Historian explains the mind of Conspiracy Nuts - CBS 1967

[Jerry Freeman]

Exactly, the HSCA provided conclusive proof that the backyard rifle was the same rifle that was sent to Oswald's PO box...

No it didn't. Do you mean CE 139? Do you mean Hidell's rifle? Show me the serial number of that rifle in the back-yard picture.
Same old Mytton...proof by declaration. Guilt by accusation.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Absence of evidence is absence of evidence. Shaneyfelt testified as to which images he used: CE133A and B. If you want to argue that he used anything else, it's up to you to demonstrate that.

In the larger picture, you've claimed that "In all candor, Kirk had no friggin idea what Shaneyfelt looked at." Isn't it up to you to show that Kirk had 'no friggin idea'? And wouldn't Shaneyfelt's own testimony be evidence otherwise?

His method is to characterize any evidence that implicates Oswald in the assassination as "claims" or "speculation" and then it can be dismissed. He "deconstructs" accounts until they essentially disappear.

But he gets to make all sorts of speculation and "claims" and theories about evidence, about the motivations of people who identified Oswald or implicated him.

It's cheap and easy - we can do this with any event - and fundamentally disingenuous.

I noted above all of the fifty plus years of investigations, directly or indirectly, into the assassination and that concluded that Oswald alone killed JFK. Government investigations, news media investigations, investigative reporters, historians, biographers. This is the most studied event in US history.

His response to all of this was to label it "BS" and dismiss it. Even though he doesn't know what all of this revealed (neither do I; it's a lot of material: but I do know what they concluded). Whatever evidence is found will be dismissed by him. Simply by waving it off as "claims" or "speculation." Ballistics, forensics, fingerprints, photographic analysis, handwriting analysis, eyewitnesses, documents - whatever is present he will wave off.

[Mitch Todd]

I didn't argue that [Shaneyfelt] used anything else [but CE133A].  Mytton argued (with no evidence) that he didn't use CE134, even though the HSCA panel admitted that it was just an assumption. 

What you actually said was, "in all candor, Kirk had no friggin idea what Shaneyfelt looked at." But Kirk explicitly mentioned Shaneyfelt's testimony. Shaneyfelt explicitly mentioned using CE133A and B. Shaneyfelt never mentions using CE134, not mentioning it at all in his discussion of the back yard photographs. That's a a pretty good indication that he didn't use CE134.

It all adds up to one thing: Kirk did have at least "a friggin idea" that Shaneyfelt didn't use CE134. And, no, Kirk and McCamy did more than just assume that Shaneyfelt only kept to CE133A & B.

And damn the luck: the negative allegedly used to produce CE134 is "missing".

..And, failing all else, you now you try to change the subject again, this time betting the house on a wisp of cheap insinuation. How quickly falls the "Mr Rational" facade you try so hard to maintain. 

[John Iacoletti]

But he gets to make all sorts of speculation and "claims" and theories about evidence, about the motivations of people who identified Oswald or implicated him.

I did? When?

I noted above all of the fifty plus years of investigations, directly or indirectly, into the assassination and that concluded that Oswald alone killed JFK. Government investigations, news media investigations, investigative reporters, historians, biographers. This is the most studied event in US history.

That’s a false appeal to authority or popularity, and fundamentally flawed. It actually matters what these conclusions are based on.

His response to all of this was to label it "BS" and dismiss it. Even though he doesn't know what all of this revealed (neither do I; it's a lot of material: but I do know what they concluded).

Speak for yourself, dude. So you don’t know what evidence actually shows that Oswald killed Kennedy, but you believe it because that’s what they concluded?

[Mitch Todd]

His method is to characterize any evidence that implicates Oswald in the assassination as "claims" or "speculation" and then it can be dismissed. He "deconstructs" accounts until they essentially disappear.

But he gets to make all sorts of speculation and "claims" and theories about evidence, about the motivations of people who identified Oswald or implicated him.

It's cheap and easy - we can do this with any event - and fundamentally disingenuous.

I noted above all of the fifty plus years of investigations, directly or indirectly, into the assassination and that concluded that Oswald alone killed JFK. Government investigations, news media investigations, investigative reporters, historians, biographers. This is the most studied event in US history.

His response to all of this was to label it "BS" and dismiss it. Even though he doesn't know what all of this revealed (neither do I; it's a lot of material: but I do know what they concluded). Whatever evidence is found will be dismissed by him. Simply by waving it off as "claims" or "speculation." Ballistics, forensics, fingerprints, photographic analysis, handwriting analysis, eyewitnesses, documents - whatever is present he will wave off.

Well, I think he'd like to call it "hand waving"    Really, he tries to create an impossible standard of proof whereby if it can't be shown to him to a metaphysical certainty it must be part of the coverup. Which is just a variation of moving the goal posts by trying to rewrite the rules. This time around, he made a couple of gross overstatements and his ego won't let him walk them back. God forgive me, but watching his performance as he tries to squirm and twist himself out of the mess he got himself into is getting pretty entertaining.

[John Iacoletti]

What you actually said was, "in all candor, Kirk had no friggin idea what Shaneyfelt looked at." But Kirk explicitly mentioned Shaneyfelt's testimony. Shaneyfelt explicitly mentioned using CE133A and B. Shaneyfelt never mentions using CE134, not mentioning it at all in his discussion of the back yard photographs. That's a a pretty good indication that he didn't use CE134.

No it’s not. Testimony is the answering of questions put to you. Did they ask him for an exhaustive list of everything he looked at? Why wouldn’t an investigator look at whatever was provided? Unless you’re saying that CE 134 may not have actually been provided when and how they said it was. After all, the negative mysteriously disappeared.

What’s interesting is that you seem to be more interested in quibbling over my word choices than in examining the quality of the evidence.

[Bill Chapman]

WOW! Ralphie's photo-presentation style lives on!
As does CT#OswaldBitches' desparate quest to be somebodies...