Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The (literally) loaded answer was the rifle found to be sporting the Oswald print on the barrel portion under the stock, along with shirt fiber found on the butt plate that couldn't be dismissed as being from Oswald's shirt.

Suggesting the evidence is suspect but never having to own up to the implications
>>> It's the conspiracy-monger technique known as JAQing:
 
Just Asking Questions
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.

The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers) and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).

It should be noted that accusing one's opponent of "just asking questions" is a common derailment tactic and a way of poisoning the well. Asking questions in and of itself is not invalid.

The subjective nature of this charge, and its consequent ripeness for abuse, means that deploying it can be a very inflammatory move. One side may put forward the accusation that the other side is cynically "just asking questions" and believe that they are acting in good faith, and the other side may equally strongly believe that they were asking genuine questions in good faith and the first person is the one acting in bad faith.

The (literally) loaded answer was the rifle found to be sporting the Oswald print on the barrel portion under the stock,

Are you really so dumb that you believe that an adult man could deposit an identifiable palm print on a cylindrical tube that is the same diameter as a AA pen light battery?

along with shirt fiber found on the butt plate that couldn't be dismissed as being from Oswald's shirt.

Excellent point to demonstrate that Lee was framed....  The FBI claimed that the tuft of fibers matched the shirt that Lee was wearing when he was dragged from the theater.... BIG PROBLEM!!....  Lee went to his room and changed his clothes after he left the TSBD and before he went to the theater.
2
Don’t you mean a gorilla getting to a basketball?

Probably no reason to think so.

Ruby getting to Oswald (unnoticed) is the gorilla thing. The observers in the basement only had eyes for basketball-headed Oswald

Proportionality bias is the Oswald v JFK thing.
Little Shot v Big Shot.

There, fixed it for you..
3
I think you mean the partial palm print that turned up a week later on an index card, and fibres that may or may not have come from Oswald’s shirt.

You think a lot of things, don't you John.. such as how my 'that [fiber] couldn't be dismissed as being from Oswald's shirt' remark somehow differs from your 'fibers that may or may not have come from Oswald's shirt'

A goodly number of these 'couldn't-be-dismissed/may-or-may nots' exist and worthy of consideration whether detractors like it or not.

In regards the partial, I have no information as to when the investigators decided to check for prints on the rifle in it's broken-down state.

4
Even worse; it's only an assumption that Oswald wore the same shirt he was arrested in at the TSBD that morning.
Tim Snickerson says it was. I guess he was there ::) His was the first reply to the thread on the shirt here...
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,771.msg16387.html#msg16387
I believe all the links I found are still working. Have a glance.
Regarding conspiracy theories---The US Democrats still believe [even after the Mueller report] that the Donald Trump campaign conspired with Russia to defeat Hilly.
5
General Discussion & Debate / Prayer Woman
« Last post by Brian Doyle on March 25, 2019, 10:22:50 PM »
Kampf page 83:

Kampf says the first notice of the lunch room encounter is an AP wire on Saturday at 1:50pm...This isn't at all true...The first notice would be Biffle overhearing it in the lobby shortly after it happened...If Marvin Johnson is telling the truth he was the next to hear it in the Police Station around 4...Truly told his wife about it at home that night too...

Saturday was the next day when Friday's reporting had been collected...

Jolliffee (who is probably a Prayer Man website troll) forgets to mention that Bonnie Ray Williams saw Baker's white helmet emerge above the boxes on the 5th floor in perfect timing to the 2nd floor lunch room encounter...
6
At least admit that this is pure conjecture.
 

I did use the word 'alleged', Mr Freeman!

If Mr Oswald denied having told Mr Frazier he brought curtain rods to work in a long bag, then it is not difficult to understand why he might have done so.

Of course, it is very possible that Mr Oswald confirmed to Captain Fritz about the curtain rods only to have his confirmation suppressed (just as his claim to have gone outside to watch the Presidential parade was suppressed).

We must proceed from the hard evidence (what the Crime Scene Search Section form tells us) to the soft evidence (what Mr Oswald may have said in custody). Hard evidence is king!
7
Please describe the methodology by which you’re “matching” colors from a color film to shades in a black and white film.

Please explain how “crying woman” in Darnell looking like Holt tells you who is standing where in Zapruder.

Please tell me how you know that Darnell’s clip of his 3 women was captured at the same time and place as the small, blurry sequence captured by Towner.

Dear John,

Already have, but with you it's "In one ear and out the other," with a healthy dose of "You can lead a horse to water ..." thrown in.

You will never "get it," John, but open-minded, non-contrarian, non-anal students will.

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
8
General Discussion & Debate / Prayer Woman
« Last post by Brian Doyle on March 25, 2019, 10:09:17 PM »
Crampf page 82:  " Oswald himself never said he was in the second-floor lunchroom during or after the shooting. "


Fritz Warren Commission testimony:   " I'm fairly certain Oswald told me he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots "...

Keep in mind Kampf has seen my interview with Sarah Stanton's relatives and knows Oswald was witnessed with a Coke prior to any time he would allegedly be in the 1st floor Domino Room...He deals with this by dishonestly ignoring it and pretending it doesn't exist...And the banning gentry that are asking the public to take them seriously on the other forum help him and don't say a word...
9
As for Mr Oswald's alleged denial of the curtain rods, I have already answered that point multiple times in this thread:
 he realised how the curtain rods had been used to frame him, so he made a calculated decision to deny having brought any long bag to work that morning.
At least admit that this is pure conjecture.
 
10
General Discussion & Debate / Prayer Woman
« Last post by Brian Doyle on March 25, 2019, 09:51:28 PM »

On page 76 Crampf posts that the small classic vestibule built on to the 2nd floor lunch room entrance to dampen the sound of the stairs  " was not a vestibule between the landing and the lunchroom ", even though all evaluations of the structure show it was exactly that...

On page 77, after spending the previous 76 pages claiming the lunch room encounter never happened, Kamp then does a complete reverse  saying " So where was Oswald coming from? If the door was closed and Baker saw a glimpse, then Oswald must have come from the first floor! ", while moronically failing to realize that if Crampf himself is saying Baker saw Oswald enter the lunch room from the hallway side then Oswald had to have been in the lunch room and the 2nd floor lunch room encounter must have happened...

Again, no problem with the level of scholarship on this from the other forum's banning and mocking gentry...

Correctly mention it and you will get banned...

 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10