making said claim.

3. He presents some but without quotes or sources.

4. I ask him to present said quotes and sources.

5. He begin ranting and babbeling calling me names.

If I made a stament grounded in sound evidence, I’d be delighted to present them.

You would not? Why?

Evidence has been presented for Oswald being the assassin. You claim not to accept it. That is your privilege. To me your comments seem overly negative and aggressive, but maybe they just don't come over so well in print. But evidence pointing to Oswald is not what I am really trying to discuss.

Kennedy is dead. Someone shot him. I presume you accept those two facts. Do you have any thoughts at all on who the shooter might have been? Or is "not Oswald" the totality of your thoughts on the subject?

If you look back through my posts you will see that I have never claimed that Oswald shot anybody. I am looking for an alternate narrative of the events surrounding the shooting of Kennedy that do not include Oswald. To date no-one who says "not Oswald" has even attempted to provide such information. It is almost like there is no competing story. It would be very disappointing, and surprising, to me if no-one who has looked into the events of that day and concluded "not Oswald" has never looked into it further than that.

I have seen a sufficient number of arguments presented for "Oswald did it" and for "not Oswald". I would really like to see something positive presented for "probably Xxxx".

Do you have anything to offer? A name for "Xxxx" would be a promising start.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It is recuired if your opponent is not specifically letting you know what evidence HE/SHE is refering to when making a specific claim.

It’s lika stating that Jesus was a historical person and as evidence for this refer to the Bible as a whole.

Silly. At best.

Nope, not like that at all.

The null hypothesis stands.

 

[manifesto]

Nope, not like that at all.

The null hypothesis stands.

Says who? The Pope?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Says who? The Pope?

You haven't looked up the word "consilience" yet, have you. That wasn't a question.

It's got to suck to be a CTist who can't buck the null hypothesis. Which is all CTists.

 

[Axxman300]

Signed reports by Seymour Weitzman and E.L. Boone (Deputy Sheriff): https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/JosephsRifle.pdf

The only written statements of the discovery to this day, states that it was a 7.65 Mauser bolt action rifle.

Boones and Weitzmans formal retractions came when interviewed by WC.

Deputy Roger Craig did never retract his testimony.

Boones and Weitzmans were wrong. The Carcano and Mauser are similar in shape, and because neither man handled the Carcano they were left with their mistaken ID.

If this is a demonstration of your ability to grasp facts and context it explains your failure to accept the truth of the matter.

 

[Axxman300]

It is recuired if your opponent is not specifically letting you know what evidence HE/SHE is refering to when making a specific claim.

And yet you never specified if the "Mauser" found in the TSBD was a rifle or a pistol. Mauser makes both.

You do not apply the same standards to your own conduct as you do others.

 

[Axxman300]

********. I’m suggesting that Hank presents his evidence of the veracity of his stated claim that Oswald killed JFK.

If he has indeed presented this somewhere else and sometime before this current discussion, surely he should have no problem in link to it or better still, cite it and present it in full here and now.

This is absurd according to your School of Thought?

Do not circumvent the auto-censor

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

Translation: I'm lazy.

 

[Axxman300]

The ”null hypothesis” is just another way of asume that which should be shown with the evidence.

The effect comes down to teleological aristotelian reasoning which states that facts, cause and effect, are sucked in place by the divine prime mover.

The last time someone suggested this kind of logic without being laught at, was ca half a millenia ago.

And, here we are, 2017.

The lone nut = the prime mover = the null hypotethis.

Really? Neat.

Aristotle would also point out that reasoning only works when the reasoner is intellectually honest with himself, and others. So far you have yet to present a case for innocence.

 

[Axxman300]

I don’t care if Hank have debated the subject for a lifetime. I care of people telling the truth in public.

No you don't. You only care about people telling YOUR truth in public.

 

[HSienzant]

Can you explain to me what a null hypothesis is in historical inquiry? People bring it up a lot, but it makes no sense to me.

In short, in this case, JFK was shot to death. That means the null hypothesis here is one shooter, since, given the preceding fact in evidence, the possibility of "no shooter" is eliminated. Thus, any additional shooter must be established, but we know there was at least one, because he died by gunfire.

Now, this says nothing about who fired the shots. But separate from the null hypothesis, there was one shooter seen at the time of the shooting, there was one rifle found, and all the shells, bullet fragments that were traceable, as well as the nearly whole bullet recovered at Parkland were all ballistically traceable to the one weapon found.

So while that doesn't eliminate additional shooters, it certainly narrows the scope. We're now looking for unseen shooters firing unseen weapons that left no trace of themselves behind - no bullets, no shells, no fragments that could be eliminated from the found weapon. It sounds to me like we're looking for evidence of unicorns at this point.

