JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Applying Logic and Critical Thinking to the JFK Assassination
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on June 13, 2026, 06:27:00 PM ---I thought this thread was supposed to be about applying logic and critical thinking? It appears that a more apt title would have been Rehashing the Same Old Crap.
--- End quote ---
It's a 62 year old murder case. If we didn't rehash old crap, what else would there be to talk about?
--- Quote ---
Given the circumstances of the JFKA, a logical supposition would be that Oswald did not expect to survive (and perhaps didn't care if he did).
--- End quote ---
That's something I beleive but not something I know. Nobody knows what Oswald was thinking.
--- Quote ---
He was clearly thinking in this vein with the Walker attempt, which was vastly less risky. If this were true, his failure to leave some sort of manifesto or at least a note is puzzling to me as I have previously stated.
--- End quote ---
Why do people think that there was a rule book Oswald was supposed to follow. He had his reasons for doing what he did and didn't do. He was under no obligation to tell anybody what those reasons were.
--- Quote ---
Extremely puzzling, in fact. Once he survived and was in custody, bragging about his deed would not have been in his legal or ideological interests.
--- End quote ---
I see no point in wondering why Oswald didn't do what I think I would have done if I was in his shoes.
--- Quote ---
It appears to me that the wheels started turning immediately, which is why he wanted Communist Party showman Abt to represent him. My guess is that he was thinking in terms of a grand show trial that would cement his place in history as a hero of the Cuban people and a deep Marxist thinker.
--- End quote ---
You are certainly entitled to guess. Your guess might even be right. In fact, I hope it is. I hope he was looking forward to his trial. It means Oswald got robbed of the infamy he thought he would gain. At least, he didn't get to live to enjoy it, thanks to Jack Ruby. I wonder if Oswald's last conscious thought was, "Life is so damn unfair". I chuckle just thinking about it.
Tommy Shanks:
Oh boy more lectures about logic from Michael T Griffith, who believes all the evidence is fake. Absurd!
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Mark Ulrik on June 13, 2026, 12:24:36 PM ---[/font]
Quote from: Kevin Balch on Yesterday at 04:19:07 AM
Didn’t the bullet fired at Walker hit part of the window frame?
Yes, and it nicked the window pane in the process.
--- End quote ---
This is a good example of confirmation bias and faulty assumptions.
Apparently, it has not occurred to WC apologists that the fact that the bullet hit the window frame actually logically suggests that the gunman was not trying to hit Walker and that this was a staged shooting attempt, the scenario that Greg Doudna has developed with massive, ground-breaking research.
Even our supposed "Marine sharpshooter" would not have fired with the window frame anywhere near his point of aim, whether he was using the iron sights or the scope. He would have simply moved a foot or two to his right or left so that he had a clear shot at Walker, a shot in which the window frame was far from his point of aim.
The gunman was no more than 127 feet from Walker when he fired. That's barely 40 yards. That was a very, very easy shot, even with the iron sights, especially since Walker was sitting at his desk, and since the gunman had plenty of time to take aim.
Add to this the fact that Walker himself insisted that CE 573 was not the bullet that was recovered from his wall. He said he was certain of this. Mind you, Walker was a general and a combat veteran. He knew bullets.
I encourage interested readers to read Greg Doudna's ground-breaking research on the Walker shooting. You can find it here: https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1815.
Lance Payette:
A bullet that nicks a window frame "logically" suggests the gunman was trying to miss and the attempt was staged? There would be 100 ways to miss, but the gunman zeroed in on the edge of a window frame? This is Conspiracy Logic 101, a/k/a Alice In Wonderland logic, a/k/a Anti-Logic.
I waded through Gerg Doudna's Walker scenario just as I waded through his Tippit scenario. It is a clever but completely preposterous effort by someone almost pathethically desperate to make a mark in JFKA research. I believe it might have been Kevin Balch who characterized his Tippit effort as an "off-Broadway production" - i.e., an entire cast of not very talented actors with a not very believable script.
Mark Ulrik:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on June 14, 2026, 01:41:08 AM ---
--- Quote from: Mark Ulrik ---
--- Quote from: Kevin Balch ---Didn’t the bullet fired at Walker hit part of the window frame?
--- End quote ---
Yes, and it nicked the window pane in the process.
--- End quote ---
This is a good example of confirmation bias and faulty assumptions.
Apparently, it has not occurred to WC apologists that the fact that the bullet hit the window frame [...]
--- End quote ---
OK, Mr. Iron Logic. What part of "the bullet hit the window frame/pane" is fact, and what part is confirmation bias and faulty assumptions?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version