Your Theories Won?t Do It

[John Iacoletti]

Balance of probability. 

?I think the guy was a psychopath, therefore he killed the president? is not a balance of probability.

Occam?s Razor.

Occam?s razor doesn?t justify the fallacy that if something is possible, therefore it?s true. The SBT is not an explanation requiring the fewest assumptions.

No it doesn?t. I?ve explained this and even done the calculations on this forum multiple times.

Bull. Your explanations made assumptions like the back wound being caused by a rifle, or coming from the TSBD, or not hitting anything else first. If shallow wounds are impossible, then how the hell did Connally get one in his thigh?

The LNer model still holds up. Arguing that there?s no certainty in it doesn?t work

The threshold isn?t certainty, it?s reasonable doubt. The SBT + ?I think the guy was a psychopath? does not equal ?Oswald did it?.

Having been a CT for many years, I known how game is played. You present an alteration be model or try to pick apart the fine details of the other, but never is there any real attempt to demonstrate that no 3 bullet scenario can account for the shooting.

It?s not necessary to demonstrate that no 3 bullet scenario can account for the shooting. But it?s false to suggest that Thompson and Thomas are the only ones to posit more shots. There?s Mars, there?s Groden, there?s the HSCA...

[Richard Smith]

Thanks for the psychoanalysis. So how much more time do you LNers need to checkmate this thing? You do realize that the onus is on you to prove the fringe LNer hypothesis not the other way round? It certainly isn't the default position if a conspiracy can't be proven.

Surely after 56 years the WC and your lot would have come up with at least 1 smoking gun piece of evidence that nails Oswald as a lone nut assassin. So where is that smoking gun? Instead you  seem to think that the kooky CTs must prove a conspiracy or concede to the wacky LNer hypothesis, which is only supported by the WC defenders. It would help if you learn some critical thinking skills or at least learn how to play chess.

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.

[John Iacoletti]

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

[Rob Caprio]

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.

[Dillon Rankine]

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 

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?

[Dillon Rankine]

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.   

[John Iacoletti]

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.

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

Or a Mauser rifle and 2 shells.

? 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.

? 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.

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

According to whom?

? Etc, etc, etc

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

[Dillon Rankine]

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

The documents presented in evidence are false then?

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? 

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.

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.

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.

"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).