Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Belz...]

I answered that question at least a dozen times and have linked the relevant presentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE

Now it's your turn. Are you up for a question or two?

We've also explained at least a dozen times that Youtube videos don't cut it.

 

[Robert Harris]

We've also explained at least a dozen times that Youtube videos don't cut it.

Really?

Have you told Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss that?

It is idiotic to think the medium is more important than the content. I post on Youtube because it gives me the largest audience, at no cost. And it is the world's largest repository of publicly available scientific and other important data.

And what you have "explained to me", is about as real as the story of Noah, who had to track down 38,000 species of beetles before he could set sail!

 

[BazBear]

Interesting. How many debates have you heard in which there were no questions?

How many debates have you heard in which asking questions was not acceptable or even expected?

Socratic questioning is fundamental to debate. Evasion is fundamental to dishonestly.

As Jay pointed out, we're not engaged in a Socratic debate. There are no judges to award points for skillful rhetoric. Arguments here are judged by supporting facts and credible evidence... or the lack thereof.

 

[Robert Harris]

As Jay pointed out, we're not engaged in a Socratic debate. There are no judges to award points for skillful rhetoric. Arguments here are judged by supporting facts and credible evidence... or the lack thereof.

Socratic debates do not require judges, though there seem to be an army of the self-proclaimed kind, around here

Socratic debate is simply the process of asking and answer questions.

Some people answer and others evade. The evaders actually tell us more about their position than the honest people do.

 

[JayUtah]

Interesting. How many debates have you heard in which there were no questions?

Straw man. Socratic questioning is a hallmark only of Socratic debates. Address the argument I made, not what you rewrite it to be. And Socratic questioning has a formal definition; it's not just "some bag of questions I feel like asking." If you want to argue that your practice exemplifies Socratic questioning, you'll have to do better than just saying it is. Socratic questioning (which is the term you invoked), in fact, has uses outside debate.

How many debates have you heard in which asking questions was not acceptable or even expected?

Straw man. Nearly every formalized debate format does not allow questions simply whenever someone feels like asking one, and especially not when one is expected to be providing an answer. You confuse the general idea of asking questions in a debate with the specific tactic of asking questions when you're supposed to be answering someone else's question.

In a courtroom, for example, questions are acceptable, but only according to the rules of the court. Each party may question witnesses, but while there is frequently a redirect examination, there is not always a recross examination. The hostile party must take evidence delivered under redirection, and lump it. In a town-hall format, a designated moderator asks each party a series of questions, usually the same question. The parties must respond only to the moderator; they generally cannot question each other. So no, you don't just get to let fly with whatever question pops into your head, for whatever reason, at whatever time, to whomever, and stop everything until you get an answer to it. That's not Socratic questioning.

I asked you a question regarding your methodology. You responded with a flurry of turnabout questions asking my opinions. When I objected to the evasion and pressed you for your answer to my question, you assured me I was not being asked to prove anything. Despite that assurance, now you demand answers to those irrelevant questions. Amid your various rants that followed, I found the answer to my question and wisely left the rants unaddressed.

While I admire your tenacity in pressing home whatever it is you're trying to do, I repeat that I have the answer to my question and that your cooperation in providing it was appreciated. I further repeat that I considered your intervening turnabout questions to be a distraction, and that is the reason I ignored them. Unless you are trying to rescind your assurance that you weren't attempting to obligate me by them, then we're done. I will not explain myself again.

 

[Robert Harris]

Edited by Agatha: 

edited previously moderated content

The FBI has demonstrated fanatical bias against the possibility of conspiracy in the JFK case. They even went so far as to presume without a shred of evidence, that Marcello lied to their own informant who was placed in his cell, for the specific purpose of getting Marcello to admit to the commission of any crime, of course, except the inconvenient one, which would expose the FBI's outrageous bias during the investigation and criminal acts which included, presenting fabricated evidence to the Warren Commission.

If they acknowledged this conspiracy, they would be doing much more than confirming Marcello's guilt. They would be indicting the FBI and destroying their own reputation.

Of course, all of this is irrelevant. If I have not presented my case to enough members of media (and there were actually quite a few), it wouldn't matter in the slightest.

All that matters are the verifiable facts and evidence. Everything else is just a diversion.

