This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument

[John Mytton]

Hoover isn’t the FBI, and his “concerns” aren’t purported, but fallacious forensic evidence.

Hoover wanted "something issued so we can convince the public...". Hoover was speaking for the FBI and Hoover's concerns as director was everyone in the FBI's concern!

But nice try.

No, try not. Do or do not. There is no try.

Hoover did get to decide what he was concerned about, whether you like the implications of it or not.

Hoover was the director of the FBI and always acted on behalf of the FBI, whether they like it or not.

I never said “whatever the FBI says can’t be trusted”, anyway.

I was paraphrasing and making a ct's generality. It's a public forum, it's not all about you, you know!

JohnM

[Jack Trojan]

Yeah yeah, whatever the FBI says can't be trusted, except when it supports your conspiracy, then you're all ears. Hypocrites, the lot of you!

JohnM

False equivalence. You need to bone up on your fallacies so you can avoid them.

[Jon Banks]

“ Widely used methods to trace complex DNA samples, bullets, tread and bite marks to criminal defendants fall short of scientific standards, limitations that federal prosecutors and judges should seriously consider before entering forensic evidence in trials, a presidential panel urged Tuesday...

“For a forensic science to be scientifically valid, you need actual, empirical evidence of its reliability and accuracy, period,” said Eric S. Lander, founder of the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT. “Historically that hasn’t been the case.” “

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/white-house-science-advisers-urge-justice-dept-judges-to-raise-forensic-standards/2016/09/19/42475c74-7d13-11e6-beac-57a4a412e93a_story.html

[Richard Smith]

So you think the FBI went by the book under Hoover and only recently devised their fake forensics policy? If anything the FBI would be less corrupt than when Hoover was also the de facto mob boss.

Maybe we should have another look at the palm print Day found on the MC. Where is that formal analysis anyway? Didn't the FBI just eyeball the print and declare it matched Oswald? Very pseudo-scientific of them, don't you think? And don't get me started on how the DPD handled all the evidence before they turned it over to the FBI.

I merely pointed out that alleged deficiencies in hair and bite mark analysis by the FBI cited in the referenced article from decades after the Kennedy assassination have no relevance to the JFK assassination.  It is part of a desperate attempt to overcome the actual evidence of Oswald's guilt by conjuring up false doubt.  It goes like this:  1) falsely claim you are taking no position on the case; 2) argue that you have no obligation to explain, much less prove, what actually happened if Oswald was not the guilty party no matter how improbable or absurd the alternative scenario; and 3) then apply an impossible standard of proof to any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt to reach the desired conclusion that there is doubt of his guilt (the Alice-in-Wonderland approach of contrarian defense attorneys).  For example, here we learn because the FBI may have screwed up in some instances in its long history of analyzing countless pieces of evidence that the FBI shouldn't ever be trusted.  Thus, any evidence of Oswald's guilt from the FBI must be suspect and cannot be used to demonstrate his guilt because it is always possible that they screwed up (despite not a scintilla of actual support that they did).  Repeat endlessly. 

[John Iacoletti]

False equivalence is right.  Citing alleged deficiencies in the FBI's use of certain forensics used in other situations decades later (e.g. hair and bites) that was not used in this case to cast fake doubt on Oswald's guilt smacks of a contrarian's utopian fantasy.  Mixing apples and oranges to suggest there is false doubt about the actual evidence.  A dishonest shell game.  Frame all evidence in the context of an impossible standard of proof then squeal that nothing can ever be proven for that reason.  Silly.

How about the dishonest shell game of casting fake certainty, “Richard”?

[John Iacoletti]

I was paraphrasing and making a ct's generality. It's a public forum, it's not all about you, you know!

No, what you were doing was making yet another strawman argument.

[John Iacoletti]

I merely pointed out that alleged deficiencies in hair and bite mark analysis by the FBI cited in the referenced article from decades after the Kennedy assassination have no relevance to the JFK assassination.  It is part of a desperate attempt to overcome the actual evidence of Oswald's guilt by conjuring up false doubt.  It goes like this:  1) falsely claim you are taking no position on the case; 2) argue that you have no obligation to explain, much less prove, what actually happened if Oswald was not the guilty party no matter how improbable or absurd the alternative scenario; and 3) then apply an impossible standard of proof to any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt to reach the desired conclusion that there is doubt of his guilt (the Alice-in-Wonderland approach of contrarian defense attorneys).

“Richard Smith” epistemology in a nut shell:

1) Try to shift the burden of proof to make the other person prove that your claims are wrong or you automatically win.

2) If that doesn’t work then blame your own failure to prove your position on an “impossible standard”.

3) If that still doesn’t work then make up a ridiculous strawman (like “the FBI shouldn’t ever be trusted”) to distract and deflect from your own failures.

[Thomas Graves]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/04/fbis-flawed-forensics-expert-testimony-hair-analysis-bite-marks-fingerprints-arson.html

John,

Who else besides the FBI do you figure was in on The Conspiracy?

The JFK Assassination Conspiracy, that is.

Like "X" said in JFK, pretty much the whole Military Industrial Intelligence Community Complex?

Didn't the corrupt, fascistic Ukrainians have something to do with it?

LOL

--  MWT