Your Theories Won?t Do It

[Dillon Rankine]

Any explanation will do ? as long as you ignore the parts that don?t fit.

You?ll never explain how anything works if you consider the fart of every passing fly as anomalies that need accounted for.

Take a page from any academic field?s textbook and you?ll find that data/evidence on its own is useless: you need some framework/model (or, dare I say: theory) to interpret it, understand it, and make hypotheses to confirm it.

There?s always abnormalities. Dealing with uncertainty is part of the epistemological process. One day we might be able to explain everything, but that?s unlikely.

The lone-shooter model fits. Despite almost 60 years of rambling, it remains standing: all accusations of its key components being false are made from a scientifically illiterate perspective that fails to consider the more complicated elements of this case.
Nothing is as simple as CTs would like it.   

[John Iacoletti]

My evidence is literally front and centre of those volumes: despite the CT moaning about poorly matching dates on documents etc, there hasn?t been a serious, evidence-based rebuttal to any of the following claims:

? Oswald owned the rifle and pistol

There is no serious evidence-based argument that Oswald owned the rifle and pistol.

? 6.5 rifle and 3 shells were found on the 6th floor

Or a Mauser rifle and 2 shells.

? Bullet fragments recovered from the limo matched Oswald?s gun

Correction:  bullet fragments that were allegedly recovered from the limo by a secret service agent and a Navy corpsman, with no documented chain of evidence which were mutilated were matched to a rifle allegedly belonging to Oswald by Robert Frazier lining up marks in his mind after they didn't line up under the microscope.

? CE-399 matched Oswald?s gun

So what if CE-399 matches the gun you think is Oswald's?  There's no evidence that CE399 had anything to do with the assassination or even was the bullet that Tomlinson found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital.

? Oswald, by all the accounts that you consistently miss when reading the volumes, was a classic psychopath

According to whom?

? Etc, etc, etc

"Etc" must be that "mountain of evidence" we keep hearing about.

[Dillon Rankine]

There is no serious evidence-based argument that Oswald owned the rifle and pistol.

The documents presented in evidence are false then?

Or a Mauser rifle and 2 shells.

The Mauser BS was disputed in the 60s (see Six Seconds). 7.65 gun with 2 6.5 shells? How does that work? Couldn?t be that the 7.65 and 6.5 guns look similar, could it? And I guess photographs of three shells is just smoke and mirrors? 

Correction:  bullet fragments that were allegedly recovered from the limo by a secret service agent and a Navy corpsman, with no documented chain of evidence which were mutilated were matched to a rifle allegedly belonging to Oswald by Robert Frazier lining up marks in his mind after they didn't line up under the microscope.

Yes, those ones. Forgot to mention they had human tissue on them.

So what if CE-399 matches the gun you think is Oswald's?  There's no evidence that CE399 had anything to do with the assassination or even was the bullet that Tomlinson found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital.

Bullet found at hospital with shooting victims. Bullet comes from gun found at the scene of this very shooting. You?re right, I see no connection here. What possible connection could those things have? Why would anybody think they were associated? Are you a professor?

Also that stretcher thing is guesswork: nobody knows which one it was, and it doesn?t matter.

According to whom?

Robert Oswald, the folks who didn?t like Oswald for hitting Marina, and a few others. It should go without saying nobody said he was a psychopath: they described one: shallow affect, pathological lying, manipulative, grandiosity, etc.

"Etc" must be that "mountain of evidence" we keep hearing about.

Was much too bored to cite anything else (been neglecting the case in favour of my main interests).

[John Iacoletti]

How is that appeal to ridicule?

"if you consider the fart of every passing fly as anomalies that need accounted for"

That is most definitely an appeal to ridicule.

No, no it isn?t. If you a theory that says a shot came from the front, you get the hypothesis that there is evidence of a frontal shot.

This sentence doesn't really parse, but if you're saying that people who propose a frontal shot (like for example Sherry Fiester) have the burden of showing evidence for a frontal shot, then I agree.

I?m afraid that?s fallacy no 2 for you: false equivalence.

You mean like flies farting?

Proposing models to explain data is not that same thing is deciding a priori what data is valid and what isn?t.

Propose what you like.  There's no model in the world that will tell you who pulled the trigger.  Proposing a model that all the wounds were created by one bullet because you decide a priori that Oswald had to be a lone shooter is putting the cart before the horse.

Models fail in the absence of support.

And when you have to move wound locations and fudge people's seating locations to make your a prioi assumption work, then your model is a failure out of the starting gate.

Cherry-picking isn?t the same as only using those data which successfully integrate into a coherent model and ignoring all the weirdness that creates confusion and uncertainty.

