Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[manifesto]

Page 408 in your bible comic book. "4 shots..."

What book?

And.
This will be new to you...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0908_6_Firearms.pdf

Quote the part where Mark Lane lies.

 

[proudfootz]

No. Jay gave his own reasons in that post and others for his point of view. He asked you to stop dismissing the sources simply for being bloggers.

Yes, it was a case of special pleading, since he'd just got done chiding me for citing a post found on the internet.

Tsk tsk.

So only vague, except when they are specific? And what you "showed" does not match the full testimony.

Tsk tsk.

It's a pity you don't agree, but I'm happy to let readers decide.

No you have not. And disputing the portrayal of evidence is not insanity.

Lane's succinct summary of Markham's description was much more accurate than the rather rabid attacks on Lane as 'liar'.

Disagreeing with your fanboy glee for Lane is not insanity. Once again you show yourself to be thin skinned. People disagree with your esteem for a particular author, calling them insane for a reasonable interpretation of his texts as being untruthful given such examples is entirely rational.

I'm sorry I've upset you by questioning the unfounded but accepted on blind faith claims about Lane.

Apparently some have been so 'thin skinned' several of my quite innocuous posts have been reported to authorities. I guess I didn't expect to outrage the delicate sensibilities of the locals.

I am not particularly bothered if anybody approves of you or not. If you care to read my posts you will notice that what I wish to know is if you will, at any point, be offering anything OTHER than bickering about which authors you happen to hold in esteem.

It goes to the credibility of Warren Commission fanboys that they have to misrepresent Mark Lane so badly.
ymmv

Do you have a theory and evidence you wish to offer?

All in good time.

But, if you can quote a post in which Posner is described as an honest arbiter of fact I will be grateful.

I can only find IRatant asking if you read a particular book, in which he found a particular section to be useful. These are not equatable.[/QUOTE]

Well, if IRatant doesn't consider Posner to be a credible source, on what grounds can the demand that I read his book to track down some vague claims carry weight?

No, "Look in the index." isn't a very useful citation.

If there is something specific IRatant wants to champion, he's got a bit more work to do and stop being so lazy.

 

[proudfootz]

What book?

Quote the part where Mark Lane lies.

Apparently no one can produce the necessary substantiation.

Sad, really. So much outrage, so little reason behind it.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Given that you seem to think Markham is confused or under-educated, she was more likely to be mistaken or simply wrong. Or perhaps more vulnerable to those lawyers pressuring her to give the answer they wanted after denying she identified Oswald six times.

As Jay has stated, and you have ignored, she subsequently explained that she had misunderstood the question.

Since her story is not in accord with the facts in a lot of aspects, she's not a very good witness is she? Even Warren Commission counsel Joseph Ball admitted her testimony was riddled with errors and characterized her as an 'utter screwball'.

Please list those aspects of her testimony that are "not in accord with the facts."

Wonder how she would perform if she were ever cross-examined?

Irrelevant attempt to cast doubt on the reliability of her testimony.

According to some partisans, it is.

According to the testimony already quoted, a reasonable conclusion by persons of sense.

No. She did pick Oswald out of a line-up, as several other witnesses did. The fact that she later apparently claimed not to have, in response to a question that she subsequently stated she'd misunderstood, does not alter the fact of her initial identification, no matter how much you might wish it did.

What about them? As other posters have pointed out, eyewitnesses aren't very reliable.

So they all mistakenly identified Oswald? That's a laughable excuse. You are merely attempting to explain away the damning evidence against him. Further, three of the witnesses stated that the shooter emptied his revolver into some bushes; the shell casings recovered from that location were matched to the pistol Oswald had in his possession when he was arrested. How do you account for that?

 

[SpitfireIX]

The same Mark Lane Markham denies she ever talked to?

That would make her a liar, wouldn't it?

Markham's story seems to be in conflict with a number of facts, I wouldn't be comfortable putting very much confidence in it.

