What you fail to recognize is that Oswald being a lone gunman is a theory unto itself.
Hogwash, it was the principal thesis of my post that you quoted in this response.
There are two distinct camps... "lone gunman" and "there was help".
No, the camps are not in any way equivalent in terms of rigor.
There is the "Oswald was a lone gunman" camp, and the "Everything else under the sun" camp. The latter can't be considered a true camp since its only unifying concept is "The Warren Commission got it wrong." It's not a useful group when they only thing they can agree on is what they disagree on. And five decades later, they aren't any more coherent than when they started.
Burden of proof is always upon the person making the claim. That rule is plain and simple no matter how many times you attempt to redefine it.
No, correcting your simplistic understanding of how investigation actually works is not "redefining" anything.
The proposition that Oswald acted alone to kill Kennedy is indeed an affirmative statement. You want to style conspiracy theory debate as forever doing nothing more than disputing that affirmative claim, and thereby never, ever having any burden of proof whatsoever. But that's simplistic. In disputing the lone-gunman theory, affirmative rebuttals and counterclaims are made or insinuated (e.g., a bullet struck the windshield from the front, the long bag was planted, LEA purposely derailed the investigation, Clay Shaw worked for the CIA and was recruited to help). And those affirmative claims have their own burden of proof.
Disingenuously, most conspiracy theorists intentionally shy away from making any large-scale affirmative accusations. They know they cannot prove any of them, so they try to shape the debate into simply exonerating Oswald -- a rebuttal case only.
A prevailing hypothesis is present in science not in murder cases especially ones that have never seen the light of a courthouse.
There you go again, trying to shoehorn it back into a courthouse. Why? Because still the only thing you have is the symbolic exoneration of Oswald according to your own invented standard of legal proof. Wrong standard of proof, and only a hypothetical satisfaction of it. This is why conspiracy theories get little respect.
The concept of a prevailing theory applies to all inductive questions. It performs many of the functions of the null hypothesis, lacking only its axiomatic or self-evident formulation. Decades into a thorough study of the question, when the prevailing theory remains largely unimpeached, challenges to it indeed bear a burden of proof.
So far, the Commissions have been political...
Ad hominem.
The various investigative bodies are either right or wrong according to the facts. You want to infer wrongness-in-fact from your beliefs about possible reasons why they
might be wrong. Instead, just simply show that a better, clearer, and more evident conclusion exists based on the same facts, and any additional ones.
Oh wait, you can't do that. Nor do you even concede that this is something you
should do.
I have shown that I have "examined" the case contrary to your rhetoric. I make a statement and back it up...
No. You explicitly do not. Any time there is the slightest hint of you being pinned down on any of the wild assertions you've made (e.g., that Oswald was a CIA contractor), you immediately retreat behind the "I'm not making any assertions" hidey-hole. You ignore questions you find inconvenient. Under no stretch of the imagination can you be said here to have made statements that you subsequently back up.
What is erratic in your behavior and responses is that you do not challenge your followers/sheeple or hold them up to the "standards" you do to those who disagree with you.
Except, of course, where I take Robo Timbo to task for misunderstanding the role of the null hypothesis in a historical or happenstance investigation, and of showing him how the burden of proof is not universally applicable to one side only, including all subordinate claims and affirmative rebuttals.
Your posts have become so bankrupt that you can't even get the well-poisoning parts right.
An example: BStrong makes a claim that LHO was an exceptional clearance by the FBI or something to that ilk. I challenged that (burden of proof is on BStrong since he made the claim)...
It was your claim that the FBI did not have the authority to clear the case under those rules. That's
your claim and
your burden of proof. Your argument appeared to be that because the FBI originally did not have jurisdiction, they could not have cleared the case. But you omit the information provided by HSeizant showing that at the time the clearance occurred, they did have the authority to do it.
...yet your position was that BStrong had 15 years of law enforcement background and that meant that I had to go out and prove him wrong.
I stated absolutely no such position.
I tried to interrogate you on the basis for your claim that the FBI did not have the jurisdiction to clear the case. I asked you twice before I could get your attention. Your ultimate answer was that you simply didn't need any evidence. This to me suggests that you didn't fully understand or investigate the facts. As HSeizant hypothesized, you seem to argue as if all you've ever seen are the cherry-picked facts presented by conspiracy authors. Once you get quizzed beyond that, the answers dry up and you're back to one of the various excuses you use for not having to answer questions.
My position relied almost exclusively on your free admission that you were ignorant of the legal principles and practice of exceptional clearance. Based on that admission, I gave appropriate weight to your personal opinion that the FBI improperly cleared the case against Oswald. You asserted they did not have the authority, based on nothing more than your supported personal opinion of how that practice should have worked. That's an affirmative claim, given on a shaky basis which I exposed. It had absolutely nothing to do with anyone else's expertise.
...you have not provided any substance other than retreading the word "parsimony" and few other nuggets that will appear in the next day or two.
Or so you desperately want everyone to believe. You simply ignore everything directly pertinent that I say, such on the subjects of firearms testing and the CIA's program to get information from civilians. Give any excuse you want for ignoring those topics; everyone has seen me fruitlessly try to extract any answers from you on those points recently.
Please by all means keep trying to tell people that all I ever write is puffery and sophistry. I think it's hilarious for you to try to characterize to readers things they can read for themselves. I've been participating in this thread for two years along with most of the other regulars. Where have you been all that time?
Nice try at shifting the burden of proof
once again, but I told you we're onto that.
