JFK's assassination: your thoughts

[I Ratant]

...

Here we have someone who has relied almost exclusively on a single book,
....

.
Samuel Pepys... 1633-1703..
"Beware the man of one book".

 

[skepticidal]

But that still does not absolve you of the responsibility to identify which ones are your sources and to defend the lines of reasoning and speculation that you've borrowed from them. Forcing others to guess at what your sources may be, or hiding them in order to keep them from being critically examined, is indelibly poor argumentation.

And so I searched for examples of JayUtah identifying the sources of his information, fully expecting to find many examples in short order. You (JayUtah) mention the lack of citation as a non-starter in critiques of my posts and those of others. My search of your contributions for citation came up dry, although I do admit that I gave up after having to click on each result to see your comments in their entirety.

Surely you can much more easily link to a "relatively" recent post that includes either your source for some bit of information or a citation of an authoritative or otherwise scholarly article from which one of your claims originates. If anything, it will prove my poor forum search skills.

The goal here is not to determine who is or is not highly regarded, but rather who killed President Kennedy.

I did not know that was the goal. To me, there were/are many goals that if each was achieved could culminate in answering who killed Kennedy. In my posts, I was operating under the impression that eliminating Oswald was a universal goal, were it true.

 

[BStrong]

And so I searched for examples of JayUtah identifying the sources of his information, fully expecting to find many examples in short order. You (JayUtah) mention the lack of citation as a non-starter in critiques of my posts and those of others. My search of your contributions for citation came up dry, although I do admit that I gave up after having to click on each result to see your comments in their entirety.

Surely you can much more easily link to a "relatively" recent post that includes either your source for some bit of information or a citation of an authoritative or otherwise scholarly article from which one of your claims originates. If anything, it will prove my poor forum search skills.



I did not know that was the goal. To me, there were/are many goals that if each was achieved could culminate in answering who killed Kennedy. In my posts, I was operating under the impression that eliminating Oswald was a universal goal, were it true.

That question has been answered, at least to the satisfaction of both investigative bodies - LHO.

A more accurate description is that the universal goal of CT buffs is to eliminate LHO as the named shooter, and in that they have failed.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I did not know that was the goal.

Yes, to identify a different shooter is the goal. Right now, the null hypothesis is that Oswald is the lone shooter. The preponderance of evidence overwhelmingly points to Oswald as the lone assassin.

To me, there were/are many goals that if each was achieved could culminate in answering who killed Kennedy.

We already have the answer to that. If you have a different answer, please present your coherent alternative theory for who you think did. Make sure that your coherent alternative theory accounts for all of the evidence.

In my posts, I was operating under the impression that eliminating Oswald was a universal goal, were it true.

No, that's simply the false impression that CTs have. They go anomoly hunting but they really don't accomplish anything. Two different commissions on the assassination found that Oswald was the shooter.

I keep hoping for a higher quality CT who will actually present a coherent alternative theory. I continue to be disappointed.

 

[JayUtah]

And so I searched for examples of JayUtah identifying the sources of his information...

Fallacy of converting the conditional. I said IF I were to copypaste anything, it would be properly referenced. You missed the part where I said I wasn't copypasting. Nice try at distraction, but it's a no-go. Now would you care to answer the posts I actually made, rather than trying to suggest I should have made other kinds of posts?

Also [ETA] straw man fallacy. I mentioned specifically "cut and pasted" responses, which you've conveniently softened and broadened to "sources of information." Those aren't the same thing. Besides, if you would do us the favor of reading the monumental 200+ page thread (two threads, actually) where we've been actively discussing the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories for two years, you'll see plenty of examples of me identifying and properly referencing my sources -- when my argument at the moment requires them. You'll also probably discover, based on the lengthy and detailed discourse there among us regulars, that sashaying into a thread with the standard "You all don't know anything about the conspiracy theories," argument is probably just going to make you look silly.

I did not know that was the goal.

That's why you aren't making any headway here.

 

[JayUtah]

In my posts, I was operating under the impression that eliminating Oswald was a universal goal, were it true.

It isn't. Undermining the prevailing finding, in the absence of any better hypothesis, is not useful investigation. However, as I've noted several times, it is the preferred approach of nearly every conspiracy theorist in every genre. That's because it's a facile argument to construct, and it leads into the classic shifting of the burden of proof. But it has no use in forensics or history because it has absolutely zero explanatory power.

All you've done is present a laundry list of tired speculative claims that you assumed no one here would know about. You presented no documentation for any of them, nor have you deigned to defend any of them except with the all-too-predictable approach of trying to poison your critics' well.

Please come back when you have an actual argument.

 

[ladmo]

All conspiracy theorist to some extent or another assume they are better informed than any of their critics. However, in the JFK conspiracy tradition I've found that those conspiracists tend to make it a prominent, overt part of their argumentation. Most even open with it. All JFK conspiracy theorists I've encountered argue strenuously that anyone who considers Oswald the lone assassin is uninformed and that any disputation of a conspiracy claim arises from ignorance of "the facts."

I think there is a particular hubris among JFK conspiracy theorists, more so than in other conspiracy genres. I've argued that most if not all conspiracy theories basically just try to bolster the self-esteem of the proponent. But this seems more the case for JFK conspiracy theorists. It is more apparent in their writings that they just want to be seen as smarter and more clever than everyone else.

