Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[proudfootz]

I'm just waiting for him to actually present a case rather than having to hear incessant whining about how he's being misrepresented and demanding credibility he hasn't earned.

I'm only asserting my claims and backing them up.

You are the one incessantly whining I haven't done so.

LNs represented in the last few pages haven't exactly covered themselves with glory as far as 'credibility' goes. Rather surprising anyone concerned with 'credibility' would cite Posner on anything...

 

[Tomtomkent]

This is what I was referring to:

Mark Lane: "She [Markham] said he [the shooter] was short, a little on the heavy side, and his hair was somewhat bushy. I think it is fair to state that an accurate description of Oswald would be average height, quite slender with thin and receding hair."

"Mrs. MARKHAM. He was short.
"Mr. LANE. He was short?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
"Mr. LANE. And was he a little on the heavy side?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Not too heavy.
"Mr. LANE. Not too heavy, but slightly heavy?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, he was--no--he didn't look too heavy.
"Mr. LANE. He wasn't too heavy and would you say that he had a rather bushy kind of hair?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; just a little bit bushy.
"Mr. LANE. It was a little bit bushy?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.

We can see that the relevant part of the tape recording of the conversation as transcribed matches in every detail Mark Lane's summary.

So, yes, sceptics of the claim that Lane 'lied' about the telephone conversation have been validated.

So Markham did NOT outside of this cherry picked section of dialogue give any indication of there having been a misunderstanding and that she DID identify Oswald? The full transcript does not offer any other interpretation?

 

[proudfootz]

If by LNs you mean an imaginary caricature of your opponents, I'm afraid I can't speak to your imagination. On the issue of Lane and Markham, from my POV it looks like you were more the recipient of the whacking. Ditto on the larger question of Lane's honesty, or apparent lack thereof, thanks to Hank's unacknowledged (by you) torpedoing of Lane.

So long as 'CTs' is going to be lazily tossed about, it's only reasonable to treat believers in the 'Lone Nut' hypothesis in the same terms.

Unless, of course, their fringe beliefs are so fragile they must be accorded special privileges to stay in business...

 

[JayUtah]

Was there an argument somewhere in that post?

 

[JayUtah]

Conspiracy theorist is purely descriptive and often self-applied. Lone Nutter is a puerile epithet. I see a huge difference.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Sure, since you are apparently unwilling or unable to make the argument, I suppose I'll have to search for someone who does.

What argument? You asked if the testimony was relied on. I pointed out that the very post you were discussing included a reference to other evidence outside of the testimony.

If you have follow up questions you can return to the original post and find the answer. Or ask the person originally made the point.

But please, do not be so childish as to complain that others will not do your own footwork for you. Or assume that because I felt the need to point out that you were ignoring a post you quoted I am somehow responsible for arguing with you.

 

[proudfootz]

It is an assertion backed by fact. You have the burden of proof, despite your foot stamping. Like it or not.

Now you're projecting your feelings onto me? Has that worked for you before?

If it has, the standards of discussion must have been abysmally low.

Who is your best suspect for who fired Oswald's assassination rifle that Oswald bought through mail order from Oswald's sniper nest, killing Kennedy?

That's quite a loaded question with lots of alleged facts assumed.

Speaks to a very low standard of 'evidence'.

Who is your best suspect for who murdered officer Tippit using the revolver Oswald still had in his possession when he was arrested and tried to kill more officers?

Again - loaded question with facts under dispute.

Really, a very poor showing.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So long as 'CTs' is going to be lazily tossed about, it's only reasonable to treat believers in the 'Lone Nut' hypothesis in the same terms.

Unless, of course, their fringe beliefs are so fragile they must be accorded special privileges to stay in business...

So you consider that calling a theorist supposing a conspiracy a Conspiracy Theorist is equal to calling somebody a Nut, Lone or otherwise?

And there is no possible insult you can see in your phrasing?

 

[JayUtah]

Will you be presenting any arguments today? Or are you just going to go round in circles telling everyone what a good job you're doing?

 

[BazBear]

Now you're projecting your feelings onto me? Has that worked for you before?

If it has, the standards of discussion must have been abysmally low.



That's quite a loaded question with lots of alleged facts assumed.

Speaks to a very low standard of 'evidence'.



Again - loaded question with facts under dispute.

Really, a very poor showing.

You can dispute the facts and the evidence all you like, but until you present something credible to undermine them, why should anyone be persuaded in the least by your arguments?

A poor showing indeed.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Now you're projecting your feelings onto me? Has that worked for you before?

What feelings?

If it has, the standards of discussion must have been abysmally low.

They are pretty high. When somebody wants to support an argument against the accepted wisdom he asks for a suitable burden of proof to be met with acceptable evidence.

What alternative would you suggest?

That's quite a loaded question with lots of alleged facts assumed.

No. It is reasonably loaded given the facts accepted through evidence. This really is not that difficult to understand: The facts of the case are accepted. You can argue any you like by providing superior evidence.

Again, what alternative would you suggest? (Especially as you are arguing against a claim to know more about the case than others, why not accept that others are literate with the facts and supply a case?)

Speaks to a very low standard of 'evidence'.

No. It speaks of a bar you have yet to reach.

Again - loaded question with facts under dispute.

The facts are not under dispute. They are accepted. Regardless of how many authors, or armchair theorists, or conspiracy theorists out there, to the sceptical community, on a sceptical board, they are accepted. Your opinion differing is of no consequence. Others are not going to bend to your terms.