 

[Robert Harris]

Straw man. Socratic questioning is a hallmark only of Socratic debates.

Cut the crap.

Answer the questions or dodge them. But when you evade, you are confessing that not only are you wrong, but you know you are wrong.

 

[turingtest]

This is not an argument.

The FBI has demonstrated fanatical bias against the possibility of conspiracy in the JFK case. They even went so far as to presume without a shred of evidence, that Marcello lied to their own informant who was placed in his cell, for the specific purpose of getting Marcello to admit to the commission of any crime, of course, except the inconvenient one, which would expose the FBI's outrageous bias during the investigation and criminal acts which included, presenting fabricated evidence to the Warren Commission.

If they acknowledged this conspiracy, they would be doing much more than confirming Marcello's guilt. They would be indicting the FBI and destroying their own reputation.

Of course, all of this is irrelevant. If I have not presented my case to enough members of media (and there were actually quite a few), it wouldn't matter in the slightest.

All that matters are the verifiable facts and evidence. Everything else is just a diversion.

And this is not proving me wrong- it's proving me right. About what I thought you'd say, too- "you can't trust the FBI, man!" lol

 

[Robert Harris]

And this is not proving me wrong- it's proving me right. About what I thought you'd say, too- "you can't trust the FBI, man!" lol

Here's another chance to demonstrate how well you have mastered the art of evasion.

Let's see if I have supported my burden of proof in claiming that CE399 was a substitute for the actual bullet that wounded JFK and JBC.

I will look forward to your rebuttal.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

 

[JayUtah]

Cut the crap.

I will not explain myself to you again.

Answer the questions or dodge them. But when you evade, you are confessing that not only are you wrong, but you know you are wrong.

Do not attempt to put words in my mouth.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The evaders actually tell us more about their position than the honest people do.

You still haven't laid out your coherent alternative hypothesis, despite being asked numerous times.

Just sayin'.

 

[Belz...]

Edited by Agatha: 

edited previously moderated content

Really?

That you ask this indicates that you don't read the posts that are made for your benefit. Yes, really. Anyone can blabber endlessly in front of a microphone. It doesn't constitute very solid evidence. Where is the expertise that supports your observations and interpretations ?

It is idiotic to think the medium is more important than the content.

It would, if that were what I was arguing.

And [Youtube] is the world's largest repository of publicly available scientific and other important data.

I'll let that stand there, for posterity.

And what you have "explained to me", is about as real as the story of Noah, who had to track down 38,000 species of beetles before he could set sail!

Your steadfast refusal to accept any explanation for anything does not change facts.

 

[HSienzant]

It looks like Robert's going for the gold medal in logical fallacies here.

Look, I hate to blow off this rather immense history and explanation of normal mafia tactics in such a brief manner, but this was not a typical, mafia hit.

That's called Begging the Question, Robert (some might say you're assuming what you need to prove). LOGICAL FALLACY #1.

Later, he confessed to ordering the assassination, to an FBI informant as well as Frank Ragano, who was also told by Trafficante, that Marcello was behind the assassination.

The Frank Ragano story was first revealed by Ragano in his book, correct? Some would call that "goosing sales". Regardless, it's not evidence, it's hearsay.

The bottom line here is, that this was a totally different and unique situation. It is irrelevant what the mob "usually" did in the past. And it wouldn't matter anyway, so long as the killers didn't get caught.

Each of those sentences assumes what you need to prove, Begging the Question for each. LOGICAL FALLACIES #2, #3, & #4.

Kohn had developed contacts with investigators for the HSCA, and made the the amazing discovery that within 24 hours after they had been calling mafia contacts, trying to subpoena Charles Nicoletti, the man was murdered.

This is the LOGICAL FALLACY known as the Post Hoc Fallacy. LOGICAL FALLACY #5. Just because A precedes B doesn't mean A caused B, or that A and B are related.

And a newspaper article is hearsay, not evidence, Robert. The source of this article is an apparent conspiracy magazine. And Kohn's source is given only as an unnamed HSCA "committee source". Any clue who it was, and whether there's any truth to the claim? Kohn published something he was told by somebody else? Any idea why you can't get a conviction on that?

Did you also know that Sam Giancana was murdered exactly five days before he was to testify before the Church committee, investigating connections between the CIA and the mob?

