CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?  (Read 292333 times)

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6506
Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #532 on: August 15, 2019, 10:32:19 PM »
There's a compelling case.  Just make a bunch of false claims, insist you're right and claim victory.

In the "Richard Smith" lexicon, "contrarian" is defined as someone who points out that his false claims are false.

Since when does a (self-appointed) 'Devil's Advocate' qualify as an arbiter of what is true and what is false?

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6506
Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #533 on: August 15, 2019, 10:36:18 PM »
The guy who thinks it's a problem to analyze the veracity of each item of purported evidence.

Point out where I claim that
« Last Edit: August 15, 2019, 10:39:32 PM by Bill Chapman »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6506
Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #534 on: August 15, 2019, 10:47:24 PM »
Actually, you're the one claiming OswaldProbablyDidIt, but are unable to articulate any reason for believing that.

It's got nothing to do with belief

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8212
Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #535 on: August 16, 2019, 01:50:38 AM »
Since when does a (self-appointed) 'Devil's Advocate' qualify as an arbiter of what is true and what is false?

The answer would be anybody who looks honestly at the evidence and finds that it does not support the bogus claims made by guys like Richard Smith.

I asked Richard Smith several times in the recent past what qualifications he had to make certain determinations. Never got a reply of course, but then I never really expected one.

But I did not see you asking Richard a similar question. You probably just missed those conversations, right?

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8212
Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #536 on: August 16, 2019, 02:21:13 AM »
Point out where I claim that

You don't have to claim it. It's obvious to anybody who reads your posts

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8212
Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #537 on: August 16, 2019, 02:23:52 AM »
It's got nothing to do with belief

Really? You don't say...

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6506
Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #538 on: August 16, 2019, 05:36:57 AM »
You don't have to claim it. It's obvious to anybody who reads your posts

Legalese Quote:
"It is a well established principle of law that when weighing the evidence the fact finder must not subject each piece of evidence to the standard of proof (proof beyond a reasonable doubt). The trier of fact must apply that standard of proof to the whole of the evidence."

I have no problem with somebody looking at the evidence as long as it is not in isolation from said 'whole of the evidence'.

Terminator 2 Liquid T-1000 Scene
Iacoletti would scald himself trying to keep the molten metal pieces apart:

« Last Edit: August 16, 2019, 06:27:56 AM by Bill Chapman »