Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Your Theories Won’t Do It  (Read 1460 times)

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4567
Re: Your Theories Won’t Do It
« Reply #20 on: April 09, 2019, 02:00:16 PM »
The "onus" is not on anyone outside a criminal trial context in which the rights of even the guilty are protected.  The fact that CTers want to circle back to this bogus burden of proof claim is just another example of the weakness of their case.  Oswald either pulled the trigger or he did not.  One or the other is a fact and no burden of proof impacts that.  But there literally is a "smoking gun" in this case.  In fact there are two.  Oswald's rifle found at the crime scene along with bullet casings fired from his rifle and the pistol that he had on him when arrested (along with two brands of ammo that match those used at the Tippit scene).  It would be difficult to envision how there could be much more evidence in this case.

“Oswald’s rifle”. LOL

“Pistol that he had on him when arrested”. LOL

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Your Theories Won’t Do It
« Reply #20 on: April 09, 2019, 02:00:16 PM »


Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
Re: Your Theories Won’t Do It
« Reply #21 on: April 09, 2019, 05:39:22 PM »
CT books aren’t evidence, and you can’t explain events in the world without understanding it with science. The facts are as the are:

• CT books neglect honest coverage of Oswald (or “official” stories of him), but instead look only and assign unnecessary weight to fringe, unsupported facts and wacko interpretations of his actions. Without a knowledge of both actual testimony and psychiatry, you probably wouldn’t know that people who were close to LN gave descriptions of his personality that literally match psychopathic attributes — his negative background is consistent with this pattern.

• CT books scarcely even cover the shooting in DP, and do so with little or incomplete knowledge of relevant science. The fact remains that all damage can be explained by three bullets — many possible variations on what each shot did exist, however, 3 shots from the 6th floor are all you need. Shallow back wounds aren’t even physically possible with any bullet (hence why Wecht doesn’t believe in it).

• Relying on fragile witness memories to build your shoddy case is to be arrogantly ignorant of the fact that scientists have made careers out of studying memory — from molecules to social influences — all of whom can testify as to how easy it is to manipulate (it actually evolved to be plastic and malleable).

Who said anything about CT books beside you? The actual evidence in the twenty-six volumes proves that there was a conspiracy. The best CT books use this evidence that you ignore.

Cite your evidence that supports the WC's claims and conclusion.

Offline Dillon Rankine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Your Theories Won’t Do It
« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2019, 06:46:44 PM »
Who said anything about CT books beside you? The actual evidence in the twenty-six volumes proves that there was a conspiracy. The best CT books use this evidence that you ignore.

Cite your evidence that supports the WC's claims and conclusion.

Dude, your only knowledge of the volumes comes from your CT books  :D

My evidence is literally front and centre of those volumes: despite the CT moaning about poorly matching dates on documents etc, there hasn’t been a serious, evidence-based rebuttal to any of the following claims:

• Oswald owned the rifle and pistol
• 6.5 rifle and 3 shells were found on the 6th floor
• Bullet fragments recovered from the limo matched Oswald’s gun
• CE-399 matched Oswald’s gun
• Oswald, by all the accounts that you consistently miss when reading the volumes, was a classic psychopath
• Etc, etc, etc

How about you cite some credible evidence suggesting some of this data isn’t to be trusted? Let’s start with just one: the bullet fragments, how did they get from LHO’s weapon on the sixth floor to the limousine, with human tissue attached them? Or do we agree they came from a bullet striking somebody in that car fired from that window?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Your Theories Won’t Do It
« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2019, 06:46:44 PM »


Offline Dillon Rankine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Your Theories Won’t Do It
« Reply #23 on: April 09, 2019, 07:03:10 PM »
Any explanation will do — as long as you ignore the parts that don’t fit.

You’ll never explain how anything works if you consider the fart of every passing fly as anomalies that need accounted for.

Take a page from any academic field’s textbook and you’ll find that data/evidence on its own is useless: you need some framework/model (or, dare I say: theory) to interpret it, understand it, and make hypotheses to confirm it.

There’s always abnormalities. Dealing with uncertainty is part of the epistemological process. One day we might be able to explain everything, but that’s unlikely.

The lone-shooter model fits. Despite almost 60 years of rambling, it remains standing: all accusations of its key components being false are made from a scientifically illiterate perspective that fails to consider the more complicated elements of this case.
Nothing is as simple as CTs would like it.   

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4567
Re: Your Theories Won’t Do It
« Reply #24 on: April 09, 2019, 07:05:36 PM »
My evidence is literally front and centre of those volumes: despite the CT moaning about poorly matching dates on documents etc, there hasn’t been a serious, evidence-based rebuttal to any of the following claims:

• Oswald owned the rifle and pistol

There is no serious evidence-based argument that Oswald owned the rifle and pistol.

Quote
• 6.5 rifle and 3 shells were found on the 6th floor

Or a Mauser rifle and 2 shells.

Quote
• Bullet fragments recovered from the limo matched Oswald’s gun

Correction:  bullet fragments that were allegedly recovered from the limo by a secret service agent and a Navy corpsman, with no documented chain of evidence which were mutilated were matched to a rifle allegedly belonging to Oswald by Robert Frazier lining up marks in his mind after they didn't line up under the microscope.

Quote
• CE-399 matched Oswald’s gun

So what if CE-399 matches the gun you think is Oswald's?  There's no evidence that CE399 had anything to do with the assassination or even was the bullet that Tomlinson found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital.

Quote
• Oswald, by all the accounts that you consistently miss when reading the volumes, was a classic psychopath

According to whom?

Quote
• Etc, etc, etc

"Etc" must be that "mountain of evidence" we keep hearing about.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2019, 07:11:06 PM by John Iacoletti »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Your Theories Won’t Do It
« Reply #24 on: April 09, 2019, 07:05:36 PM »


Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4567
Re: Your Theories Won’t Do It
« Reply #25 on: April 09, 2019, 07:09:40 PM »
You’ll never explain how anything works if you consider the fart of every passing fly as anomalies that need accounted for.

Appeal to ridicule.  The last refuge of someone with insufficient evidence.

Quote
Take a page from any academic field’s textbook and you’ll find that data/evidence on its own is useless: you need some framework/model (or, dare I say: theory) to interpret it, understand it, and make hypotheses to confirm it.

This is the WC / Brian Doyle / Walt Cakebread methodology.  Make up a story and then try to make the evidence fit the preconceived story, making lame excuses when it doesn't.

Quote
There’s always abnormalities. Dealing with uncertainty is part of the epistemological process. One day we might be able to explain everything, but that’s unlikely.

Ignoring the anomalies and the inconsistencies is known as cherry-picking.  And it's a fallacy.

Offline Dillon Rankine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Your Theories Won’t Do It
« Reply #26 on: April 09, 2019, 07:41:16 PM »
There is no serious evidence-based argument that Oswald owned the rifle and pistol.

The documents presented in evidence are false then?

Quote
Or a Mauser rifle and 2 shells.

The Mauser BS was disputed in the 60s (see Six Seconds). 7.65 gun with 2 6.5 shells? How does that work? Couldn’t be that the 7.65 and 6.5 guns look similar, could it? And I guess photographs of three shells is just smoke and mirrors? 

Quote
Correction:  bullet fragments that were allegedly recovered from the limo by a secret service agent and a Navy corpsman, with no documented chain of evidence which were mutilated were matched to a rifle allegedly belonging to Oswald by Robert Frazier lining up marks in his mind after they didn't line up under the microscope.

Yes, those ones. Forgot to mention they had human tissue on them.

Quote
So what if CE-399 matches the gun you think is Oswald's?  There's no evidence that CE399 had anything to do with the assassination or even was the bullet that Tomlinson found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital.

Bullet found at hospital with shooting victims. Bullet comes from gun found at the scene of this very shooting. You’re right, I see no connection here. What possible connection could those things have? Why would anybody think they were associated? Are you a professor?

Also that stretcher thing is guesswork: nobody knows which one it was, and it doesn’t matter.

Quote
According to whom?

Robert Oswald, the folks who didn’t like Oswald for hitting Marina, and a few others. It should go without saying nobody said he was a psychopath: they described one: shallow affect, pathological lying, manipulative, grandiosity, etc.

Quote
"Etc" must be that "mountain of evidence" we keep hearing about.

Was much too bored to cite anything else (been neglecting the case in favour of my main interests).

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Your Theories Won’t Do It
« Reply #26 on: April 09, 2019, 07:41:16 PM »


Offline Dillon Rankine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Your Theories Won’t Do It
« Reply #27 on: April 09, 2019, 07:56:04 PM »
Appeal to ridicule.  The last refuge of someone with insufficient evidence.

How is that appeal to ridicule? I’m afraid you just committed the fallacy fallacy: asserting that a fallacy was committed when one was not, so as not to address the (broad and abstract) point.

