Touring the Tippit Scene

[Martin Weidmann]

So, you assumed that Oswald knew the Texas Theater because


Not no, but hell no. I did not assume that LHO knew the TT. I said that it was likely.

Just how dumb are you? When you have no evidence for what you are saying, you are assuming something. In this case that it was "likely"

None of the "reasons" you have provided make it even remotely likely (possible, yes) that Oswald knew the Texas Theater.

It is freaking possible that I knew the TT in 1963. But it is much less likely because I didn't live in the neighborhood. Even though I didn't live there, but it is possible that I could have been there.

I lived near a movie theater for many years. In your "logic" that makes it likely I would know the place, when I fact I never went in there and didn't know it at all. You are, once again, arguing for argument's sake.

So, I was correct when I said;

You can't even prove he had ever been at the Texas Theater before.


No where did I say that I could prove he had been there before. I said that it was likely.

Which was and still is an assumption not based on any fact.

That you don't understand what I was telling you, is not my problem.

I believe that is you who is confused. There is a difference in something being likely and it being fact. If I beleived it for a fact, that could be proven, I would have said so.

When you wake up one morning and the streets are wet, you assume it rained, so you say it's likely it rained. But since you don't know for sure you just as easily could be wrong because a fire hydrant could have overflown as well. You calling something "likely" is nothing more than an assumption.

If you don't know something for a fact, you can not make a determination that something is likely.

Good grief dude, what kind of crap is that?

It's the kind of stuff you don't seem to understand. I'm sorry I can't dumb it down and get down to your level anymore. You're on your own. I'm beginning to understand why you are a die hard LN though....

[Charles Collins]

Just how dumb are you? When you have no evidence for what you are saying, you are assuming something. In this case that it was "likely"

I lived near a movie theater for many years. In your "logic" that makes it likely I would know the place, when I fact I never went in there and didn't know it at all. You are, once again, arguing for argument's sake.

Which was and still is an assumption not based on any fact.

When you wake up one morning and the streets are wet, you assume it rained, so you say it's likely it rained. But since you don't know for sure you just as easily could be wrong because a fire hydrant could have overflown as well. You calling something "likely" is nothing more than an assumption.

It's the kind of stuff you don't seem to understand. I'm sorry I can't dumb it down and get down to your level anymore. You're on your own. I'm beginning to understand why you are a die hard LN though....

When you have no evidence for what you are saying, you are assuming something. In this case that it was "likely"


I said before in another thread that you two have a problem understanding the term "rational assumption." The rational part is the evidence that LHO lived in that neighborhood, that he liked watching movies, and that theaters offered a retreat from the summer heat. These are all perfectly good reasons to believe that it is likely that LHO had visited the TT.


I lived near a movie theater for many years. In your "logic" that makes it likely I would know the place, when I fact I never went in there and didn't know it at all.

The word likely does not mean that it is positively true; just that the chances are good. Chances are good that most of the people who lived near a theater, liked watching movies, and would enjoy a little relief from the summer heat would have visited the theater. You might be an exception, and might not be the only one.

You are, once again, arguing for argument's sake.

You are the one who started this ridiculous argument.


Which was and still is an assumption not based on any fact.

Blatantly false, see the above statement regarding rational assumption.


When you wake up one morning and the streets are wet, you assume it rained, so you say it's likely it rained. But since you don't know for sure you just as easily could be wrong because a fire hydrant could have overflown as well. You calling something "likely" is nothing more than an assumption.

It is more likely that the reason the streets are wet because of rain than it is because of a fire hydrant overflowing simply because it rains much more often than fire hydrants overflow. When I say something is likely, it implies that I could be wrong about whatever it is that I believe is likely. But the chances that I am wrong are low compared to the chances that I am correct; that is what likely means.

[Martin Weidmann]

When you have no evidence for what you are saying, you are assuming something. In this case that it was "likely"

I said before in another thread that you two have a problem understanding the term "rational assumption." The rational part is the evidence that LHO lived in that neighborhood, that he liked watching movies, and that theaters offered a retreat from the summer heat. These are all perfectly good reasons to believe that it is likely that LHO had visited the TT.

There is no such thing as a rational assumption. The assumption is only rational to you because you want it to be. Anybody who makes an assumption always thinks it's rational. Only a fool makes an irrational assumption, right?

I lived near a movie theater for many years. In your "logic" that makes it likely I would know the place, when I fact I never went in there and didn't know it at all.

The word likely does not mean that it is positively true; just that the chances are good. Chances are good that most of the people who lived near a theater, liked watching movies, and would enjoy a little relief from the summer heat would have visited the theater. You might be an exception, and might not be the only one.

Who says that the "changes are good"? You do, because you are convinced that you are right and too stubborn to admit that you're not.

You are, once again, arguing for argument's sake.

You are the one who started this ridiculous argument.

