Author Topic: 11/22/21  (Read 1421 times)

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4718
Re: 11/22/21
« Reply #40 on: November 24, 2021, 06:30:46 PM »

If he played this weird game with the conspiracists, with those making claims that Oswald was a CIA agent or the rifle was planted or "X" or "Y" (it's a very long list of claims) - if he challenged their evidence and their conclusions - then this game would be acceptable in a strange sort of way. I'm not familiar with people discussing any other event this way; essentially making every piece of evidence for any claim disappear. But challenging everyone on every side equally would be consistent.

But he applies this impossible standard only to the allegation/belief that Oswald, alone, killed JFK. When it comes to that argument we get this absurd standard of proof that must be surmounted. Then when asked okay, how do this evidence come to be?, who created it? where did it come from?, we get the disappearing act.

You meet all sorts of odd people on the internet. This is one of those occasions.

If he played this weird game with the conspiracists, with those making claims that Oswald was a CIA agent or the rifle was planted or "X" or "Y" (it's a very long list of claims) - if he challenged their evidence and their conclusions - then this game would be acceptable in a strange sort of way.

You clearly haven't been paying much attention...

But he applies this impossible standard only to the allegation/belief that Oswald, alone, killed JFK. When it comes to that argument we get this absurd standard of proof that must be surmounted. Then when asked okay, how do this evidence come to be?, who created it? where did it come from?, we get the disappearing act.

I would appreciate it if you stop lying and making up stuff.

Btw what piece of physical evidence do you want to discuss? Just name one and we'll discuss it.... well?
« Last Edit: November 25, 2021, 12:11:28 AM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1007
Re: 11/22/21
« Reply #41 on: November 25, 2021, 07:40:11 PM »
If he played this weird game with the conspiracists, with those making claims that Oswald was a CIA agent or the rifle was planted or "X" or "Y" (it's a very long list of claims) - if he challenged their evidence and their conclusions - then this game would be acceptable in a strange sort of way.

You clearly haven't been paying much attention...

But he applies this impossible standard only to the allegation/belief that Oswald, alone, killed JFK. When it comes to that argument we get this absurd standard of proof that must be surmounted. Then when asked okay, how do this evidence come to be?, who created it? where did it come from?, we get the disappearing act.

I would appreciate it if you stop lying and making up stuff.

Btw what piece of physical evidence do you want to discuss? Just name one and we'll discuss it.... well?
If you believe you challenge the conspiracists claims with anywhere near the effort you engage in when challenging the claim that Oswald shot JFK then I agree: someone is making things up.

Try this one: There's a thread on the latest Oliver Stone movie claiming a conspiracy. Go there and challenge Stone's allegations. Let's see you use the same skepticism about evidence against Oswald against Stone's claims.

Go ahead.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2021, 07:57:04 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4718
Re: 11/22/21
« Reply #42 on: November 25, 2021, 08:33:25 PM »
If you believe you challenge the conspiracists claims with anywhere near the effort you engage in when challenging the claim that Oswald shot JFK then I agree: someone is making things up.

Try this one: There's a thread on the latest Oliver Stone movie claiming a conspiracy. Go there and challenge Stone's allegations. Let's see you use the same skepticism about evidence against Oswald against Stone's claims.

Go ahead.

If you believe you challenge the conspiracists claims with anywhere near the effort you engage in when challenging the claim that Oswald shot JFK then I agree: someone is making things up.

So, now you are already changing from implying that I never challenge CTs to that I don't challenge them enough. Shifting the goalposts, as you are doing, confirms that you are the one making stuff up.

It seems that you haven't figured out yet that I am no crusader. If a silly claim pops up in a conversation I'm already having, then I might respond to it, but other than than I couldn't care less if some wacko claims that JFK was killed by aliens. I'm not going to waste my time responding to something like that. Instead I just ignore it. If you feel the need to respond to those wacky theories, be my guest, but don't expect others to do the same.

What I don't understand is why you and Richard Smith are constantly complaining about the evidence being scrutinized. If the evidence is only half as conclusive and persuasive as you two claim it is, then it shouldn't be a problem if somebody takes a closer look, right? Yet, here you are again, complaining about exactly that. What's up with that? Feeling insecure, perhaps?

Try this one: There's a thread on the latest Oliver Stone movie claiming a conspiracy. Go there and challenge Stone's allegations. Let's see you use the same skepticism about evidence against Oswald against Stone's claims.

I haven't seen Stone's latest movie, nor am I interested in watching it. I wasn't impressed by his original JFK movie either.

I take it this means you don't really want to enter into a discussion about the actual physical evidence in this case? Because that's what I asked you, right? Thank you for proving my point.  Thumb1:
« Last Edit: November 26, 2021, 01:33:21 PM by Martin Weidmann »

Online Otto Beck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
Re: 11/22/21
« Reply #43 on: November 25, 2021, 09:08:58 PM »
If you believe you challenge the conspiracists claims with anywhere near the effort you engage in when challenging the claim that Oswald shot JFK then I agree: someone is making things up.

