JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends II

[tsig]

Found this one.... amazing effort on JFk... and even more!
http://whokilledjohnfkennedy.blogspot.com/
.
My blogs

They found the Ark of the Covenant
Eve loses her virginity to the Devil.
End the FED, the JFK assassination.
The Illuminati, Skull and Bones
Johnson, Bush and Nixon kill John F. Kennedy.
The Men who killed John F. Kennedy.
Bush family Nazi connections, and the Black Pope!
Eve had Sex with the Devil.
The Serpent's Seed
Did Men and Dinosaurs live at the same time?
Satan's Fallen Angels Give Birth to Giants.
Did Dinosaurs and Men walk side by side? (spoiler..they did!!!!)
The American Holocaust. Homeless Disappear!
FEMA Camps For The Homeless!
Who killed John F. Kennedy?
Women, Sex, Angels, Giants, & Witchcraft.
FEMA Prison camps for welfare recipients and 99ers

First paragraph:

If you still believe that Oswald was the lone assassin who killed Kennedy, you are greatly mistaken. If I told you who really killed Kennedy, you would probably never believe it. Though much of the evidence has been destroyed over the years, and more than 74 people who knew about the conspiracy have been murdered to keep them silent, the evidence that still remains is overwhelming. It was Bush Sr. and all of his Nazi Illuminati buddies in the CIA, together with the help of the Italian Mafia that killed Kennedy. But they received their orders from the masterminds behind the conspiracy, which included George H. W. Bush, Nixon and Johnson. LBJ told both his mistress and his ex-wife about the assassination, the night before Kennedy was killed.

 

[JayUtah]

For the severalth time, I do not have to solve the crime completely. And you are failing to address the fingerprint evidence. This is somewhat like talking to a crowd of somnambulists.

For the equally frequent time, you are not being asked to solve the crime completely. You are, however, being asked to supply and prove your alternative explanation for the evidence.

Anomaly-hunting through one small tidbit of the available evidence and providing a hypothetical explanation for just that one tidbit is not helpful. It has no probative historical value and leaves more loose ends (namely, the rest of the evidence) than the prevailing theory. It may be the preferred approach for conspiracy theorists, but it is ultimately unconvincing.

Further, you keep insisting that we have not addressed the fingerprint evidence. But you refuse to read the thread you've decided to join. So you really can't say what has or has not been addressed. You seem to want to rehash the whole debate all over again, on your say-so. Don't be surprised if few want to indulge you.

 

[supposenot]

No. You came here voluntarily to discuss these issues. If you can't be bothered to read the discussion that you've invited yourself to, and require it all to be provided for you again de novo, then you won't get much attention.

OK then, since you are apparently incapable of summarising your own argument, please provide me with a link to the relevant section of this previous discussion. That's not too much to ask, I trust.

Straw man; I never levied any such burden upon you. You are, however, obliged to provide a better theory and defend it.

You've just changed your position. Which isn't very creditable. I am not obliged to provide a crime reconstruction of any degree whatsoever.

I'm not casting doubt on your integrity. I'm casting doubt on the dismissive, condescending approach you've taken to presenting your case.

Motes and beams. Anyway, this is just a shade away from being an ad hom.

Let's go back and look at your first post. It is based principally on a number of authoritative sounding pronouncements and attestations of fact. So either you were there, and are also a fingerprint expert, or else you're borrowing these arguments and attestations of fact from some source you haven't named.

False dichotomy. I have looked at the evidence, judged it on logical grounds, and provided a frame of reference (the FBI standard). You have failed to address these aspects in any way shape or form, and you continue to do so.

I'm betting it's the latter. So then in that case it behooves us to ask what you did to determine that source was factually correct and reliable before you put faith in its conclusions.

Well, a sworn affidavit from a fingerprint expert, plus the FBI's own procedural seemed a pretty good start to me. I suppose they could all be fakes, placed on the net by the CIA to snare the unwary, but somehow that doesn't seem very likely does it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Actually, no it's not. "Sir, this is not good logic. You may abuse a tragedy although you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table. It is not your trade to make tables."

