Author Topic: A Challenge for Rob Caprio and Martin Weidmann  (Read 34026 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Rob Caprio

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22489
Re: A Challenge for Rob Caprio and Martin Weidmann
« Reply #91 on: April 21, 2017, 02:54:05 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You have repeated some variation of this post several thousand times.  Could you clarify exactly what you consider to be "evidence"?  I don't quite follow why thousands of pages of testimony and hundreds of exhibits are dismissed out of hand as not being evidence, but perhaps you can explain.  The best I can discern is that you consider any evidence of Oswald's guilt to be suspect because it is evidence of Oswald's guilt.  A sort of vicious Catch-22 circle of lunacy. 

Read my series for hundreds of examples. The best proof that the evidence doesn't support the claims of the WCR is that you, and the other WC defenders, avoid it like the plague.

Online Dillon Rankine

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 759
Re: A Challenge for Rob Caprio and Martin Weidmann
« Reply #92 on: April 21, 2017, 04:12:31 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Denying what the evidence really shows = WC defender. You are trying to be more clever about it, but that is what you are doing. Your beloved scientific and mathematical models have to use the very evidence that you are denying.

There is no supporting evidence for the claims made by the WC.

I'm not denying evidence. I accept the data as authentic and subject to scientific scrutiny.   

Scientific scrutiny of certain evidence will reveal whether or not it's authentic, and a correlation analysis can be done to see which interpretation of the evidence best conforms to its own predictions.

My "beloved" methods are the only way to do this sort of work, so take some time to educate yourself. Rejecting these methods is synonymous with rejecting to study it.

The scientific models will only produce suggestive results if the data in question is accurate. Such analysis are thus very sensitive when meta-analysed with the rest of the evidence to detecting whether a datum is fabricated. Proper analysis reveals this as unlikely to be the case.

And I always though WC stood for Warren Commission, and thus WC Defender is a defender of its lone assassin theory. Grouping everybody who disagrees with you under this one label is counterproductive to ample communication. That's another scientific concept you should learn: operationalisation (forming practical definitions).

Offline Ron Smith

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2684
Re: A Challenge for Rob Caprio and Martin Weidmann
« Reply #93 on: April 22, 2017, 05:02:41 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You have repeated some variation of this post several thousand times.  Could you clarify exactly what you consider to be "evidence"?  I don't quite follow why thousands of pages of testimony and hundreds of exhibits are dismissed out of hand as not being evidence, but perhaps you can explain.  The best I can discern is that you consider any evidence of Oswald's guilt to be suspect because it is evidence of Oswald's guilt.  A sort of vicious Catch-22 circle of lunacy. 
You remember Caprio evidence Richard. Back in the day he was convinced you and I were the same person. Caprio logic deems having the single most common Anglo surname is evidence Richard and Ron are the same person. It just has to be true!!  :57:

Offline Ron Smith

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2684
Re: A Challenge for Rob Caprio and Martin Weidmann
« Reply #94 on: April 22, 2017, 05:06:25 AM »
Oh and BTW, Bill would mop the floor against Rob and Martin with Steve Logan tied behind his back.

Online Rob Caprio

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22489
Re: A Challenge for Rob Caprio and Martin Weidmann
« Reply #95 on: April 22, 2017, 05:53:29 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not denying evidence. I accept the data as authentic and subject to scientific scrutiny.   

Scientific scrutiny of certain evidence will reveal whether or not it's authentic, and a correlation analysis can be done to see which interpretation of the evidence best conforms to its own predictions.

My "beloved" methods are the only way to do this sort of work, so take some time to educate yourself. Rejecting these methods is synonymous with rejecting to study it.

The scientific models will only produce suggestive results if the data in question is accurate. Such analysis are thus very sensitive when meta-analysed with the rest of the evidence to detecting whether a datum is fabricated. Proper analysis reveals this as unlikely to be the case.

And I always though WC stood for Warren Commission, and thus WC Defender is a defender of its lone assassin theory. Grouping everybody who disagrees with you under this one label is counterproductive to ample communication. That's another scientific concept you should learn: operationalisation (forming practical definitions).

Most of the key evidence has nothing to do with your silly models. The most basic stuff like the alleged rifle order or the alleged bag need no science at all.

Your last argument just confirms that you are a WC defender to me as that is one of their main claims. Sorry, not sorry. The evidence is clear. Anyone who attempts to act like it supports the WC's claims in any way is a WC defender because it simply doesn't.

Online Rob Caprio

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22489
Re: A Challenge for Rob Caprio and Martin Weidmann
« Reply #96 on: April 22, 2017, 05:57:59 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You remember Caprio evidence Richard. Back in the day he was convinced you and I were the same person. Caprio logic deems having the single most common Anglo surname is evidence Richard and Ron are the same person. It just has to be true!!  :57:

It was a guess as it seems impossible that there are really this many people either incapable of understanding what the evidence actually shows or are willing to lie about it so completely. Perhaps I was wrong. Maybe there are more reading comprehending handicaps than I thought. Or maybe there are just more liars than I thought.

Maybe you can shed light on this for me. Which is it?
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 05:59:39 AM
by Rob Caprio
»

Offline Bill Brown

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17162
Re: A Challenge for Rob Caprio and Martin Weidmann
« Reply #97 on: April 22, 2017, 06:13:33 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Where is Brown anyway?

Why? Are you ready?