The Initials Of FBI Agent Elmer Todd Are On CE399 (Hi-Def Photo Proof)

[Tom Graves]

Let's say the answer is 0.  Does that somehow prove that Oswald did it?

Do you really think (sic) none of the evidence laid out in the Warren Report was fabricated by the bad guys?

[John Iacoletti]

The contrarian knows as well as anyone here that Oswald did it.  He is just playing endless OJ defense attorney for some reason that only a psychiatrist could explain.  One of two people in the entire history of this forum that I refuse to discuss the case with. I will engage with the most outlandish loons - the Hickey did it or JFK faked his death with an exploding sock puppet people - but not this contrarian.

Translation from "Richard"-speak:  I'm afraid to engage with anybody who kicks my ass on a regular basis.

[John Iacoletti]

Do you really think (sic) none of the evidence laid out in the Warren Report was fabricated by the bad guys?

Are you going to ever get around to proving that Oswald did it, Socrates?

[Lance Payette]

Are you going to ever get around to proving that Oswald did it, Socrates?

I have rather extensive experience (25+ years) debating philosophical/theological issues with internet atheists. The "discussions" (to use the term loosely) go nowhere and quickly become tiresome. Your tactics are quite similar to those in the Internet Atheist Playbook. No, we cannot "prove" Oswald alone killed JFK or God exists as a matter of metaphysical ontology. I do not even insist Oswald would have been found guilty in a court of law; OJ wasn't, even though I would'ce cheerfully flipped the switch on the electric chair. We can only assess what seems to us the best evidence and most reasonable inferences in their totality and reach some level of conviction. On that basis, I have a strong conviction that Oswald was and did pretty much exactly what the Lone Nut community believes he was and did. I acknowledge some curious aspects, some anomalies, and at least the possibility that something qualiftying as a conspiracy might have occurred; none of that is sufficient - or at least has been sufficient so far - to alter my core conviction. I have no predisposition toward or emotional attachment to any JFKA theory - why would I? I once actually thought David Lifton made sense and would be fascinated if an elaborate conspiracy theory were actually true. My best assessment of the evidence and inferences is that no conspiracy occurred. Why this would bother you, I have no idea.

[Charles Collins]

I have rather extensive experience (25+ years) debating philosophical/theological issues with internet atheists. The "discussions" (to use the term loosely) go nowhere and quickly become tiresome. Your tactics are quite similar to those in the Internet Atheist Playbook. No, we cannot "prove" Oswald alone killed JFK or God exists as a matter of metaphysical ontology. I do not even insist Oswald would have been found guilty in a court of law; OJ wasn't, even though I would'ce cheerfully flipped the switch on the electric chair. We can only assess what seems to us the best evidence and most reasonable inferences in their totality and reach some level of conviction. On that basis, I have a strong conviction that Oswald was and did pretty much exactly what the Lone Nut community believes he was and did. I acknowledge some curious aspects, some anomalies, and at least the possibility that something qualiftying as a conspiracy might have occurred; none of that is sufficient - or at least has been sufficient so far - to alter my core conviction. I have no predisposition toward or emotional attachment to any JFKA theory - why would I? I once actually thought David Lifton made sense and would be fascinated if an elaborate conspiracy theory were actually true. My best assessment of the evidence and inferences is that no conspiracy occurred. Why this would bother you, I have no idea.

Pure gold Lance, thanks. I can only add that proof is subjective. In other words what constitutes proof for one person may not be enough for someone else.

[John Iacoletti]

I have rather extensive experience (25+ years) debating philosophical/theological issues with internet atheists. The "discussions" (to use the term loosely) go nowhere and quickly become tiresome. Your tactics are quite similar to those in the Internet Atheist Playbook.

That's actually a great analogy, because the tactics of the faithful are quite similar in both cases.  They use all the same logical fallacies.

No, we cannot "prove" Oswald alone killed JFK or God exists as a matter of metaphysical ontology.

You can't even prove Oswald had anything to do with it.  Just like you can't prove that a "god" directed evolution.  The "Look at the trees" argument is similarly ridiculous to the "where are the curtain rods" argument.

I do not even insist Oswald would have been found guilty in a court of law; OJ wasn't, even though I would'ce cheerfully flipped the switch on the electric chair. We can only assess what seems to us the best evidence and most reasonable inferences in their totality and reach some level of conviction.

The problem is that everybody thinks his own "inferences" are reasonable.  It's not at all objective. 

On that basis, I have a strong conviction that Oswald was and did pretty much exactly what the Lone Nut community believes he was and did.

That's fine, and you're entitled to your opinion in both cases, but it shouldn't surprise you that non-believers are not convinced by "read the bible" or "read the Warren Commission Report".

My best assessment of the evidence and inferences is that no conspiracy occurred. Why this would bother you, I have no idea.

Why would you think that bothers me?  People who believe that faith is a good way to determine what is actually true don't bother me, I just think that it's not.