I'm glad you consider it a riduculous argument because it was indeed ridiculous for you to call something likely that wasn't.

Which was and still is an assumption not based on any fact.

Blatantly false, see the above statement regarding rational assumption.

Pathetic. See my reply, also above, to that stupid comment

When you wake up one morning and the streets are wet, you assume it rained, so you say it's likely it rained. But since you don't know for sure you just as easily could be wrong because a fire hydrant could have overflown as well. You calling something "likely" is nothing more than an assumption.

It is more likely that the reason the streets are wet because of rain than it is because of a fire hydrant overflowing simply because it rains much more often than fire hydrants overflow. When I say something is likely, it implies that I could be wrong about whatever it is that I believe is likely. But the chances that I am wrong are low compared to the chances that I am correct; that is what likely means.

It is more likely that the reason the streets are wet because of rain than it is because of a fire hydrant overflowing simply because it rains much more often than fire hydrants overflow.

It makes no difference. The chances of it raining that particular night are just as big as that a fire hydrant overflows. To make the point; my house hasn't burned to the ground in the past 40 years, but that still doesn't make it more likely that it won't burn down tomorrow.

When I say something is likely, it implies that I could be wrong about whatever it is that I believe is likely. But the chances that I am wrong are low compared to the chances that I am correct; that is what likely means.

What kind of word salad is this? "likely" implies that you could be wrong, but because the chances of you being wrong are low (says who?), "likely" somehow means you are correct nevertheless....

Eadem ratione consumit

Do you ever think before you write?
 

[Charles Collins]

There is no such thing as a rational assumption. The assumption is only rational to you because you want it to be. Anybody who makes an assumption always thinks it's rational. Only a fool makes an irrational assumption, right?

Who says that the "changes are good"? You do, because you are convinced that you are right and too stubborn to admit that you're not.

I'm glad you consider it a riduculous argument because it was indeed ridiculous for you to call something likely that wasn't.

Pathetic. See my reply, also above, to that stupid comment

It is more likely that the reason the streets are wet because of rain than it is because of a fire hydrant overflowing simply because it rains much more often than fire hydrants overflow.

It makes no difference. The chances of it raining that particular night are just as big as that a fire hydrant overflowes. To make the point; my house hasn't burned to the ground in the past 40 years, but that still doesn't make it more likely that it won't burn down tomorrow.

When I say something is likely, it implies that I could be wrong about whatever it is that I believe is likely. But the chances that I am wrong are low compared to the chances that I am correct; that is what likely means.

What kind of word salad is this? "likely" implies that you could be wrong, but because the chances of you being wrong are low (says who?), "likely" somehow means you are correct nevertheless....

Eadem ratione consumit

Do you ever think before you write?

There is no such thing as a rational assumption. The assumption is only rational to you because you want it to be. Anybody who makes an assumption always thinks it's rational. Only a fool makes an irrational assumption, right?


No, that's not right. A rational assumption is reasoned. You can argue against the reasons. But to dismiss something because you believe that "there is no such thing as a rational assumption" is ridiculous.


Who says that the "changes are good"? You do, because you are convinced that you are right and too stubborn to admit that you're not.

I stated the reasons that I believe the chances are good. Argue the reasons if you wish.


I'm glad you consider it a riduculous argument because it was indeed ridiculous for you to call something likely that wasn't.


You just made the claim that it wasn't likely. Tell all of us exactly why you believe that it wasn't likely. Then we can try to have a reasonable discussion.


It makes no difference. The chances of it raining that particular night are just as big as that a fire hydrant overflowes. To make the point; my house hasn't burned to the ground in the past 40 years, but that still doesn't make it more likely that it won't burn down tomorrow.


If you lived where there was a fire hydrant that was in a position to wet the street in front of your house, the chances of it being the cause are greater than they would be if the fire hydrant was too far away to be the cause.


What kind of word salad is this? "likely" implies that you could be wrong, but because the chances of you being wrong are low (says who?), "likely" somehow means you are correct nevertheless....

No, it means it is probable that I am correct, not definitely correct.

[Martin Weidmann]

There is no such thing as a rational assumption. The assumption is only rational to you because you want it to be. Anybody who makes an assumption always thinks it's rational. Only a fool makes an irrational assumption, right?

No, that's not right. A rational assumption is reasoned. You can argue against the reasons. But to dismiss something because you believe that "there is no such thing as a rational assumption" is ridiculous.

And yet you dismiss in an instant the timeline for the Tippit killing I am in the process of constructing, based on actual witness testimony and reasoning, which, according to you is a "rational assumption". Go figure...

Who says that the "changes are good"? You do, because you are convinced that you are right and too stubborn to admit that you're not.

I stated the reasons that I believe the chances are good. Argue the reasons if you wish.

Your reasons are flawed. It has already been explained to you. I'm not doing it again.