We are even patiently explaining this, again, in long boring posts to offer you the very best possible chance of convincing US of your theory, to offer you the best possible chance of discrediting any evidence by explaining a very simple bar that can be met to change our minds.

Why on Earth you would argue AGAINST that when we are telling you how to change our minds, is a mystery to me.

Really, a very poor showing.

It is sad you would say something like that if you really don't understand how what has been said. It gives the impression you understand but would rather try to portray those who dare to disagree with you as villains rather than convince them.

 

[proudfootz]

No. They are facts based on tangible evidence. That evidence makes the narrative of Oswald having fired all three shots on that day the null hypothesis. Stop trying to shoot for a fringe reset. It has been stated many times over that the accepted facts of the day, in terms of those in this discussion whom you seem to be trying to convince otherwise, are that Oswald did the shooting.

You can either overcome the null with a better theory, or you can try to argue a fringe reset and pretend no valid evidence has been gathered to determine facts. The former is more likely to get a reasonable discussion from the later.

You can state that your fringe beliefs are matters of 'fact' or that your belief is a 'null hypothesis' that must be casually accepted by all and sundry as many times as you like.

As I have already put forward an inconvenient fact for this story of yours, which is that scientific evidence indicates that Oswald did not fire a rifle that day, and that Oswald's accuser have tried to bury these findings.

That alone renders many of the so-called 'facts' touted as indicating Oswald's guilt moot.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So Markham did NOT outside of this cherry picked section of dialogue give any indication of there having been a misunderstanding and that she DID identify Oswald? The full transcript does not offer any other interpretation?

Helpful hint: The whole transcript has been discussed in this very thread, and you can assume everybody knows the answer.

 

[proudfootz]

Will you be presenting any arguments today? Or are you just going to go round in circles telling everyone what a good job you're doing?

Why are you whining now?

Mostly LNs resident here have been running around in circles telling themselves what a bad job I've done.

Are your feelings that precious I shouldn't dispute your recasting of the narrative?

 

[Tomtomkent]

You can state that your fringe beliefs are matters of 'fact' or that your belief is a 'null hypothesis' that must be casually accepted by all and sundry as many times as you like.

Yes. I can. And I will consider to do so until an acceptable burden of evidence has been met.

As I have already put forward an inconvenient fact for this story of yours, which is that scientific evidence indicates that Oswald did not fire a rifle that day, and that Oswald's accuser have tried to bury these findings.

That alone renders many of the so-called 'facts' touted as indicating Oswald's guilt moot.

Last time you posted these I asked pertinent questions. Allow me to ask them again as they hold the key to convincing me on this issue (and I am the lowest bar to meet in this discussion):

How reliable is the test?
Is there a difference in the test between affirming a negative (ie being able to state that a rifle was NOT fired) and failing to affirm a positive (being unable to state a rifle was fired)?
Which of the above does a parrafin test produce?

In short: Does your link describe a lack of evidence for Oswald firing a rifle or does it make it impossible for Oswald to have fired a rifle?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Why are you whining now?

Mostly LNs resident here have been running around in circles telling themselves what a bad job I've done.

Are your feelings that precious I shouldn't dispute your recasting of the narrative?

No. They are telling you what a bad job you did. Because, despite your attitude, they want to help you make the best argument you can.

 

[proudfootz]

Does ignoring the entirety of HSeinzant's post skewering Liar Lane help?

How many hours a day should one devote to whacking moles?

Jeez - I just got done putting JayUtah's bloviating about 'CTs' to shame, and eviscerating Mudcat's irredeemably wrong assertions about prosecutors and their roles in the US court system.

This is a target rich environment for a skeptic.

 

[Tomtomkent]

How many hours a day should one devote to whacking moles?

Jeez - I just got done putting JayUtah's bloviating about 'CTs' to shame, and eviscerating Mudcat's irredeemably wrong assertions about prosecutors and their roles in the US court system.

This is a target rich environment for a skeptic.

So you admit to ignoring the posts that directly address your concerns in the greatest detail? Despite claiming that the arguments have been put to rest and others, whom you quoted referring to those posts?

 

[RoboTimbo]

According to you, that may be our starting assumption.

Naturally, if we just assume you are correct it tends to skew the debate.

This is why 'null hypothesis' does not fit as a descriptor of your beliefs.

Sorry, still your burden of proof. Stamp you foot ever so mightily, still your burden of proof. Like it or not.

 

[RoboTimbo]

How many hours a day should one devote to whacking moles?

Apparently more time than actually addressing arguments and evidence.

Jeez - I just got done putting JayUtah's bloviating about 'CTs' to shame, and eviscerating Mudcat's irredeemably wrong assertions about prosecutors and their roles in the US court system.

Actually, you've run like a scared rabbit from the skewering HSeinzant did with Liar Lane and his dishonest misrepresentation of Markham's testimony. Why won't you address the actual evidence? Do you let yourself be spanked like this every time you post in JFK threads?

This is a target rich environment for a skeptic.

Indeed. You're still here getting spanked but your compatriot "advanced to the rear".

You stated that CTists have proposed other suspects that better fit the evidence than Oswald. Which one or ones better fit that evidence?

Why do you run like a rabbit from that question every time it is asked? Don't you have courage in your religion beliefs?