Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge
- Thread starter BStrong
- Start date
- Status
No ot is not. It is pointing out an argument from authority and added to that, an alleged authority that I know belong to a certain group of people with certain ideas of reality.
No ad hominem.
Manifesto, it is absolutely an ad hominem attack to make the following argument: (1) OKBob is a member of the Mighty Church; (2) therefore, OKBob's arguments may safely be ignored.
Now, I deny (1) in the first place, and I really don't even know what you mean by "Mighty Church." But I also reject this type of argument generally as fallacious.
Vaguely gesturing "supra" is not an argument. Tell me why what I took the time to explain to you--that the word is advisory and preserves official discretion--is wrong.
You have argued that (1) because the PMO does not (in your view) comply with regulatory language, (2) the PMO was faulty and (3) therefore likely to have been forged by forces covering up a conspiracy.
If the regulation was not mandatory but rather discretionary, then you have no basis for alleging (2) and (3).
People who pejoratively use the label ”CT” or worse = member of the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut, or worse.
Have you ever used the label ”CT” or worse on someone who is convinced of a conspiracy behind the assassination of JFK?
If not, I apologize, sincerely.
I’m not sure what you are saying here?
Axxman300
Philosopher
They list what they found, who found them, who moved them, and where they went within the DPD. = Chain of evidence you asked for.
You asked to explain the discrepancy of the third shell, I provided Lt. Day's affidavit where he explained under oath what happened.
You were the one making claimed. I shot them down with official documents.
I don't have to explain anything, history and the facts are on my side.
The only thing I have claimed so far is that the Hidell PMO are missing endorsing bank stamps regulated by the Federal Reserve.
Next step is to see in what way this could be evidence of a forgery.
One step at a time:
1. Does it comply to the regulations concerning bank endorsement stamps?
2. What does it say of its authenticity if not?
That is, if it can be shown that it was fairly common to skip the regulated stamps, the missing stamps are not evidence of forgery.
One step at a time.
Axxman300
Philosopher
The Carcano is a bolt action rifle. They found a fourth round still in the weapon, meaning THEY OPENED THE BOLT, which is how they check to see if a weapon is dirty in the US Army, Navy, Air Force, and USMC.
In short, they checked, it would be obvious, and combined with the mountain of ballistic and physical evidence - starting with a very dead JFK - they proved the rifle had been fired that day
So, who’s tags are on the shells?
Where did I ask that?
You need to explain what’s specifically in the documents and how this supports your claim.You were the one making claimed. I shot them down with official documents.
I thought that exactly that was the issue at hand. What are the facts supporting what version of history.I don't have to explain anything, history and the facts are on my side.
Not?
Where did they say they checked it?The Carcano is a bolt action rifle. They found a fourth round still in the weapon, meaning THEY OPENED THE BOLT, which is how they check to see if a weapon is dirty in the US Army, Navy, Air Force, and USMC.
In short, they checked, it would be obvious, and combined with the mountain of ballistic and physical evidence - starting with a very dead JFK - they proved the rifle had been fired that day
Read the thread. Stop playing the fool.
What? My contention is that they would have said that the rifle had been fired if they found soot in it.
They did not say anything about that. Not the DPD nor the FBI.
Why?
You stated it was page one sentence one in some mythical Criminal Investigation Manual. Criminology 101 or some such nonsense. It is not. It is not a standard procedure. That the bullets recovered could only have been fired from that rifle is unassailable as JFK was killed by those bullets at 12:30 11/22/63. That means that the rifle was fired. There is absolutely no need to stick a finger in the muzzle.
Are you seriously asking us to accept the following argument? (1) People who have at any time used the phrase or concept "CT" have a biased, irrational belief in the lone-assassin scenario; (2) OKBob has at one or another time used the phrase or concept "CT"; (3) therefore, OKBob's arguments may be safely ignored because they derive from a biased, irrational belief.
I mean that your citing "above" (Latin, supra) as a response to my argument doesn't tell me anything, particularly since I have addressed myself to your "above" claims.
Last edited:
It substantially complies. You may now retire this branch of inquiry.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
One of jobs I had in the military was "Tech Writer", the drafting and writing of technical manuals and procedures. I did this when I was on exchange for about a year with the Royal Air Force at RAF Base Sealand in North Wales.
Now, the RAF being part of NATO means that everything had to be written to a standard. It is very important to get wording right in military technical manuals, because technicians and engineers would be using the procedures and descriptions you write to maintain vital aircraft flight and weapons systems. We used a standard called the ISO Technical Writing Guide (TWG). Our instructor taught us that this was the standard to which all technical writing was to conform, and that it applied to all the NATO partners including the USA. He also said that the ISO Technical Writing Guide was itself based on the US Federal Plain Language Guidelines.
Anyway, I found my old copy of the ISO TWG, and here is what it says
The following definitions apply in understanding how to implement an ISO International Standard.
i. "shall" indicates a requirement defined as criteria to be fulfilled and from which no deviation is permitted.
ii. "should" indicates a recommendation defined as a suggested possible choice or course of action deemed to be particularly suitable without necessarily mentioning or excluding others.
iii. "may" is used to indicate that something is permitted
iv. "can" is used to indicate that something is possible, for example, that an organization or individual is able to do something
I also decided to look up that Federal Plain Language Guideline, and whaddyaknow, I found this
1. Verbs
Verbs tell your audience what to do. Make sure they know who does what.
iv. Use “must” to indicate requirements
The word “must” is the clearest way to convey to your audience that they have to do something. “Shall” is one of those officious and obsolete words that has encumbered legal style writing for many years. The message that “shall” sends to the audience is, “this is deadly material.” “Shall” is also obsolete. When was the last time you heard it used in everyday speech?
Besides being outdated, “shall” is imprecise. It can indicate either an obligation or a prediction. Dropping “shall” is a major step in making your document more user-friendly. Don’t be intimidated by the argument that using “must” will lead to a lawsuit. Many agencies already use the word “must” to convey obligations. The US Courts are eliminating “shall” in favor of “must” in their Rules of Procedure.
One example of these rules is cited below. Instead of using “shall”, use:
• “must” for an obligation
• “must not” for a prohibition
• “may” for a discretionary action
• “should” for a recommendation.
How does this fit in with your experience?
HSienzant
Philosopher
"Mighty Church" as Manifesto uses it is "anyone who determined from their study of the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin".
Here's an example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12261474&postcount=1375
Note his original language was "Mighty Church of the Lone Nut" (since shortened to simply the "Mighty Church").
That's right, he's basically dismissing anyone who believes Oswald did it because they believe Oswald did it.
Closed mind is closed.
Hank
Last edited:
- Status