JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends II

[supposenot]

You misunderstand the term "ad hom".

As I said, we disagree.

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

You're either deliberately lying or mistaken. I'm a decent soul, and am therefore going to assume the latter.

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?

Without the forensically-implicated suspects (both of whom are dead) this is just a parlour game.

My point is that, absent a second 'smoking gun', the Wallace ID is the next best thing, and that the counter-arguments offered against its authenticity are wholly unreliable.

Care to address that?

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?

See previous point re: Parlour games. But I would rely on forensics (fingerprint) plus two confessions made prior to the print ID.

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?

I was sort of hoping for a reasonable and open-minded discussion. Looks so far like I was **** out of luck.

 

[RoboTimbo]

As I said, we disagree.

You are welcome to your own opinion, you aren't welcome to your own facts. Based on your replies, you don't understand the term "ad hom".

You're either deliberately lying or mistaken. I'm a decent soul, and am therefore going to assume the latter.

I will assume that you simply don't know what you're talking about. Probably you are harmless otherwise.

Without the forensically-implicated suspects (both of whom are dead) this is just a parlour game.

Of your making.

My point is that, absent a second 'smoking gun', the Wallace ID is the next best thing, and that the counter-arguments offered against its authenticity are wholly unreliable.

Care to address that?

You were asked for evidence for your belief that Wallace was a shooter. Care to address that?

See previous point re: Parlour games. But I would rely on forensics (fingerprint) plus two confessions made prior to the print ID.

Which two confessions? Why only those two? Why not all of the people who have confessed? Have you read the relevant part of the other thread yet about the confessions?

I was sort of hoping for a reasonable and open-minded discussion. Looks so far like I was **** out of luck.

I've found it repetitive and tedious but that's because I've seen other failed CTists do the same thing you have with equally dismal results.

I was hoping you would raise the bar on CTists. I was destined to be disappointed.

 

[supposenot]

Same old, same old.

OK, since I have a train to catch, would someone (anyone) please sum up the evidence against the Wallace fingerprint?

I'll return to this discussion tomorrow (or perhaps even later tonight, if I find myself awake later -- I'm in the UK).

 

[I Ratant]

Present all the "evidence"for the fingerprint, and all that it portends.
We will not do your legwork for you.

 

[supposenot]

I've already done that. Catch up.

Ta ta for now.

 

[JayUtah]

...would someone (anyone) please sum up the evidence against the Wallace fingerprint?

It lacks foundation.

 

[JayUtah]

I was sort of hoping for a reasonable and open-minded discussion. Looks so far like I was **** out of luck.

What you're asking for is a tedious recitation of past arguments. You have done the equivalent of walking into a movie theater an hour late and asking them to rewind the movie just for you. The several pages in this thread and the 200 pages in the thread that preceded it provide that. You could read them. But you say life is "too short," so you want to preserve precious life by doing the whole thing all over again -- the irony of that insinuation is what likely provokes the snarky responses.

If you were to read the thread, you'd discover that we're well acquainted with the formulaic way JFK conspiracy theories unfold. You won't prevail, or even get much attention, by continuing the formula. Shifting the burden of proof, talking down to your critics, and clearly relying on unnamed external sources (which we're most likely already familiar with) are techniques that historically don't work here.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Same old, same old.

That's what the discussion has been revolving around, CTists who continue to flog the same failed fallacies. Thank you for recognizing it.

 

[BStrong]

Same old, same old.

OK, since I have a train to catch, would someone (anyone) please sum up the evidence against the Wallace fingerprint?

I'll return to this discussion tomorrow (or perhaps even later tonight, if I find myself awake later -- I'm in the UK).

You should go back in the thread and look up a poster by the handle of Robert Morrow.

You two can go commiserate with each other about how the "LBJ did it" meme doesn't have the traction you desire.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Which two confessions? Why only those two? Why not all of the people who have confessed? Have you read the relevant part of the other thread yet about the confessions?

Please be Loy Factor...
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...e american confession JFK Mac Wallace&f=false

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKfactor.htm

It is at least one of the more entertaining stories, and has exactly the same credibility as any other: None. Like all claims there were more than one shooter in the nest or in the TSBD it is utterly debunked by the ballistics.

Of course, I doubt this is the one meant, but it illustrates a point: Given how many confessions there are, with so little supporting evidence why should we accept the unsupported claims that happen to support the iteration of the myth that a CTist happens to favour but ignore all the other unfounded accusations?

See also: Why should we accept a burden of proof to invalidate the fingerprint as shaky when the validation is on the hands of those who claim the ID is sound (despite the concerns)?
Why should we assume the print (if viable) was there because Mac Wallace was involved in the killing and not there for expectable reasons after the shooting?
Where is the evidence Mac Wallace ever touched the Rifle? That he did so for LBJ? That there was more than shooter?