Actually, yes it is. Read what JayUtah has said about your fallacy of attempting to shift the burden of proof. Nobody will make you come up with anything to discuss but that's your choice. If you have nothing to discuss, just say so. There is a long line of failed CTists who have gone before you with the same fallacy.

What is your comprehensive alternative hypothesis for what happened that day and in the days leading up to it? Who do you believe killed JFK?

 

[supposenot]

Actually, yes it is. Read what JayUtah has said about your fallacy of attempting to shift the burden of proof. Nobody will make you come up with anything to discuss but that's your choice. If you have nothing to discuss, just say so.

I am not attempting to shift the burden of proof. I have simply pointed out that I am not required to solve the crime completely with no loose ends left over. Not the same thing at all.

You are collectively failing to address the fingerprint evidence.

There is a long line of failed CTists who have gone before you with the same fallacy.

You seem to be applying a previous solution to a new problem.

What is your comprehensive alternative hypothesis for what happened that day and in the days leading up to it? Who do you believe killed JFK?

Again, I am not required etc etc. But since you ask, I tend toward believing that LBJ had JFK shot, courtesy of his crony Mac Wallace.

 

[I Ratant]

For the severalth time, I do not have to solve the crime completely. And you are failing to address the fingerprint evidence. This is somewhat like talking to a crowd of somnambulists.

.
When ginning up your list of the usual suspects, the affair in the library with the candlestick has put Colonel Mustard in enough hot water... so spare him.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I am not attempting to shift the burden of proof. I have simply pointed out that I am not required to solve the crime completely with no loose ends left over. Not the same thing at all.

Ah, then you will readily acknowledge that your anomaly hunting and demanding that the prevailing theory tie up all loose ends is a red herring.

You are collectively failing to address the fingerprint evidence.

You are individually failing to do better than any of the other collective failed CTists who tried the same fallacy you're trying now.

You seem to be applying a previous solution to a new problem.

You seem to be applying a previous solution to a non-problem. It's still a failed attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Again, I am not required etc etc. But since you ask, I tend toward believing that LBJ had JFK shot, courtesy of his crony Mac Wallace.

Who do you believe fired the shot? What evidence do you have for your beliefs?

 

[supposenot]

<slow hand clap>

Hilarious. Keep it coming.

 

[JayUtah]

OK then, since you are apparently incapable of summarising your own argument...

Wrong. I'm unwilling. Read the thread you're posting in, because it contains a lot of information that you'll want to know before posting here. That's not too much to ask.

You've just changed your position.

No, I haven't. You've just been assiduously misrepresenting it. And you still are. It's a pretty ham-fisted attempt to deflect intellectual responsibility.

I am not obliged to provide a crime reconstruction of any degree whatsoever.

No one said anything about "crime reconstruction." You are, however, obliged to provide a hypothesis and defend it, if your approach is that the evidence against Oswald contains too many loose ends. It doesn't matter how many loose ends it objectively contains if there is no better hypothesis.

Motes and beams. Anyway, this is just a shade away from being an ad hom.

So report it.

False dichotomy. I have looked at the evidence, judged it on logical grounds, and provided a frame of reference (the FBI standard). You have failed to address these aspects in any way shape or form, and you continue to do so.

Nonsense, you were just probably expecting something else. Most conspiracy theories are predicated on a pretense to expertise. Namely, the author makes authoritative statements, expects his readers to believe them unquestioned, and then pre-characterizes any responses to them as necessarily naive. You need to lay the foundation of an argument that professes expertise in a field -- especially when you yourself characterize it as "more of an art than a science." That means above all things that your layman's judgment has no probative value.

You are either an expert, in which case your judgment means something, or you are not and the pretext to judgment in your post is borrowed from someone else. Which is it?

 

[supposenot]

Ah, then you will readily acknowledge that your anomaly hunting and demanding that the prevailing theory tie up all loose ends is a red herring.

Does that resemble a logical conclusion drawn from what I have said? I don't think it does.

You are individually failing to do better than any of the other collective failed CTists who tried the same fallacy you're trying now.

I am not required to solve the crime completely with no loose ends left over.