Lane identified himself as "Mr. Lane" rather than "Mark Lane" at the beginning of the conversation, and never repeats his name. It's perfectly reasonably that she would have honestly believed that she had never talked to a "Mark Lane."

 

[proudfootz]

Exactly. Your fervent wish that the facts were otherwise notwithstanding.

There's nothing I can do to change the facts. I just have to take them as they come.

The 'fervency' is all your own.

At least you know why your wish that Oswald not be the presidential assassin is being dismissed.

It just so happens that I have good reason to exculpate him. My 'wishes' have nothing to do with it.

That's the great thing about facts, they continue to exist even when the CTists Warren Report apologists stop believing in them.

ftfy

Ah good, you do know that your unsupported opinions of LHO's innocence don't suddenly make facts go away. Thank you for your admission.

Actually I'm more interested in uncovering facts Warren Report fanboys prefer remain obscure.

That's how it came about that Mark Lane's accurate account of his phone conversation was revealed in the last few pages, and demonstrated the intellectual bankruptcy of the claims Lane 'lied'.

LOL. Are you still mad at reality?

Not at all. Whatever are you talking about?

And you still have nothing to back up your faith based ideas of Oswald's innocence?

Actually, there are good reasons to conclude Oswald is innocent of shooting anyone that day. You may fervently wish otherwise, and be angry - but it is so.

You really don't have a hypothesis for who else fits the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence that would meet your own standards for guilt?

This deep seated need you have to have someone - anyone - to accuse doesn't bode well for a dispassionate assessment of the evidence.

Do you know any other CTists who might be able to shed some light on it and be useful?

Even the dullest cop on the beat knows it is useful in an investigation to eliminate suspects. It's telling that you reject real world methods for an alternate way to solve crimes.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, it was a case of special pleading, since he'd just got done chiding me for citing a post found on the internet.

No. For the second time, I'll be the one to tell you what my argument was, if it's quite all right with you.

Lane's succinct summary of Markham's description was much more accurate than the rather rabid attacks on Lane as 'liar'.

According to whom?

"Rabid" attacks? "Wild-eyed speculation?" (from a previous post). Why do you consistently amp up the emotional framing you put on others' posts?

I'm sorry I've upset you by questioning the unfounded but accepted on blind faith claims about Lane.

Upset? Who's upset? I find this particularly amusing coming from someone who repeatedly accuses me of mind-reading.

The point of this forum is to debate. Debate necessarily involves a semblance of conflict. You don't get to read into the adversarial nature of a debate the notion that your opponents are somehow "upset" simply because they challenge you.

Apparently some have been so 'thin skinned' several of my quite innocuous posts have been reported to authorities. I guess I didn't expect to outrage the delicate sensibilities of the locals.

Then I guess they weren't quite as innocuous as you first believed. You've whined incessantly in almost every post about how badly you're being treated. That's not really a credible position from which to claim your critics are "thin-skinned."

It goes to the credibility of Warren Commission fanboys that they have to misrepresent Mark Lane so badly.

According to whom?

"Warren Commision fanboys?" More emotional framing? As to credibility, your just treading on ad hominem grounds again.

I can only find IRatant asking if you read a particular book, in which he found a particular section to be useful. These are not equatable.

According to whom?

No, "Look in the index." isn't a very useful citation.

Being directed to a specific index entry is. And when the accusation is that too few examples have been provided, then it is very appropriate to direct the reader to where the intended references have been aggregated.

 

[proudfootz]

You're incorrect.

Actually, the burden of proving Oswald's guilt lies on the prosecution.

It's sad, really, you can't seem wrap your head around that.

Can you list those who bought Oswald's assassination rifle found in Oswald's workplace with Oswald's fingerprints on it? How about the ones who murdered officer Tippit with Oswald's revolver which he soon after used to attempt to murder other officers who came to arrest him?