But that still doesn't establish Oswald fired any shots. But then we look at the found weapon, and we see it was ordered by Oswald, paid for by Oswald, shipped to Oswald's post office box, and possessed by Oswald (he was photographed with it and it had his prints on it). It was stored in a place he had access to infrequently (the Paine garage) and it was found at his place of employment. He was seen by two people with a long package the morning of the assassination, one of whom estimated the package initially at three feet. The rifle was measured at 40 inches. He made a special trip to the Paine home the night before the assassination.

His prints were determined to be on the trigger guard, his prints were on a sack found near the window where the shooter was seen, and his prints were on the boxes in that corner.

He is the only person in the entire history of the world known to have access to both the Paine garage and the sixth floor of the Depository.

All this was covered in far greater detail in the threads preceding this one. All the evidence for this was cited in those posts in those threads.

Familiarize yourself with the arguments already made, the evidence already cited, and the reason why arguments for conspiracy get no traction.

You should start reading from here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222556

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

He claimed he had evidence of this and that, but he somehow forgot to show it.

Maybe you have some evidence of Oswalds guilt of killing JFK you are keen on presenting?

While patiently awaiting, Hank?

What is your proof of Oswald's innocence? We're all waiting.

 

[manifesto]

Evidence has been presented for Oswald being the assassin.

Where?

- He assassinated Tippit and therefore he assassinated JFK.

- He assassinated JFK and therefore he assassinated Tippit.

Are these two statements self evident? Or should I ask for some kind of evidence outside this self reinforcing tautological loop?

You claim not to accept it.

I am prepered to argue and present counter evidence when Hank (or anyone) presents specific evidence pertaining to Oswalds alleged killing of JFK.

Since I’m not a mind reader I can not know this without Hank (or anyone) letting me know what evidence HE is refering to.

It’s impossible, I assure you.

That is your privilege. To me your comments seem overly negative and aggressive, but maybe they just don't come over so well in print. But evidence pointing to Oswald is not what I am really trying to discuss.

I’m not the one calling my opponents names.

You are many. I am one.

Kennedy is dead. Someone shot him. I presume you accept those two facts. Do you have any thoughts at all on who the shooter might have been? Or is "not Oswald" the totality of your thoughts on the subject?

Maybe I do, maybe I don’t. Your wish to discuss something else than Hanks statement is duly noted, though.

If you look back through my posts you will see that I have never claimed that Oswald shot anybody. I am looking for an alternate narrative of the events surrounding the shooting of Kennedy that do not include Oswald. To date no-one who says "not Oswald" has even attempted to provide such information. It is almost like there is no competing story. It would be very disappointing, and surprising, to me if no-one who has looked into the events of that day and concluded "not Oswald" has never looked into it further than that.

This is another topic which has nothing to do with Hanks claim.

Your wish to discuss something else than Hanks claim is duly noted. Maybe, when this current issue with Hanks claim is solved. Who knows ...

I have seen a sufficient number of arguments presented for "Oswald did it" and for "not Oswald". I would really like to see something positive presented for "probably Xxxx".

Do you have anything to offer? A name for "Xxxx" would be a promising start.

Have you? Good. Name one of this ”arguments” and maybe we can move forward?!

One.

 

[Steve]

Where?

- He assassinated Tippit and therefore he assassinated JFK.

- He assassinated JFK and therefore he assassinated Tippit.

Are these two statements self evident? Or should I ask for some kind of evidence outside this self reinforcing tautological loop?

I am prepered to argue and present counter evidence when Hank (or anyone) presents specific evidence pertaining to Oswalds alleged killing of JFK.

Since I’m not a mind reader I can not know this without Hank (or anyone) letting me know what evidence HE is refering to.

It’s impossible, I assure you.

I’m not the one calling my opponents names.

You are many. I am one.

Maybe I do, maybe I don’t. Your wish to discuss something else than Hanks statement is duly noted, though.

This is another topic which has nothing to do with Hanks claim.

Your wish to discuss something else than Hanks claim is duly noted. Maybe, when this current issue with Hanks claim is solved. Who knows ...

Have you? Good. Name one of this ”arguments” and maybe we can move forward?!

One.

Thanks for your response.

There was really no need to beat around the bush. You either cannot or will not provide the narrative I was asking for. You could have said no in one short sentence

Hank's statement upthread seems to be correct.

I have no interest in your wish to keep turning the topic to Hank's claims to the exclusion of all else. We have no common interest in a topic of discussion so we need communicate no further.

I will wait until the next supporter of your position comes along to see if they have anything positive to offer. It has been a long wait so far but I am quite old and have learned much about patience in my lifetime.

Enjoy the remainder of your life.

 

[smartcooky]

The null hypothesis is that Oswald Killed JFK, just as it is that the Apollo Programme took 12 astronauts to the moon and returned them safely to the earth, just as is it that 19 Arab terrorists hijacked 4 airliners and crashed them into buildings.

Oswald shot and killed JFK. This is established and proven fact, whether CT nuts like it or not. In order to overturn that established fact, the burden is upon THEM to come up with a viable, provable alternative theory of the crime and support it with evidence. Their problem is that most of them are too lazy or too stupid to do the work, so they resort to trying to pick holes in the factual accounts, and to keep asking questions that they refuse to accept the answers to.