You seem to be applying a previous solution to a non-problem. It's still a failed attempt to shift the burden of proof.

No it's not. I am not demanding that the nonspiracists solve the crime completely with no loose ends left over. *that* would indeed be shifting the burden of proof.

Who do you believe fired the shot? What evidence do you have for your beliefs?

I don't know who fired the shots, although it looks undeniable that LHO fired at least some of them. Again, I am not required to solve the crime completely with no loose ends left over.

 

[JayUtah]

I am not attempting to shift the burden of proof.

You explicitly tried to shift the burden of proof. You told us we had to provide evidence of "the non-existence" of a conspiracy.

I have simply pointed out that I am not required to solve the crime completely with no loose ends left over.

Same straw man repeated over and over.

You are collectively failing to address the fingerprint evidence.

False. I pointed out that your argument lacks foundation for its expert judgment. You tried to weasel out of the expert nature of the claim. That's where we stand.

I tend toward believing that LBJ had JFK shot, courtesy of his crony Mac Wallace.

So then explain why this hypothesis leaves fewer loose ends than the Oswald hypothesis.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So just to be clear: apparently it is fine to accuse otghers of ignoring something simply because you don't have time to see if it were ignored or not?

I can't wait for such deductive prowess to be turned to more serious accusations. Like conspiracy to murder.

 

[JayUtah]

I am not required to solve the crime completely with no loose ends left over.

Straw man. Please pause and consider that no one has asked you to do this.

But if your approach is that we have to examine the claim against Oswald because there is exculpatory evidence or other "loose-end" evidence such as conflated fingerprints, then you tacitly accept "minimal number of loose ends" as the standard of proof for any putative theory explaining Kennedy's death -- even yours.

What we're doing -- or rather, attempting to do -- is to apply the same standard of proof to your hypothesis as you propose to apply to the Oswald hypothesis. Your reluctance to state your hypothesis (or even describe it in more than vague handwaving terms) is typically interpreted as foreknowledge that your hypothesis won't meet the "loose end" standard you propose. And if it doesn't, you haven't moved the investigation forward any.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Does that resemble a logical conclusion drawn from what I have said? I don't think it does.

You think incorrectly then. You absolve yourself from the same burden you want to place on your interlocutors.

I am not required to solve the crime completely with no loose ends left over.

Nor will your demand that the prevailing theory be held to the standard you don't hold yourself to be entertained.

No it's not. I am not demanding that the nonspiracists solve the crime completely with no loose ends left over. *that* would indeed be shifting the burden of proof.

The prevailing theory has already met the burden of proof. The ball is now in your court to come up with a better alternative. Or not, you are the one who came here.

I don't know who fired the shots, although it looks undeniable that LHO fired at least some of them. Again, I am not required to solve the crime completely with no loose ends left over.

When you say that Oswald fired "some" of the shots, what is your evidence for someone else firing any?

 

[I Ratant]

Fit exchanging the rifle between two (or more) shooters in the time frame.
Try it with only two people.

 

[I Ratant]

...
Again, I am not required etc etc. But since you ask, I tend toward believing that LBJ had JFK shot, courtesy of his crony Mac Wallace.

.
This LBJ?
"President Lyndon B. Johnson famously invoked the pledge in his March 31, 1968, national address announcing that he would not seek a second full term, saying "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president."
.
Killed JFK, and declined a second term in office?
YGBSM!

 

[supposenot]

You explicitly tried to shift the burden of proof. You told us we had to provide evidence of "the non-existence" of a conspiracy.

Good grief. In case it wasn't painfully obvious, that was a sarcastic reply to one of your brethren who claimed that such evidence existed.

Same straw man repeated over and over.

Funnily enough, in response to repeated demands for the unreasonable.

False. I pointed out that your argument lacks foundation for its expert judgment. You tried to weasel out of the expert nature of the claim. That's where we stand.

We appear to be having two slightly different conversations (I'm being charitable, here). I pointed out that I have a fingerprint expert's sworn affidavit on my side, and that the counter-expert's claims did not withstand scrutiny. I also produced an FBI procedural which proved my argument.