Again, it's not necessary to know who did commit a crime to be able to show that someone specific didn't.

That is a simple and obvious fact. You need to accept the fact and then you can move forward.

 

[proudfootz]

.
I see the hangup with Markham to be the aw-**** that negates the 1000 atta-boys that point to Oswald, and only Oswald, as the shooter.
It's just another example of invincible ignorance.

^^^^

Pure psychological projection.

 

[JayUtah]

Actually I'm more interested in uncovering facts Warren Report [derogatory name] prefer remain obscure.

Name-calling and mind-reading. The former reported, the latter ignored.

That's how it came about that Mark Lane's accurate account of his phone conversation was revealed in the last few pages, and demonstrated the intellectual bankruptcy of the claims Lane 'lied'.

"Bankrupt" according to whom? I've asked you several times whether you've read the entire transcript. You won't answer. You simply rely upon the few excerpts read into the Warren Commission record.

Actually, there are good reasons to conclude Oswald is innocent of shooting anyone that day. You may fervently wish otherwise, and be angry - but it is so.

Who's "angry?" Are you reading minds?

This deep seated need you have to have someone - anyone - to accuse doesn't bode well for a dispassionate assessment of the evidence.

What is your evidence that our desire to challenge your claims is a "deep-seated need?"

Even the dullest cop on the beat knows it is useful in an investigation to eliminate suspects.

Asked and answered many times. Straw man.

It's telling that you reject real world methods for an alternate way to solve crimes.

You were invited to show that your methods and conclusions had some credibility and validity in the "real world." You declined, saying that "asking for a vote" wouldn't prove anything. So to insinuate that you are following a mainstream process is disingenuous.

 

[Tomtomkent]

All in good time.

And when would be a good time?

All you have so far are angry posts about others making "rabid attacks" and "accepting on blind faith" in a tone that seems to be nothing more than childish foot stamping because others have taken the time to read the source material. If anything your long dull posts make it quite clear you are the one willing to accept and defend a writer on blind faith.


You keep saying you will be happy to let the readers decide. When exactly will you give them something other than your touching fan-rage over Lane to decide about.

A good time would have been any point before now. As now it seems you are so determined to misunderstand every post that Jay and IRatant have made on the nature of sources and depth of reading, that you have no other point to make and are trolling.

I have absolutely no doubt this post will be responded to in exactly the same blustering tone as every other. So I will not hold my breath for there being any point for the peanut gallery to actually want to make any kind of decision on. Perhaps you could continue in your quest for brushes you hope to tar all comers with, making bold assertions about their stance that are never supported by valid quotes....

 

[RoboTimbo]

There's nothing I can do to change the facts. I just have to take them as they come.

A pity that you refuse to answer questions about facts then.

The 'fervency' is all your own.

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

It just so happens that I have good reason to exculpate him. My 'wishes' have nothing to do with it.

Why has nobody ever given those reasons then? You may start now.

ftfy



Actually I'm more interested in uncovering facts Warren Report fanboys prefer remain obscure.

LOL. Such as your out of context quoting which you were called on?

That's how it came about that Mark Lane's accurate account of his phone conversation was revealed in the last few pages, and demonstrated the intellectual bankruptcy of the claims Lane 'lied'.



Not at all. Whatever are you talking about?

You may wish to read the quoted text. It will help you keep up with the conversation.

Actually, there are good reasons to conclude Oswald is innocent of shooting anyone that day. You may fervently wish otherwise, and be angry - but it is so.

How is your projecting working out for you? When will any of the CTists ever give those reasons for ignoring the overwhelming body of evidence? When will you do so?

This deep seated need you have to have someone - anyone - to accuse doesn't bode well for a dispassionate assessment of the evidence.

This illogical passion you have for ignoring evidence of Oswald's guilt doesn't bode well for your objectivity. Your opinions are therefore suspect and you have been called on to defend them. You may start doing so now.