Quote
This is the WC / Brian Doyle / Walt Cakebread methodology.  Make up a story and then try to make the evidence fit the preconceived story, making lame excuses when it doesn't.

No, no it isn’t. If you a theory that says a shot came from the front, you get the hypothesis that there is evidence of a frontal shot.

I’m afraid that’s fallacy no 2 for you: false equivalence. Proposing models to explain data is not that same thing is deciding a priori what data is valid and what isn’t. Models fail in the absence of support. Maybe read some epistemology or science; being a veteran JFKer has negative effects on normal cognitive function. 

Quote
Ignoring the anomalies and the inconsistencies is known as cherry-picking.  And it's a fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy yet again, Johnny! The term ‘errant data’ exists for a reason. Cherry-picking isn’t the same as only using those data which successfully integrate into a coherent model and ignoring all the weirdness that creates confusion and uncertainty. Unexplainable facts exist. As science marches forward, more things may become explainable. For now, let’s use what limited knowledge our species has accrued and try to make sense of things, cool?

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4567
Re: Your Theories Won’t Do It
« Reply #28 on: April 09, 2019, 08:18:43 PM »
How is that appeal to ridicule?

"if you consider the fart of every passing fly as anomalies that need accounted for"

That is most definitely an appeal to ridicule.

Quote
No, no it isn’t. If you a theory that says a shot came from the front, you get the hypothesis that there is evidence of a frontal shot.

This sentence doesn't really parse, but if you're saying that people who propose a frontal shot (like for example Sherry Fiester) have the burden of showing evidence for a frontal shot, then I agree.

Quote
I’m afraid that’s fallacy no 2 for you: false equivalence.

You mean like flies farting?

Quote
Proposing models to explain data is not that same thing is deciding a priori what data is valid and what isn’t.

Propose what you like.  There's no model in the world that will tell you who pulled the trigger.  Proposing a model that all the wounds were created by one bullet because you decide a priori that Oswald had to be a lone shooter is putting the cart before the horse.

Quote
Models fail in the absence of support.

And when you have to move wound locations and fudge people's seating locations to make your a prioi assumption work, then your model is a failure out of the starting gate.

Quote
Cherry-picking isn’t the same as only using those data which successfully integrate into a coherent model and ignoring all the weirdness that creates confusion and uncertainty.

And by "weirdness that creates confusion and uncertainty", you mean data that doesn't fit your model.  This is most certainly cherry-picking.

Quote
Unexplainable facts exist. As science marches forward, more things may become explainable. For now, let’s use what limited knowledge our species has accrued and try to make sense of things, cool?

I have no problem "trying to make sense of things".  What I have a problem with is pretending that "I don't know" really means "I do know, and it's my contrived cherry-picked model that explains everything, and you would see it too if you only ignored the right things".

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Your Theories Won’t Do It
« Reply #28 on: April 09, 2019, 08:18:43 PM »


Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4567
Re: Your Theories Won’t Do It
« Reply #29 on: April 09, 2019, 08:36:08 PM »
The documents presented in evidence are false then?

The documents presented in evidence do not demonstrate ownership.

Quote
The Mauser BS was disputed in the 60s (see Six Seconds).

Three deputies described a Mauser on 11/22.  Nobody described a Carcano.

Quote
7.65 gun with 2 6.5 shells? How does that work?

What do you mean, "how does that work?"  Who says that shells on the floor must have been fired by a weapon found in the same building?

Quote
Couldn’t be that the 7.65 and 6.5 guns look similar, could it?

Here's we go again with "possible therefore true".

Quote
And I guess photographs of three shells is just smoke and mirrors?


According to Tom Alyea, yes it was smoke and mirrors.

Quote
Yes, those ones. Forgot to mention they had human tissue on them.

What do you think this demonstrates, exactly?

Quote
Bullet found at hospital with shooting victims. Bullet comes from gun found at the scene of this very shooting. You’re right, I see no connection here. What possible connection could those things have? Why would anybody think they were associated? Are you a professor?

Do you have any good reason to believe that CE399 was found at Parkland?

Quote
Also that stretcher thing is guesswork: nobody knows which one it was, and it doesn’t matter.

Nobody knows better than the guy who found it.

Quote
Robert Oswald, the folks who didn’t like Oswald for hitting Marina, and a few others.

And all this time I thought Robert Oswald was a salesman, not a clinical psychologist.

Quote
Was much too bored to cite anything else

Of course you are.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2019, 08:39:46 PM by John Iacoletti »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Your Theories Won’t Do It
« Reply #29 on: April 09, 2019, 08:36:08 PM »