Try this one: There's a thread on the latest Oliver Stone movie claiming a conspiracy. Go there and challenge Stone's allegations. Let's see you use the same skepticism about evidence against Oswald against Stone's claims.

Go ahead.

RE "Go ahead", is there a reason you have not yet engaged in explaining the concept of "impossible standard" you blindly parroted?

Offline Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
Re: 11/22/21
« Reply #44 on: November 26, 2021, 12:03:16 AM »
If he played this weird game with the conspiracists, with those making claims that Oswald was a CIA agent or the rifle was planted or "X" or "Y" (it's a very long list of claims) - if he challenged their evidence and their conclusions - then this game would be acceptable in a strange sort of way. I'm not familiar with people discussing any other event this way; essentially making every piece of evidence for any claim disappear. But challenging everyone on every side equally would be consistent.

But he applies this impossible standard only to the allegation/belief that Oswald, alone, killed JFK. When it comes to that argument we get this absurd standard of proof that must be surmounted. Then when asked okay, how do this evidence come to be?, who created it? where did it come from?, we get the disappearing act.

You meet all sorts of odd people on the internet. This is one of those occasions.

Using the standard of proof applied by the contrarian to Oswald's guilt, it would be impossible to prove that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or any other fact in human history.   For example, there is no evidence linking Booth to the gun (e.g. a photo of him holding it, serial numbers, order forms, prints), no evidence linking the gun to the assassination, chain of custody problems with the gun (two different people claimed to have found it), no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln as that term is pedantically interpreted by the contrarian (they just heard a loud bang and turned to look seeing Booth at that moment holding a smoking gun at Lincoln's head - so maybe Lincoln committed suicide and Booth was unlucky enough to just pick it up), Ford's Theatre was Booth's "place of work" so he had every right to be there, there are some witnesses who claimed it wasn't him, and Booth just happened to take a joy ride out of town right after the assassination.  So there must be doubt of his guilt under the contrarian's standard.  It's all the more humorous that he takes himself so seriously.  Claiming to be in "Europe" and challenging Bill Brown to a debate before chickening out.  LOL.

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4718
Re: 11/22/21
« Reply #45 on: November 26, 2021, 12:27:00 AM »
Using the standard of proof applied by the contrarian to Oswald's guilt, it would be impossible to prove that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or any other fact in human history.   For example, there is no evidence linking Booth to the gun (e.g. a photo of him holding it, serial numbers, order forms, prints), no evidence linking the gun to the assassination, chain of custody problems with the gun (two different people claimed to have found it), no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln as that term is pedantically interpreted by the contrarian (they just heard a loud bang and turned to look seeing Booth at that moment holding a smoking gun at Lincoln's head - so maybe Lincoln committed suicide and Booth was unlucky enough to just pick it up), Ford's Theatre was Booth's "place of work" so he had every right to be there, there are some witnesses who claimed it wasn't him, and Booth just happened to take a joy ride out of town right after the assassination.  So there must be doubt of his guilt under the contrarian's standard.  It's all the more humorous that he takes himself so seriously.  Claiming to be in "Europe" and challenging Bill Brown to a debate before chickening out.  LOL.

Using the standard of proof applied by the contrarian to Oswald's guilt, it would be impossible to prove that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or any other fact in human history. 

Oh the dramatics....  :D In reality it's the cheapest cop out there is; not willing to present evidence or defend it because of a pathetic claim that it won't be enough to convince a crititical thinker anyway

For example, there is no evidence linking Booth to the gun (e.g. a photo of him holding it, serial numbers, order forms, prints), no evidence linking the gun to the assassination, chain of custody problems with the gun (two different people claimed to have found it), no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln as that term is pedantically interpreted by the contrarian (they just heard a loud bang and turned to look seeing Booth at that moment holding a smoking gun at Lincoln's head - so maybe Lincoln committed suicide and Booth was unlucky enough to just pick it up), Ford's Theatre was Booth's "place of work" so he had every right to be there, there are some witnesses who claimed it wasn't him, and Booth just happened to take a joy ride out of town right after the assassination.  So there must be doubt of his guilt under the contrarian's standard.

What a silly rant to make no point whatsoever. But by this "logic" I can not be considered a contrarian as I have no doubt about Booth's guilt.

It's all the more humorous that he takes himself so seriously.  Claiming to be in "Europe" and challenging Bill Brown to a debate before chickening out.

Misrepresentations one can expect from a spoiled entitled brat who doesn't get his way and is desperately trying to pivot away from his own failures. Is this really what you are reduced to?

But the biggest irony is that this is coming from the same guy who earlier complained about this;

Then you make it personal with a lot of commentary.   

Another classic example of an entitled one; doing himself what he falsely claims others are doing to him.

and btw, why are you so obsessed with where in the world I am?
« Last Edit: November 26, 2021, 01:21:08 AM by Martin Weidmann »

Online Otto Beck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
Re: 11/22/21
« Reply #46 on: November 26, 2021, 09:20:59 AM »
Galbraith & Smith, the leading JFK case ignorants, discussing an "impossible standard" they have so far failed to explain.

