CVSA and LHO

[Bill Chapman]

True. The evidence can be wrong. The photographic analysis, the handwriting analysis, the fingerprints. Certainly the eyewitnesses, something we all know can be terribly wrong. But one must show where they are wrong. Simply dismissing them out of hand is not how one reasons.

And to dismiss all of the evidence against Oswald? Every single piece? Unless, again, the goal is to defend Oswald at any cost.

At some point - it's been more than fifty years - judgments have to be made. We sift the evidence, weigh it, consider alternative explanations and come to conclusions. This incessant "No, no, no" is not how reasonable people consider things.

There's no getting away from bias. The good news is that LN bias is the correct one in this case.

 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

There's no getting away from bias. The good news is that LN bias is the correct one in this case.
 

We're human beings not robots or AI. But there is an objective reality that we can struggle to find.

But to argue that all of this evidence pointing at Oswald is wrong - all of it planted or faked or worthless - is a useless exercise. One can make that claim against the evidence for any event. So where does that lead to?

A sort of nihilism. Why even come here and comment day after day after day, thousands of posts, all saying "No, no, no"? Brennan lied and Brewer lied and Mcdonald lied and the fingerprints are faked and the photos are faked or wrong and the handwriting is wrong. That leads to nowhere.

Look, if people want to devote much of their lives to defending Oswald then go for it. But don't pretend to be interested in trying, as best as we can, to determine who shot JFK. Because you're not interested in that; you have some sort of bizarre need to defend this miserable waif Oswald. Waif. That means abandoned: that's how I think Oswald saw his life and his world.

[John Iacoletti]

There's no getting away from bias. The good news is that LN bias is the correct one in this case.

 

...which is another example of LN bias.

[Bill Chapman]

...which is another example of LN bias.

OMG

[John Iacoletti]

We're human beings not robots or AI. But there is an objective reality that we can struggle to find.

Of course there is. That doesn’t mean you’ve found it.

But to argue that all of this evidence pointing at Oswald is wrong - all of it planted or faked or worthless - is a useless exercise. One can make that claim against the evidence for any event. So where does that lead to?

Simply arguing over and over that there is “all this evidence pointing at Oswald” is itself a useless exercise.

A sort of nihilism. Why even come here and comment day after day after day, thousands of posts, all saying "No, no, no"?

Why come here and comment “Oswald did it” day after day and thousands of posts?

Brennan lied and Brewer lied and Mcdonald lied and the fingerprints are faked and the photos are faked or wrong and the handwriting is wrong. That leads to nowhere.

That’s also a strawman conglomeration that nobody has ever argued. Neither Brennan, Brewer, or McDonald saw anybody kill JFK, nor is there any photos showing who killed JFK, nor is there any fingerprints or handwriting that would show who killed JFK.

Look, if people want to devote much of their lives to defending Oswald then go for it. But don't pretend to be interested in trying, as best as we can, to determine who shot JFK.

You’re not trying to determine anything. You’re arguing a conclusion that was predetermined.

Because you're not interested in that; you have some sort of bizarre need to defend this miserable waif Oswald. Waif. That means abandoned: that's how I think Oswald saw his life and his world.

On the contrary. You’re determined to prosecute a guy you don’t like with weak, tainted, and circumstantial evidence merely because you don’t like him. That’s not how to determine what’s actually true.

[Jerry Freeman]

If it indicates Oswald killed JFK then he'll reject it. He rejects fingerprint evidence, handwriting evidence, photographic evidence. He rejects eyewitness accounts, circumstantial evidence and anything else.

WHAT 'fingerprint evidence'? This was been lied about from the very first day.
Henry Wade--- "We have his fingerprints on the rifle" That was a lie. Clue #1- Oswald = Patsy
Handwriting ---Does not prove Oswald shot Kennedy or anyone else.
Photographic evidence---A bit too much photographic...does not prove Oswald shot Kennedy or anyone else
Circumstantial evidence is just that...circumstantial