Certain common arguments among their theories lend weight to that interpretation. Most JFK conspiracy theories traverse the backwaters of marginal evidence, connecting the dots among obscure items relating to Kennedy, Oswald, and other prominent figures. They assume most people are familiar only with the basic facts of the case, and the lines of reasoning espoused in Warren et al. Hence a conspiracy theory becomes a way to show off obscure knowledge. "I bet you didn't know that Clay Shaw..." etc. Ironically while conspiracy theorists often know more about the assassination that the general public, they rarely know as much as their more adherent critics. Most JREFers who have gone through the monumental Robert Prey thread have demonstrated considerably more "obscure" understanding than any of the conspiracy claimants.

Your opinions are interesting.

As for Clay Shaw; you are being disingenuous or you don't know very much about the JFK assassination. I hope it is the latter.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=1168931

 

[JayUtah]

Your opinions are interesting.

I expect you'd find them interesting because you cannot have exemplified and proven my point any better than...

As for Clay Shaw; you are being disingenuous or you don't know very much about the JFK assassination.

Please try to make an argument that doesn't amount to "I know so much more than you do about the Kennedy assassination, so neener-neener^[1]."

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=1168931

Some of many allegations brought by Garrison. None survived legal scrutiny.

----------------------
[1] Adjust for regional dialect.

 

[ladmo]

Please try to make an argument that doesn't amount to "I know so much more than you do about the Kennedy assassination, so neener-neener^[1]."

I don't claim that; I only provided an easily found link which provided evidence that Clay Shaw was under contract with the CIA. Do you agree that Clay Shaw was under contract with the CIA, at some point during the 1950's?

 

[ladmo]

Some of many allegations brought by Garrison. None survived legal scrutiny.

I never claimed anything in regards to Garrison. As for Clay Shaw, the link showed that Shaw lied and the government lied when they said he was never associated with the CIA. Do you agree that Shaw and the Government lied?

 

[JayUtah]

I don't claim that...

Not playing this no-claim game anymore with you, ladmo. You're telling me I'm either lying or I don't know as much as you do. Pick your poison.

I only provided an easily found link which provided evidence...

I gave my opinion of that evidence. Address the answer I gave, and kindly do not fish for another one.

 

[JayUtah]

I never claimed anything in regards to Garrison.

What exactly is your claim, then? Be specific.

 

[ladmo]

Not playing this no-claim game anymore with you, ladmo. You're telling me I'm either lying or I don't know as much as you do. Pick your poison.] You don't care to discuss the evidence, you create a derail.

I gave my opinion of that evidence. Address the answer I gave, and kindly do not fish for another one.

I am not fishing for a different answer because I don't know what your first answer is. The document is a government document and if you find that insufficient, what do you need to be convinced?

 

[ladmo]

What exactly is your claim, then? Be specific.

I was only pointing out that the Clay Shaw issue is easily found. Claim? Is pointing out evidence a claim?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I was only pointing out that the Clay Shaw issue is easily found. Claim? Is pointing out evidence a claim?

Evidence of what?

 

[JayUtah]

...what do you need to be convinced?

Convinced of what?

 

[JayUtah]

I was only pointing out that the Clay Shaw issue is easily found.

No one is insinuating anything to the contrary. However, what exactly is meant by "the Clay Shaw issue" seems to be matter of some debate.

Claim? Is pointing out evidence a claim?

Well, first you claimed I was either lying or ignorant. You left no other options, so I'd like you to either clarify which claim you were making or withdraw the whole thing.

Second, you seem to be distancing yourself from anything having to do with Garrison, which is disingenuous because the document you were quoting from is the CIA analysis of figures named in Garrison's law suit. It's in the title of the memo, for pete's sake.

Third, if you're not making any claim, then why are so adamantly asking me to agree with statements you're making? What obligation does anyone have to engage you in any way?

 

[ladmo]

Evidence of what?

Clay Shaw was under contract with the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...udies/studies/fall_winter_2001/article02.html

 

[ladmo]

Well, first you claimed I was either lying or ignorant. You left no other options, so I'd like you to either clarify which claim you were making or withdraw the whole thing.

I would never claim that you are ignorant.

Second, you seem to be distancing yourself from anything having to do with Garrison, which is disingenuous because the document you were quoting from is the CIA analysis of figures named in Garrison's law suit. It's in the title of the memo, for pete's sake.

I was never close to Garrison so it is difficult to defend a negative. It doesn't matter if the document is from the Garrison case, I was only addressing one element.

Third, if you're not making any claim, then why are so adamantly asking me to agree with statements you're making? What obligation does anyone have to engage you in any way?

First, there is no obligation other than by signing onto a discussion forum, a discussion takes place. Secondly,I am "adamantly" going in this direction because you don't always respond to a question.

 

[JayUtah]

Clay Shaw was under contract with the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...udies/studies/fall_winter_2001/article02.html

I see no mention of a "contract" either in this document or in the CIA memo. Both sources indicate that Shaw furnished information to the CIA -- specifically to the DCS (an office of the CIA that received such reports from civilians not otherwise associated with the agency) on a number of occasions. Your latest link specifically uses the word "volunteered" to describe Shaw's activity. The CIA memo used the words "in touch."

No one has disputed that there was contact between Claw Shaw and an office of the CIA. However, the nature of this relationship is what is in question. Why have you and the conspiracy theorists consistently used other (and considerably stronger) words to characterize it?