Your Theories Won?t Do It

[John Iacoletti]

They also rarely accept the implications of their nonsense being true.  If A did not happen as they allege, then logically something else like B must have happened.

Except that "B" never logically follows from "A".  That's why this is known as the "Richard Smith" strawman dance.

[John Iacoletti]

  Does anyone understand this?

I think he meant:

"If your goal is to explain everything, forget about it. Tink Thompson...."

[Rob Caprio]

Psychologists have long since noted a crucial function of CT epistemology ? they focus on errant data: that which isn?t explained by the official model. CTs are scarcely interested in making a cogent theory from the main facts, but rather they try to pull it down by connecting errant, auxiliary data.

Just look around this forum: CTs left and right arguing about the data of this document, what that witness smelled, and how dodgy the autopsy was, all in some desperate attempt to explain everything.

Listen CTs: your theories won?t do it. You can?t explain every fact. No theory of how anything works is going to account for everything, because, simply put, we don?t know everything about the world yet to be able to connect all the dots. Coincidences and anomalies are ok, because they happen in the real world ? sometimes in a dazzlingly large quantity.

I?d you?re goal is to explain everything?s forget about it. Think Thompson once said that when you?ve got a fact so obviously conclusive of your theory ? so obviously sinister ? forget about it, man, because you on your own cannot come up with all the perfectly reasonable, non-sinister explanations for that fact.       

I joined this forum 5 years ago certain of a conspiracy ? 5 gunmen, 8 bullets (with no mystic missiles in sight) ? involving the CIA, mob, and LBJ. I?d read all the CT books ? Mantik, Marrs, Fetzer, McLaren, Menninger, Wrone, Lane, DiEugenio, Groden, you name it ? but after looking beyond the bubble, I began to realise something. Each and every one of these authors conveniently misses out on our favourite sociopath. Oswald?s life is trivialised, ignored or glamorised. We?re never told about Robert Oswald?s conversation with his brother at the DPD; anything shady Oswald did is rationalised as the marching orders of the CIA.

Today, I?m almost a pure LNer. I strongly doubt a conspiracy, and can explain the shooting in three bullets from the SN.         

Please. You were always a LNer. Your avoidance of the actual evidence proves this.

[Jack Trojan]

An endless tactic to avoid admitting checkmate.

  Thanks for the psychoanalysis. So how much more time do you LNers need to checkmate this thing? You do realize that the onus is on you to prove the fringe LNer hypothesis not the other way round? It certainly isn't the default position if a conspiracy can't be proven.

Surely after 56 years the WC and your lot would have come up with at least 1 smoking gun piece of evidence that nails Oswald as a lone nut assassin. So where is that smoking gun? Instead you  seem to think that the kooky CTs must prove a conspiracy or concede to the wacky LNer hypothesis, which is only supported by the WC defenders. It would help if you learn some critical thinking skills or at least learn how to play chess.

[Dillon Rankine]

  Does anyone understand this?

*If your goal is to explain everything, forget about it.* (Was half-awake when typing, so there?s probably more grammatical errors).

[Dillon Rankine]

Please. You were always a LNer. Your avoidance of the actual evidence proves this.

CT books aren?t evidence, and you can?t explain events in the world without understanding it with science. The facts are as the are:

? CT books neglect honest coverage of Oswald (or ?official? stories of him), but instead look only and assign unnecessary weight to fringe, unsupported facts and wacko interpretations of his actions. Without a knowledge of both actual testimony and psychiatry, you probably wouldn?t know that people who were close to LN gave descriptions of his personality that literally match psychopathic attributes ? his negative background is consistent with this pattern.

? CT books scarcely even cover the shooting in DP, and do so with little or incomplete knowledge of relevant science. The fact remains that all damage can be explained by three bullets ? many possible variations on what each shot did exist, however, 3 shots from the 6th floor are all you need. Shallow back wounds aren?t even physically possible with any bullet (hence why Wecht doesn?t believe in it).

? Relying on fragile witness memories to build your shoddy case is to be arrogantly ignorant of the fact that scientists have made careers out of studying memory ? from molecules to social influences ? all of whom can testify as to how easy it is to manipulate (it actually evolved to be plastic and malleable).

[John Iacoletti]

Without a knowledge of both actual testimony and psychiatry, you probably wouldn?t know that people who were close to LN gave descriptions of his personality that literally match psychopathic attributes ? his negative background is consistent with this pattern.

Which tells you exactly nothing about who shot JFK.

? CT books scarcely even cover the shooting in DP, and do so with little or incomplete knowledge of relevant science. The fact remains that all damage can be explained by three bullets ? many possible variations on what each shot did exist, however, 3 shots from the 6th floor are all you need.

Just because something is possible, it doesn?t follow that it?s true.

Shallow back wounds aren?t even physically possible with any bullet

 

It depends on the bullet, what fired it, and the distance it traveled.

? Relying on fragile witness memories to build your shoddy case is to be arrogantly ignorant of the fact that scientists have made careers out of studying memory ? from molecules to social influences ? all of whom can testify as to how easy it is to manipulate (it actually evolved to be plastic and malleable).

Exactly. Howard Brennan, anyone? Marina Oswald, anyone?