 

[carlitos]

And, here we are, 2017.

This is the kind of attention to detail that we're looking for. Go on, now.

 

[HSienzant]

Are they? Are you making a legal claim here?

That eyewitness testimony is evidence? Yes.
That expert testimony is evidence? Yes.

Eyewitness and expert testimony is evidence here in the U.S.A.

I believe you missread me. I claim that I could not find any evidence of Oswald killing JFK in said reports.

No, you were directed to the 27 WC volumes and Report, and the 13 HSCA volumes and Report and your response was you found no evidence in there:

I have read it but have not found any evidence in there.

You claimed to have read all 40 books and found no evidence. You didn't qualify it in any way.

You have listed some of your evidence above, but that did not seem to lead anywhere, did it?

I listed no evidence. I cited the source of where you could find some of the evidence. I also pointed you to the threads here for discussion of some of that evidence.

I’ll make it simple for you. You claimed that Oswald OWNED the alleged murder weapon, so where is your evidence of this ownership?

Give me a definition of ownership you'll accept.

You asked me to present the evidence of their written statements identifying the rifle found on the 6th floor in TSBD as a Mauser. I presented it. Now what?

Now I'll do to you what you intended to do to the known standard. I'll point out the flaws in your argument and the weaknesses in your case.

I'll do that in the next post.

I did not claim that he [CRAIG] gave it to the Commission. They did not ask him.

Well, where and when did he give this sworn statement? How many years after the assassination did he first mention it? Why didn't he mention it earlier?

They were not interested in the identity of the alleged murder weapon?

Now you just have to show that they knew Craig saw the weapon, handled it, and could identify it. That would help make your case that they neglected to ask Craig about it. What evidence do you have along those lines?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Since I’m not a mind reader I can not know this without Hank (or anyone) letting me know what evidence HE is refering to.

What part of the consilience of evidence do you have an issue with?

 

[HSienzant]

The crime of the century and three police officers get the brand of the rifle wrong? In written and signed affidavits? Then, after a good nights sleep, two of them suddely ”remember” much clearer that is was a Carcano rifle, while the third of them still remember a ”wrong” rifle?

Can you name these three police officers and cite for their three signed affidavits?

Can you cite for two of them changing their mind overnight "after a good nights sleep"?

Remember that you told us this:

No, the burden av proof lies with the indiviadual making a claim, a statement.

Burden of proof for your claims belongs with you.

Names and links to the affidavits, please.
Citations to where two of the three changed their mind the next day.

We'll wait.

Hank

Note your language above: Three officers "in written and signed affidavits" put the brand as a Mauser, and then "after a good nights sleep, two of them suddely 'remember' much clearer that is was a Carcano rifle."

That's wrong, and you know it's wrong, and you're already backing away from that.

Craig said nothing about a Mauser in his initial affidavits about his activities on the day of the assassination:
Nothing about a Mauser in here: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0425a.htm
Nothing about a Mauser in here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig1.htm
And as you later admitted, he didn't mention it in his Warren Commission testimony here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm
And didn't mention it five years later in the Shaw trial for conspiracy here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craigsh.htm

So how many years after the assassination did Craig first come forward with the introduction of being able to identify the rifle as a Mauser?

Regarding Boone and Weitzman, you have yet to comply with my request. Here is my request once more (it's also above in this post):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12252353&postcount=751

Do you see therein where I asked for their names and links to their affidavits?
Do you see therein where I asked for the link to their retractions the next day?

Have you provided that evidence?

You have not.

We'll wait.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

********. I’m suggesting that Hank presents his evidence of the veracity of his stated claim that Oswald killed JFK.

Do not circumvent the auto-censor

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

Been there. Done that. See the thread.

If he has indeed presented this somewhere else and sometime before this current discussion, surely he should have no problem in link to it or better still, cite it and present it in full here and now.

Or even better still, use the search function here and find any posts by me mentioning any key words you like, then tell me what I got wrong. Cite for your arguments. Don't use logical fallacies or take claims out of context. Don't cite fellow conspiracy theorists for their opinions -- that's not evidence. Don't advance hearsay and rumor as evidence. I'll retract when you establish your case. You won't, of course, because you can't.

This is absurd according to your School of Thought?

You can see my school of thought laid out for you in this thread and the preceding five right here on ISF. Let me know what issues you have with any of my posts. But your game is too obvious and too redundant. I've played that game for 25 years, since I started discussing the assassination on Prodigy in the early 1990's.

I have a trail going back six and a half years on this forum, and I don't need to repeat those arguments because you ignored them the first time around. You've been here since 2009.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

And, here we are, 2017.

This is the kind of attention to detail that we're looking for. Go on, now.

Damn! Slipped right past all the rest of us. Good catch!



Hank