This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument

[John Iacoletti]

I merely pointed out that alleged deficiencies in hair and bite mark analysis by the FBI cited in the referenced article from decades after the Kennedy assassination have no relevance to the JFK assassination.  It is part of a desperate attempt to overcome the actual evidence of Oswald's guilt by conjuring up false doubt.  It goes like this:  1) falsely claim you are taking no position on the case; 2) argue that you have no obligation to explain, much less prove, what actually happened if Oswald was not the guilty party no matter how improbable or absurd the alternative scenario; and 3) then apply an impossible standard of proof to any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt to reach the desired conclusion that there is doubt of his guilt (the Alice-in-Wonderland approach of contrarian defense attorneys).

“Richard Smith” epistemology in a nut shell:

1) Try to shift the burden of proof to make the other person prove that your claims are wrong or you automatically win.

2) If that doesn’t work then blame your own failure to prove your position on an “impossible standard”.

3) If that still doesn’t work then make up a ridiculous strawman (like “the FBI shouldn’t ever be trusted”) to distract and deflect from your own failures.

[Thomas Graves]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/04/fbis-flawed-forensics-expert-testimony-hair-analysis-bite-marks-fingerprints-arson.html

John,

Who else besides the FBI do you figure was in on The Conspiracy?

The JFK Assassination Conspiracy, that is.

Like "X" said in JFK, pretty much the whole Military Industrial Intelligence Community Complex?

Didn't the corrupt, fascistic Ukrainians have something to do with it?

LOL

--  MWT 

[John Iacoletti]

“For a forensic science to be scientifically valid, you need actual, empirical evidence of its reliability and accuracy, period,” said Eric S. Lander, founder of the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT. “Historically that hasn’t been the case.” “

Exactly right. Which is why unscientific and biased handwriting “analysis” of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon from microfilm that is now “missing” is not a reliable indicator of who placed an order.

[John Iacoletti]

Who else besides the FBI do you figure was in on The Conspiracy?

Who else besides you has stopped beating your wife?

Graves — get a life.

[Thomas Graves]

Who else besides you has stopped beating your wife?

Graves — get a life.

Is that an example of your "epistemology," Iacoletti?

--  MWT 

[Thomas Graves]

Exactly right. Which is why unscientific and biased handwriting “analysis” of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon from microfilm that is now “missing” is not a reliable indicator of who placed an order.

John,

What makes you think it was unscientific?

Because the results weren't what you hoping for?

If the results had been "probably not Oswald," would you have been happy with that?

--  MWT 

PS  Why the quotation marks around missing?

Do you think it was intentionally lost by the evil, evil Deep State?

[John Iacoletti]

Is that an example of your "epistemology," Iacoletti?

No, it’s an example of what you do every day on this forum.