JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
Originally Posted by TheRedWorm
Hey Robert, I asked this a long time ago, and you never even acknowledged the post. Can you provide a shot-by-shot timeline of the shooting that day?



You like the Warren Report??? Then read it.
Click to expand...

So you believe the Warren Report is an accurate timeline? You offer no concise timeline to support your theory?
 
Robert Prey said:
Originally Posted by TheRedWorm
Hey Robert, I asked this a long time ago, and you never even acknowledged the post. Can you provide a shot-by-shot timeline of the shooting that day?



You like the Warren Report??? Then read it.
Click to expand...


I didn't ask for the Warren report. I wrote what I thought was a plausible timeline for the shots (and only the shots), and asked you to do the same. Please do so or say that you cannot.
 
TheRedWorm

Trolls don't do evidence or timelines, they only deny evidence - or dodge it
 
Mr. Prey:

I can't seem to find the recent post in which you, finally, sort of answer the request that you provide your description and/or definition of the term "blow-out" [sic]. You wrote, to closely paraphrase, that we should look in the dictionary. Setting aside the oversight of which you are apparently unaware*, that's not an answer to the request.

So, once again: Please provide your description and/or definition of the term "blow-out" [sic]. What is it, how does it occur, all in relation to a ballistic impact. Your words, not a dictionary's.

Thanks in advance.

*There is no dictionary definition of "blow-out."
 
Last edited:
TheRedWorm said:
For evidence of this, see RPs above post.
Click to expand...

Yep

Making up a timeline would take time, plus he's really not interested in the subject, that's why he dodged the question. He only wishes to troll endlessly
 
Hans said:
Yep

Making up a timeline would take time, plus he's really not interested in the subject, that's why he dodged the question. He only wishes to troll endlessly
Click to expand...

I've found most CT lunatics avoid ever presenting a single coherent theory of their POV. Based on their frequently changing and often mutually contradictory positions, I suspect they can't.
 
Robrob said:
I've found most CT lunatics avoid ever presenting a single coherent theory of their POV. Based on their frequently changing and often mutually contradictory positions, I suspect they can't.
Click to expand...

Good old Robert demonstrated that in the Obama BC. Consistency isn't a trollish trait
 
Robrob said:
I've found most CT lunatics avoid ever presenting a single coherent theory of their POV. Based on their frequently changing and often mutually contradictory positions, I suspect they can't.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't be a requirement for CT lunatics to provide a single coherent theory; it is just necessary to point out "coincidences" that are plausible in building a case. Maybe you can explain this particular coincidence that took place. James Ling and an investment partner took out a put options purchase on their own Defense company LTV, in early November of '63. In February of '64, LBJ announced his FIRST major prime defense contract since taking office and it went to LTV, it was for a fighter aircraft to be used in Vietnam. This short position went 10X in under 3 years. The $2.5M that the two men took out represented over 100 times the size of any other put options in the Aerospace issues durinng the same time period. Is this a coincidence? It very well could be but it is just another interesting point that WC supporters dismiss; especially since the WC never brought this up.
 
ladmo said:
It shouldn't be a requirement for CT lunatics to provide a single coherent theory; it is just necessary to point out "coincidences" that are plausible in building a case.
Click to expand...

No. In any occurrence there will be several causal chains simultaneously at work, only a few of which contribute to the event in question. A viable alternative theory must be at least as coherent and complete as the prevailing theory, properly extracting the causal chains that most parsimoniously explain the observed outcome. It is a common mistake among rookie/amateur investigators to assume that everything they can observe is a contributing factor to the outcome they wish to explain.
 
ladmo said:
It shouldn't be a requirement for CT lunatics to provide a single coherent theory; it is just necessary to point out "coincidences" that are plausible in building a case. Maybe you can explain this particular coincidence that took place. James Ling and an investment partner took out a put options purchase on their own Defense company LTV, in early November of '63. In February of '64, LBJ announced his FIRST major prime defense contract since taking office and it went to LTV, it was for a fighter aircraft to be used in Vietnam. This short position went 10X in under 3 years. The $2.5M that the two men took out represented over 100 times the size of any other put options in the Aerospace issues durinng the same time period. Is this a coincidence? It very well could be but it is just another interesting point that WC supporters dismiss; especially since the WC never brought this up.
Click to expand...

You might want to check up on "correlation does not imply causation."
 
JayUtah said:
No. In any occurrence there will be several causal chains simultaneously at work, only a few of which contribute to the event in question. A viable alternative theory must be at least as coherent and complete as the prevailing theory, properly extracting the causal chains that most parsimoniously explain the observed outcome. It is a common mistake among rookie/amateur investigators to assume that everything they can observe is a contributing factor to the outcome they wish to explain.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely nothing that will support your assertion. If you were to tell me that it only takes 7 seconds to reach the Sun; I do not need to provide you with the countervailing theory to say you are wrong. The same holds true for putting together "coincidences". A casual chain is not what I provided, I did not suggest that every observance is a contributing factor; my example does require a logical explanation as it is outside the standard deviation of put options for the aerospace industry.
 
Robrob said:
You might want to check up on "correlation does not imply causation."
Click to expand...
I understand the difference; I provided a specific example as I never implied that this stand alone event is a sufficient enough coincident to indict anyone. Having said that, I would like to see the rationale behind the stock trade as it was so far out of the "typical" action of any aerospace company buying back it's own stock. What even made this transaction all the more strange is that not one Brokerage House followed suit on the Owners actions; if those Houses felt that it was a smart move, they would have followed suit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom