JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Straw Man]

I see Robert decided to move on from the palmprint once supplied with information that it was obtained prior to the FBI taking possession of LHO's rifle.

 

[jargon buster]

I see Robert decided to move on from the palmprint once supplied with information that it was obtained prior to the FBI taking possession of LHO's rifle.

Come back for the fringe reset in two months.

 

[Hans]

Come back for the fringe reset in two months.

Actually Robert has been reseting earlier recently. I'd say just 4 1/2 weeks

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I simply adore how our little friend* suggests evidence of a conspiracy in pretty much every single element of the assassination and its aftermath.







*You know...the confirmed, repeated liar.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I simply adore how our little friend* suggests evidence of a conspiracy in pretty much every single element of the assassination and its aftermath.







*You know...the confirmed, repeated liar.

He thinks if we focus closely enough on individual elements, we won't think too much about how they don't form a coherent whole, and he really doesn't have a complete, consistent theory about what happened.

You know, standard CT operating procedure.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Three lies? No. Not one. A ridiculous picture that someone immature person photo-shopped which was not my creation. No "lies". Not one.

I suppose it's possible that you are simply mistaken. Which would you rather be: A liar, or an incompetent researcher? Because it has to be one, considering how your own sources do not support your arguments.

 

[Hans]

I suppose it's possible that you are simply mistaken. Which would you rather be: A liar, or an incompetent researcher? Because it has to be one, considering how your own sources do not support your arguments.

There is a third option, he is putting out stuff as a Troll which includes being a liar but not an incompetent researcher as his error is deliberate. He's pretty much just making stuff up so he can try and troll, not actually trying to 'win' the argument by lying.

Troll on Robert

 

[Robert Prey]

Straw man.



Affirmative claim disguised as null hypothesis.



Straw man.



Cherry pick.



Asked and answered.



Straw man.



What was that you said about simply parotting external sources as authority figures?



Straw man.

Are you finished wasting our time now? Your claim is factually and logically flawed in the manner I've outlined above.

A mish-mash of non-arguments.

 

[Dcdrac]

Mr Prey all your arguments have been disproved is it not time to give up graciously?

 

[RoboTimbo]

A mish-mash of non-arguments.

Baloney.

LOL.

 

[aggle-rithm]

There is a third option, he is putting out stuff as a Troll which includes being a liar but not an incompetent researcher as his error is deliberate. He's pretty much just making stuff up so he can try and troll, not actually trying to 'win' the argument by lying.

Troll on Robert

Yeah...unfortunately, that's a possibility, too.

 

[JayUtah]

A mish-mash of non-arguments.

No, those are called "rebuttals." They are brief because they don't need to be any longer than they are. I'm sure you expected your lengthy essay to elicit some lengthy response and possibly extend the thread another ten pages or so. However when the chief error is a glaring one and is committed in the first paragraph, a lengthy response is not required.

Like most conspiracy theorists, you have subtly shifted the burden of proof by trying to hold up your conspiracy theory as the null hypothesis. This way you can say that the "official story" fails in some particular, therefore your conspiracy theory "must" hold in its stead, being the only remaining option. In this way you avoid having to provide any sort of proof for the affirmative conspiracy theory.

And despite the number of times we have laid out the true basis of our objection to your theory, you insist on cramming your caricature of it down our throats and pretending to refute that instead. The basis of our objection is the landscape of the evidence taken as a whole. But just as you have done for 200-plus pages, you here pull one premise out of many, declare that it must be the keystone of your opponents' objection, and attack only it. And true to form, your attack treats only one line of reasoning out of several that apply to the premise.

When you correct those major structural flaws in your argument, then it will be ready for a more detailed examination. Not until then.

 

[Robert Prey]

No, those are called "rebuttals." They are brief because they don't need to be any longer than they are. I'm sure you expected your lengthy essay to elicit some lengthy response and possibly extend the thread another ten pages or so. However when the chief error is a glaring one and is committed in the first paragraph, a lengthy response is not required.

Like most conspiracy theorists, you have subtly shifted the burden of proof by trying to hold up your conspiracy theory as the null hypothesis. This way you can say that the "official story" fails in some particular, therefore your conspiracy theory "must" hold in its stead, being the only remaining option. In this way you avoid having to provide any sort of proof for the affirmative conspiracy theory.

And despite the number of times we have laid out the true basis of our objection to your theory, you insist on cramming your caricature of it down our throats and pretending to refute that instead. The basis of our objection is the landscape of the evidence taken as a whole. But just as you have done for 200-plus pages, you here pull one premise out of many, declare that it must be the keystone of your opponents' objection, and attack only it. And true to form, your attack treats only one line of reasoning out of several that apply to the premise.

When you correct those major structural flaws in your argument, then it will be ready for a more detailed examination. Not until then.

NO. I only present facts which you call "flawed argument." You, on the other hand, present no facts, no witnesses, nothing but a tired Perry Mason act which is really getting old.

 

[RoboTimbo]

NO. I only present facts which you call "flawed argument." You, on the other hand, present no facts, no witnesses, nothing but a tired Perry Mason act which is really getting old.

What is your best single piece of evidence for... whatever your theory is. Circle it with your red crayon.

LOL.

 

[Dcdrac]

was the blueberry pie the lone shooter?

 

[Tomtomkent]

NO. I only present facts which you call "flawed argument." You, on the other hand, present no facts, no witnesses, nothing but a tired Perry Mason act which is really getting old.

You present very few facts.
You present subjective opinion and annectdote as fact.
You present your own conclusions as fact.
You do not present facts.

You argue in the face of objective facts.

How could a latent print be produced from LHOs dead hand?

 

[JayUtah]

NO. I only present facts which you call "flawed argument."

No. You laid out an argument in your first paragraph. You used if-then inference constructs and explicitly pointed to a conclusion that should be drawn on the basis of those inferences. That is an argument no matter how strongly you wish to deny it. You attempted to populate that argument with facts, but it is an argument nonethess. And your argument has a flawed structure, which makes it of non-validating form -- Logic 101. I outlined the flaws in that structure to you. You ignored it with one of your infamous one-line dismissals. So I expostulated the structural flaws for you. And predictably, you do not seem to understand.

Pretending that your critics' argument is something other than what they've stated it to be is a flaw you must address before the argument has merit. Structuring your argument so that the conclusion you desire to prove is held by default, failing some other action, is an improper shifting of the affirmative burden of proof.

Until you fix that shambles of a pseudo-logical framework, you can blabber all you want about Ford and Rydberg and Myers and it will matter not one whit. No, I will not hand you the rebuttal you hoped for, the one that would potentially lead to more quibbling about drawings or the Warren Commission. I have handed you the rebuttal that your argument is of non-validating form. It is just as good as any other for showing your claim has no merit.

You, on the other hand, present no facts, no witnesses, nothing but a tired Perry Mason act which is really getting old.

No matter how much you beg and plead to shift the burden of proof, it will not happen. No matter how much you fervently wish I'd give you a rebuttal you can easily handle, you will have to satisfy yourself with the rebuttal I actually gave.

If you are tired of this debate, then kindly stop trying to reset it. The repetition is entirely your fault.

 

[JayUtah]

You present your own conclusions as fact.

More precisely, he argues other people's conclusions without giving them credit, then accuses his critics of being brainwashed. Oh, the irony!

The conspiracy theorists' frantic need to paste the "magic bullet" theory onto their critics instills them with the false impression that an equally frantic need exists among the critics to support it. The interpretation of Ford's edit as a desperate measure to rewrite the autopsy results has meaning only within the conspiracists' straw-man version, hence it is self-refuting.

How could a latent print be produced from LHOs dead hand?

But can't you see that once again Robert has abandoned the debate over prints, by the same "You're all confused" flounce he used in 2011, in favor of this abrupt change of subject? His handwaving failed to convince in 2011 and he abandoned it; it fails again in 2013 and he abandons it again.

 

[Robert Prey]

More precisely, he argues other people's conclusions without giving them credit, then accuses his critics of being brainwashed. Oh, the irony!

The conspiracy theorists' frantic need to paste the "magic bullet" theory onto their critics instills them with the false impression that an equally frantic need exists among the critics to support it. The interpretation of Ford's edit as a desperate measure to rewrite the autopsy results has meaning only within the conspiracists' straw-man version, hence it is self-refuting.

The Lone Nutter's frantic need to dismiss the exact position of the bullet wound in back as irrelevant has meaning only within the Lone Nutter's slavish, mindless, fact-less dedication to the official "One Lone Nut" script. Hence, it is self-refuting.

 

[Robert Prey]

No. You laid out an argument in your first paragraph. You used if-then inference constructs and explicitly pointed to a conclusion that should be drawn on the basis of those inferences. That is an argument no matter how strongly you wish to deny it. You attempted to populate that argument with facts, but it is an argument nonethess. And your argument has a flawed structure, which makes it of non-validating form -- Logic 101. I outlined the flaws in that structure to you. You ignored it with one of your infamous one-line dismissals. So I expostulated the structural flaws for you. And predictably, you do not seem to understand.

Pretending that your critics' argument is something other than what they've stated it to be is a flaw you must address before the argument has merit. Structuring your argument so that the conclusion you desire to prove is held by default, failing some other action, is an improper shifting of the affirmative burden of proof.

Until you fix that shambles of a pseudo-logical framework, you can blabber all you want about Ford and Rydberg and Myers and it will matter not one whit. No, I will not hand you the rebuttal you hoped for, the one that would potentially lead to more quibbling about drawings or the Warren Commission. I have handed you the rebuttal that your argument is of non-validating form. It is just as good as any other for showing your claim has no merit.

No matter how much you beg and plead to shift the burden of proof, it will not happen. No matter how much you fervently wish I'd give you a rebuttal you can easily handle, you will have to satisfy yourself with the rebuttal I actually gave.

If you are tired of this debate, then kindly stop trying to reset it. The repetition is entirely your fault.

More fact-less, witness-less gibberish. Logic 201.