Even the dullest cop on the beat knows it is useful in an investigation to eliminate suspects. It's telling that you reject real world methods for an alternate way to solve crimes.

I'm sure I wouldn't know what the dullest cop on the beat knows but you have been a wealth of information about it.

Now that you, as that cop on the beat you have described, have eliminated Oswald, the owner of the assassination rifle with his fingerprints on it, the revolver used to murder officer Tippit, and attempted to use to kill the arresting officers, who do you find the overwhelming body of evidence to point to?

 

[thedopefishlives]

And when would be a good time?

When the student is ready, the master appears.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Actually, the burden of proving Oswald's guilt lies on the prosecution.

Awesome. Then we're finished here. Oswald's guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the rational person.

 

[SpitfireIX]

But then she acknowledges that's her voice on the tape. Lane said in his own WC testimony Markham told him she had been ordered by law enforcement not to discuss the case. If that is true, it would explain why she would deny having spoken to him. It was only when she learned that a tape of the conversation existed and would be played in the course of the examination that she warmed up to the notion that she would be accountable for it.

My impression, when I first read the transcript, is that she simply didn't recognize her own voice initially. As you're undoubtedly aware, a person's own voice sounds different to him- or herself than it sounds to other people. Given the relative rarity of tape recorders in the 1960s, it seems quite likely that Mrs. Markham had never heard a recording of her own voice. The fact that the recording was made at Lane's end of the phone line, and the level of tape-recording technology of the time, may have made her identification more difficult.

Also, as I mentioned previously, Lane only introduced himself by his last name, and never repeated it.

What Lane said Markham told him: "He was short"
What Markham actually said: "He was short"
I'll concede that Lane accurately represents Markham on this point. However, the phone transcript shows that Markham hastened to emphasize to Lane, on the point of height, that she identified the man correctly in the transcript. From that I glean that whatever she meant by "short," she considered both Tippet's assailant and the man in the lineup to be commensurately "short." That's aside from whether Oswald objectively was short or tall.

Tippit was 5'11" tall, according to his autopsy report; that's 2" taller than Oswald. That, plus the fact that Tippit's uniform hat likely made him appear taller, could help explain why Mrs. Markham perceived Oswald as "short."

 

[Mudcat]

It just so happens that I have good reason to exculpate him.

Lovely. Mind sharing with the rest of the class what that reason is? Also, please show your work for full credit.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Actually, the burden of proving Oswald's guilt lies on the prosecution.

It's sad, really, you can't seem wrap your head around that.

This is not a court of law. Some would find it sad if somebody were fail to wrap their head around that. There is "prosecution" in historical study, conversation, or critical thinking. As this is a sceptical forum, on the subject of conspiracy theories and not a court of law, it is safe to assume that the sceptical process is accepted by the users and members in this discussion. Which places the burden of proof in the hands of the person making the exceptional claim.

That the physical evidence collected by the investigations and presented by the Warren commission is invalid and points to anything other than the obvious and accepted conclusion of LHOs probable guilt as the only viable suspect, is the extraordinary claim.

Moreover this has been explained in the thread upstream.

If you wish to use a different model then please explain whom the prosecution is and why we should ignore the available evidence until a trial is stood?

 

[proudfootz]

Nope. I'll present my own arguments, if it's quite all right with you.

...and I can present mine? That would be a change!

According to whom?

If you reject the facts and my cogent arguments, that's fine.

Ad hominem.

Yes, that aptly describes attempts to characterize 'CTs' on this thread.

But Posner is a plagiarist, and I don't find him to be a credible source.

 

[I Ratant]

20 years ago on the Compuserve Conspiracy Forum it became tireseome explaining and explaining and explaining the same stuff to the willfully ignorant.
This new generation isn't any improvement, and have reached the tiresome point very quickly.

 

[manifesto]

Apparently no one can produce the necessary substantiation.

Sad, really. So much outrage, so little reason behind it.

But he have meny meny big books methink?