I don't expect a perfect explanation, but at the very least a reasonable grounds to accuse two men of playing parts in a murder. Something slightly more than has been presented so far. It is a hefty accusation, at the very least you would expect there to be a better explanation of the evidence than the concensus.

 

[I Ratant]

There's an extensive library on this in Twinkie land... All that I read (until it got tedious) accepted the first claim of Wallace's involvement via the print, without explaining the discovery and analysis of the print.
A lot of hate for LBJ oozes out of those sites also.
His masterminding of the 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn't get any ink.

 

[Tomtomkent]

There's an extensive library on this in Twinkie land... All that I read (until it got tedious) accepted the first claim of Wallace's involvement via the print, without explaining the discovery and analysis of the print.
A lot of hate for LBJ oozes out of those sites also.
His masterminding of the 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn't get any ink.

And to be sure, there is a fair amount of evidence of corruption, but none that equate to the murder of JFK.
I think Empire of Liberty has it about right when it says something along the lines that if LBJ had ended his term halfway through he would be remembered fondly as one of the greats, but the second half of his term was seen as a disaster in contrast. Perhaps more so because of the height of the triumph.

The discovery and analysis is an issue. Few that advocate the print as genuine look beyond the press conference and try to substantiate the claim. It doesn't pass scrutiny.


Can we move on from repeated discussion now?

 

[Garrison]

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.

You want people to reiterate material that you could easily find if you were willing to do the research. Since you won't why would you expect anyone here to accommodate your sloth?

 

[supposenot]

What you're asking for is a tedious recitation of past arguments. You have done the equivalent of walking into a movie theater an hour late and asking them to rewind the movie just for you. The several pages in this thread and the 200 pages in the thread that preceded it provide that. You could read them. But you say life is "too short," so you want to preserve precious life by doing the whole thing all over again -- the irony of that insinuation is what likely provokes the snarky responses.

It's a big forum, and presumably (given that this is obviously a sequel and runs to 131 pages) a very long thread indeed. So is it really reasonable to expect me to read the whole thing? OTOH is it really so very unreasonable to ask for a summary of the argument? Or, since you've refused to provide even that, despite evidently having calories to burn in typing put-downs on the subject, unreasonable to ask for a link to the original argument?

If you were to read the thread, you'd discover that we're well acquainted with the formulaic way JFK conspiracy theories unfold. You won't prevail, or even get much attention, by continuing the formula. Shifting the burden of proof, talking down to your critics, and clearly relying on unnamed external sources (which we're most likely already familiar with) are techniques that historically don't work here.

I'm not shifting the burden of proof, on the sarcasm front I give as good as I get (and hopefully better, since being a limey I have a natural grasp of irony that eludes the average American (JOKE!)), and I'm most definitely not relying on unnamed sources (and even if I was, so what?). Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[supposenot]

Please be Loy Factor...
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...e american confession JFK Mac Wallace&f=false

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKfactor.htm

It is at least one of the more entertaining stories, and has exactly the same credibility as any other: None. Like all claims there were more than one shooter in the nest or in the TSBD it is utterly debunked by the ballistics.

One of them is indeed Loy Factor, I had hoped that would be obvious. How credible a witness he would be, I do not know (although I strongly suspect he'd be torn to shreds by any half-decent lawyer on the stand). But brain-damaged and unreliable as his account is, he identified Wallace as a conspirator *before* the print ID was made.

To save you the suspense (joke!) the other confession is that of Billy Sol Estes.

Of course, I doubt this is the one meant, but it illustrates a point: Given how many confessions there are, with so little supporting evidence why should we accept the unsupported claims that happen to support the iteration of the myth that a CTist happens to favour but ignore all the other unfounded accusations?

Simple. None of the other CTs have any supporting forensic evidence. They're (at best) strong on means, motive and opportunity, but all the trails go cold as they approach Dealey Plaza.

This one's different, because there is forensic evidence of a conspirator at the crime scene.

See also: Why should we accept a burden of proof to invalidate the fingerprint as shaky when the validation is on the hands of those who claim the ID is sound (despite the concerns)?

I have provided an analysis of the weakness of the counter-experts claims. I have supported that argument by reference to an objective evidentiary standard (the FBI position statement).

So again, the print ID remains untouched (NPI).

If you want to analyse my critique of the counter-expert, go ahead, that's why I am here.

Why should we assume the print (if viable) was there because Mac Wallace was involved in the killing and not there for expectable reasons after the shooting?

"Expectable reasons"?

You really think that a convicted rifleman/murderer with ties to the murder's chief benefactor being present at the crime scene is not suspicious?

