Your Theories Won?t Do It

[Dillon Rankine]

Bull.  It's an appeal to ridicule in order to make a case for not examining the evidence too closely.

Am I distracting the truther squad from ?the police began chasing an unknown gunman up a grassy hill??

The charge to "focus on things in the real world" is an excuse for having insufficient evidence for your conclusion.

It?s attempt to get you understand the balance of probability; the relationships things tend to have in the actual real world outside of a logic textbook.   

Remains?  When has it ever stood?  All you can make an argument for is that you can't rule it out.  Some models say you can.  Models all involve some degree of unproven or unprovable assumptions -- some more justified than others.

That?s he whole idea ? the assumptions of certain models can be indirectly tested, however. The LN model posits that Oswald didn?t alone, yet you can?t disporve a conspiracy. You can see whether or not the evidence lines up with that model, which it does.

Assumptions and uncertainty are things which characterise all of epistemology (for the last time: cogito ergo sum!), and the reason CTs get laughed at is their relentless pursuit of certainty which isn?t possible.

Great.  Do you just ignore all evidence that it was lower because the assumed shot no longer works?

What evidence? Bennett?s report? Burkley?e brief observation?

I?d cite the x-day showing excess radiolucency at T-1 but you?d probably ask how I know it?s not JFK from an alternate reality following an infraction.   

[John Iacoletti]

There?s no direct evidence linking it to any wound, however, what evidence does exist strongly indicated it could have been the SBT.

What evidence strongly indicates that it could have been the SBT?

Saying ?this is plausible given the evidence? is not the same as saying ?possible = true.? I understand that anything not framed within the context of a fallacies 101 course is confusing to you, so you?ll just have to take my word for it.

I'm not confused at all, but you seem to be.  If your conclusions depend on CE 399 being involved in the assassination, then that's something you need to actually demonstrate.  If all you are claiming is that it's "plausible" that CE 399 was involved in the assassination, then fine.  It's also "plausible" that it wasn't.

Either way, it doesn't tell you who shot JFK.

It could have been a group of the most humbling, inefficient, low IQ spoons ever assembled and I?m sure they?d still understand that placing these 3 shells right next to each other would look suspect, or that leaving a ?pristine? bullet for a perfect match might raise some eyebrows.

Is this hypothetical musing supposed to be evidence of anything?

if anything is fallacious here, it?s your hilariously out-of-touch way of defending bad ideas. It seems like something out of a movie ? so comedically obvious that it?s a plant, but apparently nobody else thought so.   

More appeal to ridicule.  That a pity, because that's what arrogant people do when they don't actually have a good argument.

What's "comedically obvious" is that you're actually arguing that if it looks obviously planted , it must be genuine.  Personally, I don't care if it was planted (intentionally or accidentally) or not, or even if it was ever at Parkland Hospital, given that there is no way to determine when, where, or by whom CE399 was fired.

[John Iacoletti]

Am I distracting the truther squad from ?the police began chasing an unknown gunman up a grassy hill??

No idea what this means.

It?s attempt to get you understand the balance of probability; the relationships things tend to have in the actual real world outside of a logic textbook.   

This is Chapmanism.  Just declare something to be "probable" and it is.

That?s he whole idea ? the assumptions of certain models can be indirectly tested, however. The LN model posits that Oswald didn?t alone, yet you can?t disporve a conspiracy. You can see whether or not the evidence lines up with that model, which it does.

That's not particularly useful for determining what happened though, because the evidence also lines up with Oswald doing it not alone, or somebody who is not Oswald doing it alone, or with others.  In other words, it's not enough to show that your conclusion isn't impossible in order to show that it is correct or even likely to be correct.

Assumptions and uncertainty are things which characterise all of epistemology (for the last time: cogito ergo sum!), and the reason CTs get laughed at is their relentless pursuit of certainty which isn?t possible.

And LNers get laughed at because they pretend a level of certainty that just isn't there.

What evidence? Bennett?s report? Burkley?e brief observation?

Yes, among other things.  And yes, I'm familiar with all of the excuses for why those things should be discounted in favor of the opinions of people who never examined the body, just as you are familiar with all of the excuses for why the official x-rays can't be trusted.