This is the LOGICAL FALLACY known as the Post Hoc Fallacy. LOGICAL FALLACY #6. And the source of this is what, exactly? You don't cite it.

And did you know that shortly after testifying about the mob's connection to the JFK case, and telling the Washington Post that the mob ordered Ruby to kill Oswald, Johnny Roselli's dismembered body was found floating in an oil drum off the coast of Miami?

This is the LOGICAL FALLACY known as the Post Hoc Fallacy. LOGICAL FALLACY #6. And the source of this is what, exactly? You don't cite it. And murdered before testifying (Giancana) or murdered after testifying (Roselli) doesn't appear to make much difference to the Mob, does it, according to you, at least. You've presented nothing here of importance, except that you assume a lot, when you need to prove a lot.

Marcello told the FBI informant that David Ferrie was an accomplice who introduced him to Oswald in a meeting at his brother's restaurant in New Orleans.

And mob bosses should be believed about everything they say exactly why? If Marcello had denied under oath having anything to do with the assassination, would you have believed him? If not, tell us why you believe his claims here.

sn't it an amazing coincidence that almost immediately following newspaper stories that Ferrie was being investigated by Garrison, he was found dead?

Yes. But unless you've got some inside information, that's all it is, a coincidence.

Yes, the coroner claimed it was by "natural causes", but Marcello is well known to have had public officials in his pocket and in fact, they finally got him convicted for bribing a public official.

That's called Begging the Question, Robert (some might say you're assuming what you need to prove). LOGICAL FALLACY #8.

Tell me, in his like of work, who would be the FIRST one on his shopping list?

LOGICAL FALLACY #9 -- shifting the burden of proof.

As for the rest of your article, please break it into smaller parts. Taking on the entire forum, I just don't have time to deal with that much data in one sitting.

I left this in solely so you won't accuse me of snipping the most important part of your post.

Logical Fallacies like begging the question and hearsay are not the best way to get to the truth. It might be the best way for you to try to establish a conspiracy, however - since that appears to be all you have.

Here's an interesting website link you should familiarize yourself with.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/post-hoc/

Please note the Post Hoc example is pretty much *exactly* what you're doing:

(1) Most people who are read the last rites die shortly afterwards.
Therefore:
(2) Priests are going around killing people with magic words!

Hank

 

[Belz...]

Cut the crap.

You are the only one here who doesn't follow what Jay is telling you. Perhaps it's time to consider that your troubles here are your own fault.

Here's another chance to demonstrate how well you have mastered the art of evasion.

Stop projecting other people's criticisms of your own posts onto others. That IS a form of evasion.

 

[HSienzant]

What is a "game" is evading the tough questions.

The evaders actually tell us more about their position than the honest people do.

Remember evading mine?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10750618#post10750618

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10752408#post10752408

And numerous others.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

speaking of questions, would you like to answer one or two? Or would you rather evade questions, like your friends?

Begging the question.

The logical fallacies come fast and furious.

Hank

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

How many times do I have to refute this same idiotic accusation?

This can only mean that you still don't understand what it means to "beg the question."

 

[Loss Leader]

It has come to the Mod Team's attention that gifs of the Zapruder film are being posted repeatedly over a short period of time. Even if some of these gifs differ slightly from some others (and there have been several exact duplicates), they all come from a film that is only 26.6 seconds long.

Rule 6 prohibits flooding and/or spamming the forum with identical posts. Please remember this rule and do not repost pictures or gifs or anything substantially similar that have already been posted. Simply referring people back to the post is sufficient. Referring people to the Zapruder film in its entirety is also sufficient.

Please do not feel the need to report posts made before this warning for violating Rule 6. Ignoring this warning will result in further mod action.

Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Cut the crap.

Answer the questions or dodge them. But when you evade, you are confessing that not only are you wrong, but you know you are wrong.

JayUtah, just above, to Robert Harris: "I asked you a question regarding your methodology. You responded with a flurry of turnabout questions asking my opinions."

 

[Loss Leader]

and people tend to have clear memories of what they did that day.

Do they? Is that in any way accurate? We know eyewitness testimony is unreliable, that memories can be colored and even invented by things we hear from others, and that our brains fill in details that we actually didn't experience.

So, how are we to know with any certainty that people years after the fact really had clear memories of that day?