Never ending confused rants.

Awesome!

Offline Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
Re: 11/22/21
« Reply #47 on: November 26, 2021, 03:41:43 PM »
Using the standard of proof applied by the contrarian to Oswald's guilt, it would be impossible to prove that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or any other fact in human history. 

Oh the dramatics....  :D In reality it's the cheapest cop out there is; not willing to present evidence or defend it because of a pathetic claim that it won't be enough to convince a crititical thinker anyway

For example, there is no evidence linking Booth to the gun (e.g. a photo of him holding it, serial numbers, order forms, prints), no evidence linking the gun to the assassination, chain of custody problems with the gun (two different people claimed to have found it), no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln as that term is pedantically interpreted by the contrarian (they just heard a loud bang and turned to look seeing Booth at that moment holding a smoking gun at Lincoln's head - so maybe Lincoln committed suicide and Booth was unlucky enough to just pick it up), Ford's Theatre was Booth's "place of work" so he had every right to be there, there are some witnesses who claimed it wasn't him, and Booth just happened to take a joy ride out of town right after the assassination.  So there must be doubt of his guilt under the contrarian's standard.

What a silly rant to make no point whatsoever. But by this "logic" I can not be considered a contrarian as I have no doubt about Booth's guilt.

It's all the more humorous that he takes himself so seriously.  Claiming to be in "Europe" and challenging Bill Brown to a debate before chickening out.

Misrepresentations one can expect from a spoiled entitled brat who doesn't get his way and is desperately trying to pivot away from his own failures. Is this really what you are reduced to?

But the biggest irony is that this is coming from the same guy who earlier complained about this;

Another classic example of an entitled one; doing himself what he falsely claims others are doing to him.

and btw, why are you so obsessed with where in the world I am?

So much silly commentary.  How about trying to focus?  Do you accept that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or not?  Prove to us that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln using the same standard of proof that you apply to Oswald.  There are no photos, documents, serial numbers or prints that link Booth to the alleged murder weapon as there are in Oswald's case.  There is no evidence that links the gun to the bullet fired into Lincoln's head.  No witness saw Booth carry the pistol into Ford's.  Two different people claimed to discover the pistol dropped by Booth (here's a chance to invoke your defense attorney "chain of custody" argument).  Booth was an actor who worked at Ford's so his presence there is expected.  No one saw him shoot Lincoln as you interpret that term in Oswald's case.  Some eyewitnesses cast doubt that it was Booth.  Booth might just have decided to get some air after the play by taking a nice horseback ride into the countryside after the assassination.  The fact that he didn't pause to figure out what was going on but instead ran across the stage and out the back door are not evidence of flight.  Just like Oswald boogying to the movies.  And Booth was killed before he was given a trial.  So is Booth responsible for the Lincoln assassination or not under your contrarian defense attorney standard?

Online Otto Beck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
Re: 11/22/21
« Reply #48 on: November 26, 2021, 04:23:25 PM »
Do you accept that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or not?

Entirely irrelevant to the JFK case.

Confused LN nutbag syndrom confirmed.

Wow!

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4718
Re: 11/22/21
« Reply #49 on: November 26, 2021, 06:59:30 PM »
Do you accept that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or not?

Entirely irrelevant to the JFK case.

Confused LN nutbag syndrom confirmed.

Wow!

Indeed. "Richard" is desperate to get as far away as he can from presenting evidence of Oswald's guilt and/or defending that evidence. 

So much silly commentary.  How about trying to focus?  Do you accept that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or not?  Prove to us that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln using the same standard of proof that you apply to Oswald.  There are no photos, documents, serial numbers or prints that link Booth to the alleged murder weapon as there are in Oswald's case.  There is no evidence that links the gun to the bullet fired into Lincoln's head.  No witness saw Booth carry the pistol into Ford's.  Two different people claimed to discover the pistol dropped by Booth (here's a chance to invoke your defense attorney "chain of custody" argument).  Booth was an actor who worked at Ford's so his presence there is expected.  No one saw him shoot Lincoln as you interpret that term in Oswald's case.  Some eyewitnesses cast doubt that it was Booth.  Booth might just have decided to get some air after the play by taking a nice horseback ride into the countryside after the assassination.  The fact that he didn't pause to figure out what was going on but instead ran across the stage and out the back door are not evidence of flight.  Just like Oswald boogying to the movies.  And Booth was killed before he was given a trial.  So is Booth responsible for the Lincoln assassination or not under your contrarian defense attorney standard?

Do you accept that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or not?

I already told you. Yes I do accept that. You are the one not focussing.

Prove to us that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln 

Why? This is the JFK assassination forum.... Are you confused?


using the same standard of proof that you apply to Oswald.

your contrarian defense attorney standard

And what exactly is that standard supposed to be? Otto has also asked you twice already, so be precise....



 

Mobile View