CVSA and LHO

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Yep, one of the most skeptical people I have encountered. I am also skeptical. And every once in a while he brings up a point that will prod me to dig a little deeper. That is when I tend to learn new things. So far the new things I have learned from digging deeper have only reinforced my opinion that LHO was guilty.

Skepticism is good. This sort of nihilism is not. Just rejecting things out of hand - and not showing where they are wrong - is not how one thinks. Where does this take us? It's not asking or raising questions; it's just Oswald defending at any cost. Rejecting EVERY piece of evidence - however small - against Oswald is simply absurd.

As the late Robert Oswald said, asking questions is good, the right thing to do. But after the tenth time, the twentieth, the fiftieth, it's enough.

[John Iacoletti]

True. The evidence can be wrong. The photographic analysis, the handwriting analysis, the fingerprints. Certainly the eyewitnesses, something we all know can be terribly wrong. But one must show where they are wrong. Simply dismissing them out of hand is not how one reasons.

You have that exactly backwards. The time to accept a truth claim is when there is sufficient evidence to do so.

And to dismiss all of the evidence against Oswald? Every single piece? Unless, again, the goal is to defend Oswald at any cost.

Simply calling something “evidence against Oswald” doesn’t make it so.

[John Iacoletti]

Skepticism is good. This sort of nihilism is not. Just rejecting things out of hand - and not showing where they are wrong - is not how one thinks.

I’ve repeatedly shown where they are wrong. Or tainted. Or questionable. Or contradictory. Or don’t actually support the stated conclusion.

You just reject all of that out of hand because you are attached to your conclusion.

That is not rational.

[Bill Chapman]

True. The evidence can be wrong. The photographic analysis, the handwriting analysis, the fingerprints. Certainly the eyewitnesses, something we all know can be terribly wrong. But one must show where they are wrong. Simply dismissing them out of hand is not how one reasons.

And to dismiss all of the evidence against Oswald? Every single piece? Unless, again, the goal is to defend Oswald at any cost.

At some point - it's been more than fifty years - judgments have to be made. We sift the evidence, weigh it, consider alternative explanations and come to conclusions. This incessant "No, no, no" is not how reasonable people consider things.

There's no getting away from bias. The good news is that LN bias is the correct one in this case.

 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

There's no getting away from bias. The good news is that LN bias is the correct one in this case.
 

We're human beings not robots or AI. But there is an objective reality that we can struggle to find.

But to argue that all of this evidence pointing at Oswald is wrong - all of it planted or faked or worthless - is a useless exercise. One can make that claim against the evidence for any event. So where does that lead to?

A sort of nihilism. Why even come here and comment day after day after day, thousands of posts, all saying "No, no, no"? Brennan lied and Brewer lied and Mcdonald lied and the fingerprints are faked and the photos are faked or wrong and the handwriting is wrong. That leads to nowhere.

Look, if people want to devote much of their lives to defending Oswald then go for it. But don't pretend to be interested in trying, as best as we can, to determine who shot JFK. Because you're not interested in that; you have some sort of bizarre need to defend this miserable waif Oswald. Waif. That means abandoned: that's how I think Oswald saw his life and his world.

[John Iacoletti]

There's no getting away from bias. The good news is that LN bias is the correct one in this case.

 

...which is another example of LN bias.

[Bill Chapman]

...which is another example of LN bias.

OMG