This is barely worth serious consideration.

Where is the evidence Mac Wallace ever touched the Rifle?

LHO's rifle? It is not part of my claim that he ever touched it.

That he did so for LBJ?

That is a wholly reasonable and logical inference, although unproven.

That there was more than shooter?

This evidence is the subject of ongoing dispute as you no doubt appreciate, and it's not possible to draw any firm conclusion from it at all.

On the other hand, here is hard forensic evidence indicating a co-conspirator at the crime scene, and for some reason no-one seems to want to address it.

I don't expect a perfect explanation, but at the very least a reasonable grounds to accuse two men of playing parts in a murder. Something slightly more than has been presented so far. It is a hefty accusation, at the very least you would expect there to be a better explanation of the evidence than the concensus.

Well, at least we can dispense with the "complete solution and no loose ends" demand, which is progress. Mac Wallace was a convicted murderer at the time of the assassination, and he was present at the crime scene on the day the crime was committed. Yes, it's a hefty accusation. So what's the case for the defence? (Please note, I am not expecting a complete solution, and nor am I pretending to possess such a thing).

 

[supposenot]

You want people to reiterate material that you could easily find if you were willing to do the research. Since you won't why would you expect anyone here to accommodate your sloth?

See above. Big forum, long thread. It's not unreasonable to ask for a summary, and even less unreasonable to ask for a link to the relevant section. But not one of you is apparently willing to provide any such thing, despite your professed desire to 'move the discussion along'.

Characterising this as 'sloth' is an ad hom. I understand that that sort of thing is frowned upon here, so I am going to give you the chance to correct it or delete it before I report it (if I choose to do so, which decision will naturally be informed by the nature of your response).

And I will say again, you (as a group of the likeminded, i.e., nonspiracists) have so far refused to address the (as far as I know, entirely new) argument I made concerning the fingerprint evidence. Why is that?

 

[I Ratant]

Onna cause you haven't followed up with anything other than the idea, other than it's "mysterious" ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
I've mentioned other sites which flesh it out a bit, but they get lost in LBJ baiting, without any genuine provable connection to the assassination.
You fail miserably also.

 

[supposenot]

Onna cause you haven't followed up with anything other than the idea, other than it's "mysterious" ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

I am doing precisely the opposite of saying it's "mysterious". I am saying it's firm forensic evidence of conspiracy.

The rest of your post is equally lame, but here's my reaction anyway:

I've mentioned other sites which flesh it out a bit, but they get lost in LBJ baiting, without any genuine provable connection to the assassination.

And that's relevant to me because ..?

You fail miserably also.

If I fail in my critique of the argument against the Wallace print ID, I want to be told precisely how. I've been precise in that argument, please have the common courtesy to be as precise in your reply. Simply repeating 'You have failed' is not an argument.

 

[JayUtah]

It's a big forum, and presumably (given that this is obviously a sequel and runs to 131 pages) a very long thread indeed. So is it really reasonable to expect me to read th]e whole thing?

Yes.

OTOH is it really so very unreasonable to ask for a summary of the argument? Or, since you've refused to provide even that...

I've described my response to your finger print evidence three times, even going so far as to express it in a single sentence. Your avoidance of that does not constitute dereliction on my part.

I'm most definitely not relying on unnamed sources...

So you're claiming that you personally are an expert in fingerprinting, are an expert in FBI fingerprint procedures, and that you personally collected affidavits from the contributing parties? That's a pretty tall claim for someone who lives thousands of miles from where any of this took place.

...and even if I was, so what?

Because the difference between primary and secondary or tertiary evidence is important.

Sorry to disappoint you.

So you're proud of evading my questions?

 

[JayUtah]

But not one of you is apparently willing to provide any such thing, despite your professed desire to 'move the discussion along'.

Since you're the one behind in this thread, it is entirely reasonable to require you to read it as a condition of participating. Moving the discussion along is not served by forcing all the other participants to repeat their longstanding contributions again for your sole benefit.

Characterising this as 'sloth' is an ad hom.

Then report it. Otherwise quit trying to get rhetorical mileage out of it.

Your unwillingness to address arguments already made is so old a fallacy, contrary to being inappropriately ad hominem, it even has one of Aristotle's original Latin names -- ignoratio elenchi.

And I will say again, you (as a group of the likeminded, i.e., nonspiracists) have so far refused to address the (as far as I know, entirely new) argument I made concerning the fingerprint evidence. Why is that?

What part of "It lacks foundation" was unclear? If I had made only one response to your claims, your ignorance of it would be excusable. Since I've responded the same way three separate times, all the while you've been whining about being ignored, I have to conclude that your evasion is deliberate.