JFK Assassination Forum 
Logo
Home Support The Forum The Robin Unger JFK Assassination GalleryYoutube JFK Assassination Video ChannelSearchNotepadLoginRegister

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 23, 2017, 04:23:06 AM
News: Posts and threads containing swear words, personal insults or crudities, content considered by Admin to be spamming, when reported or observed, may be edited or deleted.
The perpetrator of any offense may receive a posting suspension of a period to be determined by Admin in relation to the considered severity of the offense.
Questions relating to deletions or edits will not be answered by Admin via any communication method here or elsewhere.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 57
A Challenge for Rob Caprio and Martin Weidmann  (Read 16047 times)

Super Member
*****

Posts: 594


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Then you have no ability to comprehend the English language. The evidence is pretty clear. It does NOT support the claims found in the WCR. Period. I have no idea what scientific or mathematical model could possibly show that the SBT occurred or that LHO fired a shot at anyone.

I have read your posts and the position that you have taken. You can claim to be anything, but your words will define what you really are.

You claim I fail to comprehend the English language and yet you've extrapolated some conspiracy theory as to my true ideological positions?

Before claiming I'm an LNer, or whatever again, maybe take the time read and (with hope) understand this: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alluded to here is possible scientific evidence of a frontal shot.

You cannot possibly reach any accurate conclusions by just looking at evidence and joining dots as you do. Assigning witnesses high evidentiary value, unbeknownst of the neuropsychological factors at play; making determinations of the contents of the films, whilst knowing nothing photogrammetry; reaching conclusions about the wounds, whilst being incredulous on terminal ballistics and biophysics; etc. All this prevents one from reaching an accurate conclusion.

So you see, Rob, forensic science doesn't just help us reach conclusions—it is the one and only way it can be done. Your being openly incredulous and wilfully ignorant on these topics and holding them to be of little significance completely astonishes me.

And science, nor anything, can every prove anything to be 100% correct. The highest accuracy rating anyone using any methodology can possibly ascribe to anything—not matter how telling—is 99.9%. To think that we can know anything whatsoever about any topic (not just this case) evidences a lack of ignorance of basic philosophy of knowledge and science.


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 7760


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You claim I fail to comprehend the English language and yet you've extrapolated some conspiracy theory as to my true ideological positions?

Before claiming I'm an LNer, or whatever again, maybe take the time read and (with hope) understand this: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alluded to here is possible scientific evidence of a frontal shot.

You cannot possibly reach any accurate conclusions by just looking at evidence and joining dots as you do. Assigning witnesses high evidentiary value, unbeknownst of the neuropsychological factors at play; making determinations of the contents of the films, whilst knowing nothing photogrammetry; reaching conclusions about the wounds, whilst being incredulous on terminal ballistics and biophysics; etc. All this prevents one from reaching an accurate conclusion.

So you see, Rob, forensic science doesn't just help us reach conclusions—it is the one and only way it can be done. Your being openly incredulous and wilfully ignorant on these topics and holding them to be of little significance completely astonishes me.

And science, nor anything, can every prove anything to be 100% correct. The highest accuracy rating anyone using any methodology can possibly ascribe to anything—not matter how telling—is 99.9%. To think that we can know anything whatsoever about any topic (not just this case) evidences a lack of ignorance of basic philosophy of knowledge and science.

Great post.


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 3258


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The WCR is NOT evidence. It is a prosecutorial brief that is full of unsupported claims. I know because I have read it. Why are you terrified to read the twenty-six volumes?

I knew that you couldn't cite any evidence.

You have repeated some variation of this post several thousand times.  Could you clarify exactly what you consider to be "evidence"?  I don't quite follow why thousands of pages of testimony and hundreds of exhibits are dismissed out of hand as not being evidence, but perhaps you can explain.  The best I can discern is that you consider any evidence of Oswald's guilt to be suspect because it is evidence of Oswald's guilt.  A sort of vicious Catch-22 circle of lunacy. 


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 21868


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You claim I fail to comprehend the English language and yet you've extrapolated some conspiracy theory as to my true ideological positions?

