Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument  (Read 7847 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument
« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2019, 05:53:34 AM »
Advertisement
How large was the conspiracy, John?

How large was the stick you used to beat your wife, Thomas?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument
« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2019, 05:53:34 AM »


Offline Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2693
Re: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument
« Reply #25 on: December 02, 2019, 06:22:12 AM »
How large was the stick you used to beat your wife, Thomas?

That big, huh?

What "turned you on" to the assassination, John?

Oliver "I Like KGB-Boy Vladimir Putin And My Son Works For RT" Stone's JFK?

--  MWT  ;)

« Last Edit: December 02, 2019, 06:23:58 AM by Thomas Graves »

Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4994
Re: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument
« Reply #26 on: December 03, 2019, 02:14:49 PM »
John,

What makes you think it was unscientific?

Because the results weren't what you hoping for?

If the results had been "probably not Oswald," would you have been happy with that?

--  MWT  ;)

PS  "Missing" like the "DNC's server in corrupt, fascistic/communistic Ukraine," or just ... missing?

Remember that when asked why he thought John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln our dishonest contrarian cited - wait for it - Booth's handwritten diary!  LOL.  I guess handwriting analysis is only "unscientific" when it goes against the desired outcome.   The game here is to conjure up fake doubt of any evidence that lends itself towards Oswald's guilt.  And the last desperation move in that game is always to claim the investigators are suspect which means nothing can ever be proven.  False doubt is the inevitable result of the application of an impossible standard of proof.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument
« Reply #26 on: December 03, 2019, 02:14:49 PM »


Offline Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2693
Re: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument
« Reply #27 on: December 03, 2019, 04:25:12 PM »
Quote from: Richard Smith 8link=topic=2322.msg69787#msg69787 date=1575382489
Remember that when asked why he thought John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln our dishonest contrarian cited - wait for it - Booth's handwritten diary!  LOL.  I guess handwriting analysis is only "unscientific" when it goes against the desired outcome.   The game here is to conjure up fake doubt of any evidence that lends itself towards Oswald's guilt.  And the last desperation move in that game is always to claim the investigators are suspect which means nothing can ever be proven.  False doubt is the inevitable result of the application of an impossible standard of proof.

Richard,

Great post.

The way I see it, Iacoletti is wittingly or unwittingly carrying on the KGB-approved and subsidized tradition, established by Mark Lane, of casting unwarranted doubt on most if not all of the evidence.

Vladimir Putin loves John (and his ilk) for all the chaos, confusion and doubt he creates regarding the JFK Assassination, and all of the aspersions he casts on the evil, evil FBI and the evil, evil, evil CIA.

And this from a dude who can't tell women from men in the Towner film!

LOL

--  MWT  ;)
« Last Edit: December 03, 2019, 04:33:14 PM by Thomas Graves »

Offline Michael Walton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 443
Re: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument
« Reply #28 on: December 03, 2019, 04:36:48 PM »
So I guess they got this wrong as well. Even though the mark on the FBI stand-in matches almost exactly with the back wound:



But of course every single time I bring this up, the FBI Fan Boys on here will throw shade on it (as in obfuscate) by babbling about the jacket being bunched up and all other BS.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument
« Reply #28 on: December 03, 2019, 04:36:48 PM »


Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
Re: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument
« Reply #29 on: December 03, 2019, 05:07:52 PM »
So I guess they got this wrong as well. Even though the mark on the FBI stand-in matches almost exactly with the back wound:



But of course every single time I bring this up, the FBI Fan Boys on here will throw shade on it (as in obfuscate) by babbling about the jacket being bunched up and all other BS.

What's supposed to be "wrong" with the re-enactment?

Why are you showing an autopsy photo? Be specific.

Offline Jack Trojan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
Re: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument
« Reply #30 on: December 03, 2019, 08:10:31 PM »
Richard,

Great post.

The way I see it, Iacoletti is wittingly or unwittingly carrying on the KGB-approved and subsidized tradition, established by Mark Lane, of casting unwarranted doubt on most if not all of the evidence.

Vladimir Putin loves John (and his ilk) for all the chaos, confusion and doubt he creates regarding the JFK Assassination, and all of the aspersions he casts on the evil, evil FBI and the evil, evil, evil CIA.

And this from a dude who can't tell women from men in the Towner film!

LOL

--  MWT  ;)

What's with your obsession with the KGB? And do you actually believe that Dulles, Angleton, Hoover and Johnson weren't evil, evil, evil enough to pull off a coup? Surely they were just as evil, evil, evil as the KGB.

Did the KGB also set up Thomas Arthur Vallee in Chicago, like they did for Oswald in Dallas? How did those evil, evil, evil KGB pull that one off? And why would they risk nuclear annihilation to whack JFK when they knew Johnson would not be the dove that JFK proved to be? It makes no sense. You have to get over your pet theory that the KGB trained Oswald then he went rogue and became a LN assassin. Is this so you can work in the KGB element and continue to be a LNer? Why would you want that title in the face of a mountain of evidence suggesting otherwise? It just sounds like more evil, evil, evil KGB disinformation to me.  ;)
« Last Edit: December 03, 2019, 10:26:26 PM by Jack Trojan »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument
« Reply #30 on: December 03, 2019, 08:10:31 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument
« Reply #31 on: December 03, 2019, 11:45:32 PM »
Remember that when asked why he thought John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln our dishonest contrarian cited - wait for it - Booth's handwritten diary!  LOL.  I guess handwriting analysis is only "unscientific" when it goes against the desired outcome.

First of all I didn't say that's why I thought John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln, or even that I thought John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln.  Second of all, there was no handwriting analysis done on Booth's diary.  Double failure on Lying "Richard"'s part.

Your trotting out of the Lincoln case is just one giant false equivalence, designed to evade ever having to justify your faith-based conclusion about Oswald.

Quote
  The game here is to conjure up fake doubt of any evidence that lends itself towards Oswald's guilt.

No, your game is to conjure up fake certainty that evidence lends itself towards Oswald's guilt.  Evidence that you never seem to get around to specifying.