I'm glad you consider it a riduculous argument because it was indeed ridiculous for you to call something likely that wasn't.

You just made the claim that it wasn't likely. Tell all of us exactly why you believe that it wasn't likely. Then we can try to have a reasonable discussion.

Because nothing is ever likely or unlikely. It is, at best, highly speculative and it all depends on the person who is making the assumption. When you make an assumption, it is by definition that it is likely or unlikely, depending on which side of the speculation you are on. Ergo, when you claim it's likely the counter argument automatically becomes that it is unlikely.

And there is no point in trying to have a reasonable discussion with you as you have already demonstrated time after time that the last thing you are willing to be is reasonable. I'm only talking to you right now because at the moment I have very little else to do.

It makes no difference. The chances of it raining that particular night are just as big as that a fire hydrant overflowes. To make the point; my house hasn't burned to the ground in the past 40 years, but that still doesn't make it more likely that it won't burn down tomorrow.

If you lived where there was a fire hydrant that was in a position to wet the street in front of your house, the chances of it being the cause are greater than they would be if the fire hydrant was too far away to be the cause.

I just said that you have demonstrated that you are not willing to have a reasonable discussion and here you are proving the point again. When you understand that you've lost the original argument, you just move the goalpost in a pathetic attempt to still be right. Nobody said anything about the position of the fire hydrant.

What kind of word salad is this? "likely" implies that you could be wrong, but because the chances of you being wrong are low (says who?), "likely" somehow means you are correct nevertheless....

No, it means it is probable that I am correct, not definitely correct.

Thanks for confirming the point I have been making all alone.

Here's something to consider; how do you prove a fool is a fool? Tell him he is intelligent and wait for him to argue against it.

[Charles Collins]

And yet you dismiss in an instant the timeline for the Tippit killing I am in the process of constructing, based on actual witness testimony and reasoning, which, according to you is a "rational assumption". Go figure...

Your reasons are flawed. It has already been explained to you. I'm not doing it again.

Because nothing is ever likely or unlikely. It is, at best, highly speculative and it all depends on the person who is making the assumption. When you make an assumption, it is by definition that it is likely or unlikely, depending on which side of the speculation you are on. Ergo, when you claim it's likely the counter argument automatically becomes that it is unlikely.

And there is no point in trying to have a reasonable discussion with you as you have already demonstrated time after time that the last thing you are willing to be is reasonable. I'm only talking to you right now because at the moment I have very little else to do.

I just said that you have demonstrated that you are not willing to have a reasonable discussion and here you are proving the point again. When you understand that you've lost the original argument, you just move the goalpost in a pathetic attempt to still be right. Nobody said anything about the position of the fire hydrant.

Thanks for confirming the point I have been making all alone.

Here's something to consider; how do you prove a fool is a fool? Tell him he is intelligent and wait for him to argue against it.

Your reasons are flawed. It has already been explained to you. I'm not doing it again.


All you have explained is that you are confused about the difference between something being likely and something being fact.


Because nothing is ever likely or unlikely. It is, at best, highly speculative and it all depends on the person who is making the assumption. When you make an assumption, it is by definition that it is likely or unlikely, depending on which side of the speculation you are on. Ergo, when you claim it's likely the counter argument automatically becomes that it is unlikely.

Trying to make sense of this:

First you clearly state: nothing is ever likely or unlikely. Then you clearly state that an assumption is by definition likely or unlikely. 


Thanks for confirming the point I have been making all alone.


Been arguing with yourself again?   

[John Iacoletti]

Neither of you two are using the word arbitrary correctly; even thought we have been through its definition.

Charles, you continually make “because I said so” arguments. You are no more the authority on the correct usage of the word “arbitrary” as you are the authority on what hypothetical scenario is more “likely” than another hypothetical scenario.

To demonstrate likelihood, you need to have some basis by which to assess it. Is Oswald more likely to have visited the Texas Theater than a theater in Fargo, North Dakota? Yes, because of proximity. Is he more likely to have visited the Texas Theater than not to have visited the Texas Theater? No. You don’t have any evidence either way. “Likely” at the very least means greater than 50%. Is a fair coin flip likely to come up heads? No. Even if you try to “rationally” show that coins can possibly land on heads.

If you believe that my reasons for believing the likelihood of LHO being familiar with the Texas Theater are wrong, then argue them.

Because hypothetical arguments don’t make something more likely than its negation.

[John Iacoletti]

By way of example, I could use the same flawed logic to argue that Oswald was unlikely to have ever visited the Texas Theater before.

Reason 1: He was a cheapskate
Reason 2: He had no car. Getting to a theater would necessitate a walk outside in the summer heat.
Reason 3: He could stay home and watch movies on TV instead in the air conditioning and for free.
Reason 4: During the heat of the day he was either at work or at the Paine house anyway.

Making a hypothetical reasoned argument doesn’t make that conclusion any more likely to be correct.