Before claiming I'm an LNer, or whatever again, maybe take the time read and (with hope) understand this: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alluded to here is possible scientific evidence of a frontal shot.

You cannot possibly reach any accurate conclusions by just looking at evidence and joining dots as you do. Assigning witnesses high evidentiary value, unbeknownst of the neuropsychological factors at play; making determinations of the contents of the films, whilst knowing nothing photogrammetry; reaching conclusions about the wounds, whilst being incredulous on terminal ballistics and biophysics; etc. All this prevents one from reaching an accurate conclusion.

So you see, Rob, forensic science doesn't just help us reach conclusions—it is the one and only way it can be done. Your being openly incredulous and wilfully ignorant on these topics and holding them to be of little significance completely astonishes me.

And science, nor anything, can every prove anything to be 100% correct. The highest accuracy rating anyone using any methodology can possibly ascribe to anything—not matter how telling—is 99.9%. To think that we can know anything whatsoever about any topic (not just this case) evidences a lack of ignorance of basic philosophy of knowledge and science.

Denying what the evidence really shows = WC defender. You are trying to be more clever about it, but that is what you are doing. Your beloved scientific and mathematical models have to use the very evidence that you are denying.

There is no supporting evidence for the claims made by the WC.


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 21868


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You have repeated some variation of this post several thousand times.  Could you clarify exactly what you consider to be "evidence"?  I don't quite follow why thousands of pages of testimony and hundreds of exhibits are dismissed out of hand as not being evidence, but perhaps you can explain.  The best I can discern is that you consider any evidence of Oswald's guilt to be suspect because it is evidence of Oswald's guilt.  A sort of vicious Catch-22 circle of lunacy. 

Read my series for hundreds of examples. The best proof that the evidence doesn't support the claims of the WCR is that you, and the other WC defenders, avoid it like the plague.


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 594


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Denying what the evidence really shows = WC defender. You are trying to be more clever about it, but that is what you are doing. Your beloved scientific and mathematical models have to use the very evidence that you are denying.

There is no supporting evidence for the claims made by the WC.

I'm not denying evidence. I accept the data as authentic and subject to scientific scrutiny.   

Scientific scrutiny of certain evidence will reveal whether or not it's authentic, and a correlation analysis can be done to see which interpretation of the evidence best conforms to its own predictions.

My "beloved" methods are the only way to do this sort of work, so take some time to educate yourself. Rejecting these methods is synonymous with rejecting to study it.

The scientific models will only produce suggestive results if the data in question is accurate. Such analysis are thus very sensitive when meta-analysed with the rest of the evidence to detecting whether a datum is fabricated. Proper analysis reveals this as unlikely to be the case.

And I always though WC stood for Warren Commission, and thus WC Defender is a defender of its lone assassin theory. Grouping everybody who disagrees with you under this one label is counterproductive to ample communication. That's another scientific concept you should learn: operationalisation (forming practical definitions).


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 2690


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You have repeated some variation of this post several thousand times.  Could you clarify exactly what you consider to be "evidence"?  I don't quite follow why thousands of pages of testimony and hundreds of exhibits are dismissed out of hand as not being evidence, but perhaps you can explain.  The best I can discern is that you consider any evidence of Oswald's guilt to be suspect because it is evidence of Oswald's guilt.  A sort of vicious Catch-22 circle of lunacy. 
You remember Caprio evidence Richard. Back in the day he was convinced you and I were the same person. Caprio logic deems having the single most common Anglo surname is evidence Richard and Ron are the same person. It just has to be true!!  57


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 2690


Oh and BTW, Bill would mop the floor against Rob and Martin with Steve Logan tied behind his back.


-------------------------

   ReplyReply
Rob Caprio, Howard Gee, John Iacoletti, Richard Smith and 104 Guests are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 57


Jump to:  

JFK Assassination Forum Assassination of JFK discussion and debate surrounding the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy In Dealey Plaza Texas on November 22nd 1963

JFK Assassination Photographs Gallery

JFK Assassination Forum Assassination of JFK discussion and debate surrounding the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy In Dealey Plaza Texas on November 22nd 1963
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines