Your Theories Won?t Do It

[John Iacoletti]

Weitzman?s honest mistake is more plausible than ?all the photographs were altered.?

Who said the alternative was "all the photographs were altered"?  What photographs?

He even admitted that his reasoning for saying Mauser was that the Carcano has a bolt resembling a Mauser ? in fact; it was designed to mimic the Mauser, and was less commonly known.

Yes, and how do you evaluate whether this is true or not? You examine the details given in the description and compare it to the claim that it was identified "at a glance".  You look at statements from others.  You look at the fact that he didn't just say "looks like a Mauser", he said that it was a 7.65 Mauser -- a very specific thing.  Then you consider that false recantations are not an extraordinary occurrence.
 

That?s a unique conclusions to jump to. Last I checked there?s a rifle and shells.

Yes there are a rifle and shells presented as evidence.  So what?  Whether they were photographed as discovered is disputed.  Whether there were 2 shells or 3 shells is ambiguous in the documentary evidence.  When the shells were fired (or even if they were fired in one case) cannot be known.

Bullet fragments with human tissue found in limousine in which people were shot? Yeah, I can see where you might have difficulty understanding the proposal: it really gets the noggin joggin.

Depends on how much basis you have for "found in the limousine", which is not much.  Also, "human tissue" doesn't mean a whole lot.  Skin cells are "human tissue".  Any reason to think that this "human tissue" came from Kennedy's head or brain?

Order in that data, mainly. Of course, the only reason you doubt it is because you?re fualty views on human memory ? a subject of intense scientific study (Nobel prizes and everything) which have revelaed that it?s malleable by design (of evolution). 

Again, I don't know who you're arguing with, but I agreed with that.  The problem for you is that the "Oswald did it" model relies on faulty human memory.

His guess done from memory is your evidence? Even if he?s right, who cares? It?s possible that evil conspiracy people planted it and never uttered a word, but totally impossible for someone to have saw something on the floor and put it on a stretcher, and said nothing afterward? Who cares?

I care.  If you're going to claim that CE399 was at all related to the shooting at Houston and Elm, you need more than, "well some kind of bullet was found by a hospital technician somewhere".  Who said anything about "evil conspiracy people planting it and never uttering a word"?  Who said "it's impossible for someone to have seen something on the floor and put it on a stretcher"?  Possible does not equal Happened.

I described that multiple people gave descriptions of Oswald that consist of psychopathic personality traits.

...and this is evidence of what?

[John Iacoletti]

If you?d read that post you?d understand I wasn?t citing evidence, I was listing conclusions

Some people prefer conclusions that actually follow from the evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

So? It was also in drawers, pockets, under stretchers, etc. Last I checked, blood isn?t superglue.

Great.  So is there any reason to think that CE399 ever went through any human body?

That?s a claim for which I see no citation! It?s on a gurney, doesn?t matter which one. Also, these conspirators seem even less intelligent than the CTs  Aranging the shells perfectly side-by-side like nobody would notice, leaving the Mauser they used instead of the Carcano, planting the to-good-to-be-true 399 on the wrong stretcher, etc. Seriously, what handicaps are we dealing with here?

This is "Richard Smith's" trademark "the vast and perfect conspiracy that I imagine would never do X, therefore there was no conspiracy" argument.

[Dillon Rankine]

Great.  So is there any reason to think that CE399 ever went through any human body?

There?s no direct evidence linking it to any wound, however, what evidence does exist strongly indicated it could have been the SBT. Saying ?this is plausible given the evidence? is not the same as saying ?possible = true.? I understand that anything not framed within the context of a fallacies 101 course is confusing to you, so you?ll just have to take my word for it.

This is "Richard Smith's" trademark "the vast and perfect conspiracy that I imagine would never do X, therefore there was no conspiracy" argument.

It could have been a group of the most humbling, inefficient, low IQ spoons ever assembled and I?m sure they?d still understand that placing these 3 shells right next to each other would look suspect, or that leaving a ?pristine? bullet for a perfect match might raise some eyebrows.

if anything is fallacious here, it?s your hilariously out-of-touch way of defending bad ideas. It seems like something out of a movie ? so comedically obvious that it?s a plant, but apparently nobody else thought so.   

[Bill Chapman]

There?s no direct evidence linking it to any wound, however, what evidence does exist strongly indicated it could have been the SBT. Saying ?this is plausible given the evidence? is not the same as saying ?possible = true.? I understand that anything not framed within the context of a fallacies 101 course is confusing to you, so you?ll just have to take my word for it.

It could have been a group of the most humbling, inefficient, low IQ spoons ever assembled and I?m sure they?d still understand that placing these 3 shells right next to each other would look suspect, or that leaving a ?pristine? bullet for a perfect match might raise some eyebrows.

if anything is fallacious here, it?s your hilariously out-of-touch way of defending bad ideas. It seems like something out of a movie ? so comedically obvious that it?s a plant, but apparently nobody else thought so.   

I wouldn't put it past any shooter to place the shells in a perfect row. A kind of 'in-your-face' gesture.

[Dillon Rankine]

Bull.  It's an appeal to ridicule in order to make a case for not examining the evidence too closely.

Am I distracting the truther squad from ?the police began chasing an unknown gunman up a grassy hill??

The charge to "focus on things in the real world" is an excuse for having insufficient evidence for your conclusion.

It?s attempt to get you understand the balance of probability; the relationships things tend to have in the actual real world outside of a logic textbook.   

Remains?  When has it ever stood?  All you can make an argument for is that you can't rule it out.  Some models say you can.  Models all involve some degree of unproven or unprovable assumptions -- some more justified than others.

That?s he whole idea ? the assumptions of certain models can be indirectly tested, however. The LN model posits that Oswald didn?t alone, yet you can?t disporve a conspiracy. You can see whether or not the evidence lines up with that model, which it does.

Assumptions and uncertainty are things which characterise all of epistemology (for the last time: cogito ergo sum!), and the reason CTs get laughed at is their relentless pursuit of certainty which isn?t possible.

Great.  Do you just ignore all evidence that it was lower because the assumed shot no longer works?

What evidence? Bennett?s report? Burkley?e brief observation?

I?d cite the x-day showing excess radiolucency at T-1 but you?d probably ask how I know it?s not JFK from an alternate reality following an infraction.   

[John Iacoletti]

There?s no direct evidence linking it to any wound, however, what evidence does exist strongly indicated it could have been the SBT.

What evidence strongly indicates that it could have been the SBT?

Saying ?this is plausible given the evidence? is not the same as saying ?possible = true.? I understand that anything not framed within the context of a fallacies 101 course is confusing to you, so you?ll just have to take my word for it.

I'm not confused at all, but you seem to be.  If your conclusions depend on CE 399 being involved in the assassination, then that's something you need to actually demonstrate.  If all you are claiming is that it's "plausible" that CE 399 was involved in the assassination, then fine.  It's also "plausible" that it wasn't.

Either way, it doesn't tell you who shot JFK.

It could have been a group of the most humbling, inefficient, low IQ spoons ever assembled and I?m sure they?d still understand that placing these 3 shells right next to each other would look suspect, or that leaving a ?pristine? bullet for a perfect match might raise some eyebrows.

Is this hypothetical musing supposed to be evidence of anything?

if anything is fallacious here, it?s your hilariously out-of-touch way of defending bad ideas. It seems like something out of a movie ? so comedically obvious that it?s a plant, but apparently nobody else thought so.   

More appeal to ridicule.  That a pity, because that's what arrogant people do when they don't actually have a good argument.

What's "comedically obvious" is that you're actually arguing that if it looks obviously planted , it must be genuine.  Personally, I don't care if it was planted (intentionally or accidentally) or not, or even if it was ever at Parkland Hospital, given that there is no way to determine when, where, or by whom CE399 was fired.