And by "weirdness that creates confusion and uncertainty", you mean data that doesn't fit your model.  This is most certainly cherry-picking.

Unexplainable facts exist. As science marches forward, more things may become explainable. For now, let?s use what limited knowledge our species has accrued and try to make sense of things, cool?

I have no problem "trying to make sense of things".  What I have a problem with is pretending that "I don't know" really means "I do know, and it's my contrived cherry-picked model that explains everything, and you would see it too if you only ignored the right things".

[John Iacoletti]

The documents presented in evidence are false then?

The documents presented in evidence do not demonstrate ownership.

The Mauser BS was disputed in the 60s (see Six Seconds).

Three deputies described a Mauser on 11/22.  Nobody described a Carcano.

7.65 gun with 2 6.5 shells? How does that work?

What do you mean, "how does that work?"  Who says that shells on the floor must have been fired by a weapon found in the same building?

Couldn?t be that the 7.65 and 6.5 guns look similar, could it?

Here's we go again with "possible therefore true".

And I guess photographs of three shells is just smoke and mirrors?

According to Tom Alyea, yes it was smoke and mirrors.

Yes, those ones. Forgot to mention they had human tissue on them.

What do you think this demonstrates, exactly?

Bullet found at hospital with shooting victims. Bullet comes from gun found at the scene of this very shooting. You?re right, I see no connection here. What possible connection could those things have? Why would anybody think they were associated? Are you a professor?

Do you have any good reason to believe that CE399 was found at Parkland?

Also that stretcher thing is guesswork: nobody knows which one it was, and it doesn?t matter.

Nobody knows better than the guy who found it.

Robert Oswald, the folks who didn?t like Oswald for hitting Marina, and a few others.

And all this time I thought Robert Oswald was a salesman, not a clinical psychologist.

Was much too bored to cite anything else

Of course you are.

[John Iacoletti]

If we boil down all the banter, arguing, and posturing that goes on, the bottom line is this:

You think that "Oswald did it, and did it alone" is the conclusion that best fits the evidence, by ignoring the anomalies, discrepancies, and contradictory evidence.

I think that the conclusion that best fits the evidence is "indeterminate" by considering the anomalies, discrepancies, and contradictory evidence.

I know that humans always want to have an answer for everything -- even if they have to make one up -- but sometimes there just isn't one.

[Jack Trojan]

My evidence is literally front and centre of those volumes: despite the CT moaning about poorly matching dates on documents etc, there hasn?t been a serious, evidence-based rebuttal to any of the following claims:

There can be no serious, evidence-based rebuttal to a LNer claim because they have made up their minds and closed shop.

? Oswald owned the rifle and pistol

This is a conclusion, not evidence. Where's the beef?

? 6.5 rifle and 3 shells were found on the 6th floor

A rifle without a single print of Oswald's on it and 3 hulls that Fritz found in a tight group near the SN window, which he picked up with his bare hands and later tossed on the floor in a more scattered arrangement so he could take a more credible photo of the crime scene.

? Bullet fragments recovered from the limo matched Oswald?s gun

Correction:  bullet fragments that were allegedly recovered from the limo by a secret service agent and a Navy corpsman, with no documented chain of evidence which were mutilated were matched to a rifle allegedly belonging to Oswald by Robert Frazier lining up marks in his mind after they didn't line up under the microscope.

? CE-399 matched Oswald?s gun

• There isn't a bullet trajectory from the 6th floor window into JFK's back at the T1 vertebrae and out his throat at the C7 vertebrae, otherwise, prove it sucka.
• CE-399 had no blood, bone or tissue on it after causing 7 wounds and smashing thru bones.
• CE-399 was pristine (>95% intact) after causing 7 wounds and smashing thru 3 bones.
• CE-399 was planted on the wrong gurney.

Conclusion: CE-399 was either magic or shot into a swimming pool then planted at Parkland.

? Oswald, by all the accounts that you consistently miss when reading the volumes, was a classic psychopath

And being a classic armchair psychoanalyst, you should know.

? Etc, etc, etc

More of the same? Bring it.

How about you cite some credible evidence suggesting some of this data isn?t to be trusted? Let?s start with just one: the bullet fragments, how did they get from LHO?s weapon on the sixth floor to the limousine, with human tissue attached them? Or do we agree they came from a bullet striking somebody in that car fired from that window?

Again, your false premise that the bullet fragments were linked to the rifle result in GIGO. You haven't even linked Oswald to the rifle with credible evidence. In fact, all the evidence you cite supports Oswald being a sheep-dipped patsy and not a lone nut assassin.