Buell Wesley Frazier

[Richard Smith]

It's when the airline timetable shows that X couldn't have made it to NYC in time to be seen the LN tosspot evidence falls apart and their hissy fits begin. Like when Oswald "escaped" from the Plaza by bus, by cab or whatever... ROFL.

You are gaining a dim understanding of logic.  Who thought it possible?  Here it is again.  If the evidence proves that person A is in Paris in the morning and in NYC the next day because the evidence demonstrates that he is NYC, we know beyond all doubt that he made it from Paris to NYC because the evidence demonstrates that it happened.  It's not necessary to then prove what plane he took, how he was dressed etc to reach that conclusion.  The inability to know all those details with certainty does not cast doubt on that relevant conclusion. 

CTers would agonize over descriptions of the person's clothing, height, age on the plane from other passengers to suggest there is doubt.  Any discrepancy would be pounced on as creating doubt. They would argue about "chain of custody," and timelines while often applying subjective criteria to the witness testimony.  Even if there are holes in the timeline, witness contradictions, unknowns, it doesn't change the evidence that places the person in NYC.  If the person is there, that means he could and did get there even if we don't know every detail of how he got there.  However unlikely you want to believe the circumstances, if it happened, then that is definitive of the event.  It's like arguing to a person standing right in front of you holding a winning lottery ticket that the odds against winning the lottery are so great that it couldn't possibly happen.  That is lunacy.  You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope and arguing everything looks small.

[Richard Smith]

Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.

 
Tricky Dicky's Patented Nutter Logic.

Example #1

1] The best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.
2] Oswald shot JFK.
3] That is proof that it DID happen.

Example#2

1] The best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.
2] Oswald made it down from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor in time to be confronted by Baker.
3] That is proof that it DID happen.

Try this.  If the evidence places Oswald at the Tippit murder scene, do you agree that is conclusive of whether he had the time to get there?  And as a result, we don't need to prove his every movement with a stopwatch to accept that conclusion.  I'm not asking you for an endless pedantic subjective rant on whether the evidence places him there.  I realize that some CTers may not agree that it did because they apply an impossible standard of proof, but hypothetically IF the evidence places him at the scene don't you agree that moots all the discussion about timelines and routes that would have got him there at that moment?  I don't think that is a very complex concept to understand even for you.

[Dan O'meara]

Try this.  If the evidence places Oswald at the Tippit murder scene, do you agree that is conclusive of whether he had the time to get there?  And as a result, we don't need to prove his every movement with a stopwatch to accept that conclusion.  I'm not asking you for an endless pedantic subjective rant on whether the evidence places him there.  I realize that some CTers may not agree that it did because they apply an impossible standard of proof, but hypothetically IF the evidence places him at the scene don't you agree that moots all the discussion about timelines and routes that would have got him there at that moment?  I don't think that is a very complex concept to understand even for you.

If the evidence places Oswald at the Tippit murder scene, do you agree that is conclusive of whether he had the time to get there?

Yes

And as a result, we don't need to prove his every movement with a stopwatch to accept that conclusion.

Agreed

IF the evidence places him at the scene don't you agree that moots all the discussion about timelines and routes that would have got him there at that moment?

Agreed

[Martin Weidmann]

If the evidence places Oswald at the Tippit murder scene, do you agree that is conclusive of whether he had the time to get there?

Yes

And as a result, we don't need to prove his every movement with a stopwatch to accept that conclusion.

Agreed

IF the evidence places him at the scene don't you agree that moots all the discussion about timelines and routes that would have got him there at that moment?

Agreed

Wasn't the subject matter; Oswald being on the 6th floor and getting down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots?

So, why is "Richard" now talking about Tippit?   

[Dan O'meara]

Wasn't the subject matter; Oswald being on the 6th floor and getting down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots?

So, why is "Richard" now talking about Tippit?   

I think TD's Patented Logic - If it DID happen, that proves it DID happen - can be applied to all scenarios regarding the JFK case. 

[Tom Sorensen]

Wasn't the subject matter; Oswald being on the 6th floor and getting down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots?

So, why is "Richard" now talking about Tippit?   

Likely because he held a similar lecture in the Tippit thread last year.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4116.msg158279.html#msg158279

[Tom Sorensen]

Try this.  If the evidence places Oswald at the Tippit murder scene, do you agree that is conclusive of whether he had the time to get there?  And as a result, we don't need to prove his every movement with a stopwatch to accept that conclusion.  I'm not asking you for an endless pedantic subjective rant on whether the evidence places him there.  I realize that some CTers may not agree that it did because they apply an impossible standard of proof, but hypothetically IF the evidence places him at the scene don't you agree that moots all the discussion about timelines and routes that would have got him there at that moment?  I don't think that is a very complex concept to understand even for you.

The WC definitely didn't get it because they came up with a nutty bus ride going nowhere and Whaley the cab driver; neither were needed according to your principle. Is "an impossible standard of proof" explained in part two of your lecture?