I?d cite the x-day showing excess radiolucency at T-1 but you?d probably ask how I know it?s not JFK from an alternate reality following an infraction.   

You really love appeals to ridicule, don't you?

[Walt Cakebread]

No idea what this means.

This is Chapmanism.  Just declare something to be "probable" and it is.

That's not particularly useful for determining what happened though, because the evidence also lines up with Oswald doing it not alone, or somebody who is not Oswald doing it alone, or with others.  In other words, it's not enough to show that your conclusion isn't impossible in order to show that it is correct or even likely to be correct.

And LNers get laughed at because they pretend a level of certainty that just isn't there.

Yes, among other things.  And yes, I'm familiar with all of the excuses for why those things should be discounted in favor of the opinions of people who never examined the body, just as you are familiar with all of the excuses for why the official x-rays can't be trusted.

You really love appeals to ridicule, don't you?

   Bravo Mr Iacoletti....  You're doing a fine job of attempting to help Mr Rankine extract his head.....

[Jack Trojan]

No citation, I see  So three shells were still found beneath the window, yes?

No, Fritz did not toss the hulls under the window. Weren't you paying attention?

This is just outdated BS. Bullets don?t travel in straight lines, and there is no measurement saying the exit was at C-7 (that?s one claim about the entrance).

I never said bullets traveled in straight lines. You LNers contend that a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD entered JFK's back and exited his throat then tumbled into Connally's armpit in a straight line. It certainly didn't zig-zag.

Ok smart guy, find a pencil and figure out the parabolic arc of a FMJ bullet fired from a MC with a muzzle velocity of 2297 ft/sec fired at a -17 downward angle, 265 ft from the target then tell me if it makes any goddamned difference. Hint: it doesn't.

Show me CE-399's trajectory with a re-enactment and 2 lasers.

So? It was also in drawers, pockets, under stretchers, etc. Last I checked, blood isn?t superglue.

Grovel much?

Pristine is a subjective judgement. Mild visual deformity is apparent and the equations all clearly suggest that it could have emerged in its condition from that feat. The world is never as simple you lot would like it to be.

Maybe you can cite some of those "equations" that clearly suggest whatever it is you are trying to say.

That?s a claim for which I see no citation! It?s on a gurney, doesn?t matter which one. Also, these conspirators seem even less intelligent than the CTs  Aranging the shells perfectly side-by-side like nobody would notice, leaving the Mauser they used instead of the Carcano, planting the to-good-to-be-true 399 on the wrong stretcher, etc. Seriously, what handicaps are we dealing with here? 

Too conclusive for you? You are either a CT (Coincidence Theorist) or you chalk up all these anomalies to magic. Duly noted.

Again, you lot are priceless. Demand citations from us then never give them for highly specific, laughable claims.

It's called logic. You should give it a go sometime.

Somebody doesn?t know what a psychoanalyst is 

Yeah, you. Didn't you diagnose Oswald as a classic psychopath? Or does it take one to know one?

They described a set of traits which are on the list of psychopathic traits. It?s not an professional analysis, its moving my eyes from page to the next.

Even if he was a psychopath, which I highly doubt, how does that make him a lone nut assassin? I doubt the actual assassin(s) were psychos either.

Again with this citation stuff. Nothing supports LHO being a ?sheep-dipped patsy? for if there were, I?d have been all over it in my CT days.

In your CT days you probably lacked the critical thinking skills to evaluate the evidence so it was easier being a LNer. And there you wallow.

[John Iacoletti]

I never said bullets traveled in straight lines. You LNers contend that a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD entered JFK's back and exited his throat then tumbled into Connally's armpit in a straight line. It certainly didn't zig-zag.

Yeah, Dale Myers worked really hard to turn it into a straight line.  Somebody should have told him.

[Dillon Rankine]

Who said the alternative was "all the photographs were altered"?  What photographs?

Well, gee, I couldn?t possibly be talking about the ones showing the weapon being found and taken out of the building, could I?

Yes, and how do you evaluate whether this is true or not? You examine the details given in the description and compare it to the claim that it was identified "at a glance".  You look at statements from others.  You look at the fact that he didn't just say "looks like a Mauser", he said that it was a 7.65 Mauser -- a very specific thing.  Then you consider that false recantations are not an extraordinary occurrence.