So then explain why this hypothesis leaves fewer loose ends than the Oswald hypothesis.

Straw man, as you would no doubt love to say. I haven't made any such claim, and as such it remains purely a figment of your imagination.

 

[supposenot]

You think incorrectly then. You absolve yourself from the same burden you want to place on your interlocutors.

We disagree. I think this is a variant on the ad hom on your part.

Nor will your demand that the prevailing theory be held to the standard you don't hold yourself to be entertained.

Straw man. For the umpteenth time, I haven't demanded that at all.

The prevailing theory has already met the burden of proof.

Sorry, but: No it hasn't. It was a criminal case that was never tested in court and proven beyond a reasonable doubt as is required for conviction.

The ball is now in your court to come up with a better alternative. Or not, you are the one who came here.

That's a complete non-sequitur. I joined this discussion to point out the flaws that had occurred (on both sides) in discussing the fingerprint evidence. My subsequent participation has been due to (often impertinent, at the very least) questioning by nonspiracists.

When you say that Oswald fired "some" of the shots, what is your evidence for someone else firing any?

He may have fired all of them for all I know, although I doubt this due to the presence at the crime scene of a convicted rifleman/murderer. I am not pretending to have all the answers.

 

[JayUtah]

Funnily enough, in response to repeated demands for the unreasonable.

No. You are not being asked to do anything unreasonable. You continually restate the request to make it sound unreasonable. No one asked you to solve the crime "with no loose ends." Get it?

You are, however, being asked to defend your hypothesis it to the standard of proof you've applied. Explain why that's unreasonable.

We appear to be having two slightly different conversations (I'm being charitable, here).

Yes, we are. You're expecting a different kind of rebuttal, for which you've already prepared yourself. You're not listening to the rebuttal that is actually being given, which speaks to a much more fundamental flaw in your argument.

I pointed out that I have a fingerprint expert's sworn affidavit on my side, and that the counter-expert's claims did not withstand scrutiny. I also produced an FBI procedural which proved my argument.

Same problem. I don't believe you personally did all that research and collected all those affidavits. I don't believe you have the professional judgment to comment on the claims of fingerprint experts you say don't "withstand scrutiny."

You were the one who suggested that courtroom admissibility ought to apply. Do you know what is meant in a courtroom by "laying a foundation?" If not, please research it. If you do know, then by all means proceed to answer my previous questions regarding the nature and source of your evidence and "judgment."

I haven't made any such claim, and as such it remains purely a figment of your imagination.

Nonsense. You claimed Lyndon Johnson's "crony" Mac Wallace shot Kennedy. This post is your words, not a figment of my imagination.

Now that we've established that you have a relevant believe but don't wish to present or defend it to a suitable standard of proof, where are we?

 

[RoboTimbo]

We disagree. I think this is a variant on the ad hom on your part.

You misunderstand the term "ad hom".

Straw man. For the umpteenth time, I haven't demanded that at all.

Yes, you are anomaly hunting and demanding that the prevailing theory be defended. That is a classic shifting of the burden of proof.

Sorry, but: No it hasn't. It was a criminal case that was never tested in court and proven beyond a reasonable doubt as is required for conviction.

Sorry, but: Yes it has. You are welcome to present your competing alternative hypothesis and we will see how it fares against the same burden of proof you are placing on the prevailing theory. Who do you believe would be convicted in a court of law for the assassination of JFK based on the evidence you have?

That's a complete non-sequitur. I joined this discussion to point out the flaws that had occurred (on both sides) in discussing the fingerprint evidence. My subsequent participation has been due to (often impertinent, at the very least) questioning by nonspiracists.

So, just anomaly hunting then? What evidence do you have that LBJ had Mac Wallace shoot JFK? How will you go about getting a conviction for the assassination you believe he committed?

He may have fired all of them for all I know, although I doubt this due to the presence at the crime scene of a convicted rifleman/murderer. I am not pretending to have all the answers.

What do you hope to accomplish then? Anomaly hunting may hold your interest but without a competing alternative hypothesis that fits all the available evidence, what is the point?