JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on June 30, 2023, 12:12:22 AM
-
Whenever the Kleins microfilm is being mentioned someone says that it's "missing", and besides John Armstrong saying it is, is there any other evidence confirming the microfilm being "missing"?
And I have been told that "Appeal to Authority" is bad! LOL
JohnhM
-
Oh well, JohnhM
How does one provide evidence that something isn't where it is supposed to be?
-
If Armstrong was wrong, I’m sure some LN evangelist would have found the microfilm by now.
-
If Armstrong was wrong,
So you of all people are relying on an "Appeal to Authority" LOL
JohnM
-
So you of all people are relying on an "Appeal to Authority" LOL
No. Whether Armstrong is right or not, you are still unable to authenticate the Waldman exhibits.
But as always, nice try.
-
No. Whether Armstrong is right or not, you are still unable to authenticate the Waldman exhibits.
But as always, nice try.
Well, you've got to give him some credit, because he's desperately trying..... :D :D :D :D :D
-
Whether Armstrong is right or not,.....(irrelevant diversion)
So you don't know if Armstrong is right or not. LOL!
JohnM
-
So you don't know if Armstrong is right or not. LOL!
Correct. And you don’t know if Bugliosi is right or not. LOL!
-
Correct. And you don’t know if Bugliosi is right or not. LOL!
I know Bugs made some mistakes but I believe overall based on the evidence that he constructed a good book.
JohnM
-
I know Bugs made some mistakes but I believe overall based on the evidence that he constructed a good book.
JohnM
And to reach that conclusion, you have of course researched every claim made in his book?
-
And to reach that conclusion,....
Reach what conclusion?
-
Reach what conclusion?
This one
I know Bugs made some mistakes but I believe overall based on the evidence that he constructed a good book.
JohnM
-
This one
What conclusion do you think I reached?
JohnM
-
What conclusion do you think I reached?
JohnM
The one you told us you reached;
I know Bugs made some mistakes but I believe overall based on the evidence that he constructed a good book.
JohnM
You don't remember your own conclusions?
-
The one you told us you reached;
You don't remember your own conclusions?
My initial post is clear and requires no clarification.
If you don't understand what is written then that's not my problem.
"End of line."
JohnM
-
My initial post is clear and requires no clarification.
If you don't understand what is written then that's not my problem.
"End of line."
JohnM
You concluded that "based on the evidence that he [Bugs] constructed a good book.
How did you come to that conclusion?
-
You concluded that "based on the evidence that he [Bugs] constructed a good book.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Beyond what I wrote, I don't understand what you are asking?
JohnM
-
Beyond what I wrote, I don't understand what you are asking?
JohnM
Well, that would fit the average LN profile...
But how did you conclude that Bugs' "constructed a good book."?
-
But how did you conclude that Bugs' "constructed a good book."?
As I said, "based on the evidence"
Either add something new or I'm not responding.
JohnM
-
As I said, "based on the evidence"
Either add something new or I'm not responding.
JohnM
Based on what evidence? And how did you determine that evidence to be authentic?
-
I know Bugs made some mistakes but I believe overall based on the evidence that he constructed a good book.
Of course you do.
-
And how did you determine that evidence to be authentic?
Sorry Martin that's not how it works, if I have any reason to consider the evidence to be inauthentic, then please explain in detail why?
JohnM
-
Sorry Martin that's not how it works, if I have any reason to consider the evidence to be inauthentic, then please explain in detail why?
JohnM
Sorry Martin that's not how it works,
That's exactly how it works. You claim to have concluded, based on the evidence, that Bug's book is a "good book"
That justifies the question what evidence it is you are talking about.
-
Sorry Martin that's not how it works,
That's exactly how it works. You claim to have concluded, based on the evidence, that Bug's book is a "good book"
That justifies the question what evidence it is you are talking about.
The same evidence that two separate inquiries 15 years apart concluded that Oswald pulled the trigger, now explain why it's your opinion that this evidence is not authentic?
JohnM
-
The same evidence that two separate inquiries 15 years apart concluded that Oswald pulled the trigger, now explain why it's your opinion that this evidence is not authentic?
JohnM
So, you don't actually know yourself, Your opinion is just based on a double appeal to authority. Wow!
now explain why it's your opinion that this evidence is not authentic?
Because Swiss cheese has less holes in it.
-
It is the responsibility of the person invoking something as evidence to authenticate it. If he cannot do so, then there is reasonable doubt.
-
It is the responsibility of the person invoking something as evidence to authenticate it. If he cannot do so, then there is reasonable doubt.
You can't say something like that to a LN, John. They don't have a clue what you are talking about.
-
So, you don't actually know yourself, Your opinion is just based on a double appeal to authority. Wow!
now explain why it's your opinion that this evidence is not authentic?
Because Swiss cheese has less holes in it.
"double appeal to authority" LOL
Because Swiss cheese has less holes in it.
I didn't ask for an inappropriate analogy?
JohnM
-
"double appeal to authority" LOL
I didn't ask for an inappropriate analogy?
JohnM
I didn't ask for an inappropriate analogy?
Why do I care what you asked for?
-
I didn't ask for an inappropriate analogy?
Why do I care what you asked for?
Then why answer me in the first place?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FHAQ2ZpUYAIc7S9.jpg)
JohnM
-
Then why answer me in the first place?
JohnM
How else would you know that I don't care what you ask me?
-
So far there is only 1 conspiracy theorist who claims that the microfilm is "missing", is that right?
JohnM
-
So far there is only 1 conspiracy theorist who claims that the microfilm is "missing", is that right?
JohnM
Jumping to conclusions again?
How would anybody know how many conspiracy theorist claim that? Did you ask them all?
One thing is for sure by now; the Klein's microfilm isn't available for viewing!
-
One thing is for sure by now; the Klein's microfilm isn't available for viewing!
Based on what, did you draw that conclusion?
JohnM
-
Based on what, did you draw that conclusion?
JohnM
Who said that it was a conclusion?
-
Who said that it was a conclusion?
So, you're not so sure now.
JohnM
-
So, you're not so sure now.
JohnM
Sure about what?
-
Sure about what?
One thing is for sure by now; the Klein's microfilm isn't available for viewing!
Please explain?
JohnM
-
Please explain?
JohnM
To you? Why?
-
To you? Why?
Ok, I'm fine with your lack of a response.
JohnM
-
Ok, I'm fine with your lack of a response.
JohnM
Maybe one day, I'll tell you
-
Maybe one day, I'll tell you
Maybe one day, you'll tell me what??
JohnM