Saying 7.65 Mauser doesn?t change anything. 7.65 was a common calibre of Mauser rifles and doesn?t mean anything. Grossing at straws.
 

Yes there are a rifle and shells presented as evidence.  So what?  Whether they were photographed as discovered is disputed.  Whether there were 2 shells or 3 shells is ambiguous in the documentary evidence.  When the shells were fired (or even if they were fired in one case) cannot be known.

What are you talking about? People on the sixth floor: 3 shells. Photographs and films show 3 shells. Yet one document says 2 and all the sudden it?s ?disputed.? How come nobody questions the validity of the document given that it is detached from the rest of the data? Couldn?t be a (naughty word warning) bias, could it?! Surely not! Not our honest, truth-seeking CTs who transcend the evolutionary pitfalls of normal human cognition. They would never selectively attend to any more confirming data. 

Depends on how much basis you have for "found in the limousine", which is not much.  Also, "human tissue" doesn't mean a whole lot.  Skin cells are "human tissue".  Any reason to think that this "human tissue" came from Kennedy's head or brain?

There?s no direct evidence linking it to any particular region. What it shows is that the broke bullet ? which was found in the limousine ? struck human tissue. Now, you can hit out with your usual pitch of how we can?t be certain those who found it didn?t prick their finger BS, or you could refer to my statements about trying understand these events in terms of global models or balance of probability. 

Again, I don't know who you're arguing with, but I agreed with that.  The problem for you is that the "Oswald did it" model relies on faulty human memory.

It relies mostly on physical evidence and documents. Eyewitness data is merely an addendum.

I care.  If you're going to claim that CE399 was at all related to the shooting at Houston and Elm, you need more than, "well some kind of bullet was found by a hospital technician somewhere". Who said anything about "evil conspiracy people planting it and never uttering a word"?

Half the people on this forum.

Who said "it's impossible for someone to have seen something on the floor and put it on a stretcher"?

Possible does not equal Happened.

No one said it did. Again, this ?baby?s intro to logical fallacies? stuff pulls you down. I didn?t say X is a possible explanation, therefore X is true. All I have told you repeatedly is that we can?t know anything for certain, but that doesn?t preclude us from having some level of understanding. I suggested a possible scenario to help explain a possible event (nobody really knows what stretcher the bullet was on) and you respond as though I?m making truth claims.

...and this is evidence of what?

That he?s a psychopath. What does that suggest: many things, incl. that the psychophysiological symptoms of anxiety would not have impaired his shooting ability (given that they?d have been absent) and that?d he?d look calm when confronted with Baker et al, among many other interesting things.

The fact it doesn?t completely certainly prove 100% that he did it is about the only response I expect.

[Dillon Rankine]

This is Chapmanism.  Just declare something to be "probable" and it is.

Is this you saying a planted bullet (for example) is equally as probable as a bullet discovery after a shooting? (Gun found near victim shooting, bullet from gun found in same hospital of victims).   

That's not particularly useful for determining what happened though, because the evidence also lines up with Oswald doing it not alone, or somebody who is not Oswald doing it alone, or with others.  In other words, it's not enough to show that your conclusion isn't impossible in order to show that it is correct or even likely to be correct.

What evidence tags anyone as being involved. The link between Oswald and the shooting comes from his weapon being used, fired from a building he worked in, followed by him shooting a cop (which the physical evidence strongly suggests). I say this because the inevitable red-herring thrown up by CTs is ?what?s the evidence Oswald did it??   

And LNers get laughed at because they pretend a level of certainty that just isn't there.

Agreed.

Yes, among other things.  And yes, I'm familiar with all of the excuses for why those things should be discounted in favor of the opinions of people who never examined the body, just as you are familiar with all of the excuses for why the official x-rays can't be trusted.

Bennet and Burkley?s brief observations versus an x-ray. Balance of probability ? what?s more likely to be false (hint: starts with ?w? ends with ?itnesses?).

You really love appeals to ridicule, don't you?

You?d be amazed what I?ve been asked to demonstrate regarding that one x-ray in the past.