Historian explains the mind of Conspiracy Nuts - CBS 1967

[John Iacoletti]

But he gets to make all sorts of speculation and "claims" and theories about evidence, about the motivations of people who identified Oswald or implicated him.

I did? When?

I noted above all of the fifty plus years of investigations, directly or indirectly, into the assassination and that concluded that Oswald alone killed JFK. Government investigations, news media investigations, investigative reporters, historians, biographers. This is the most studied event in US history.

That’s a false appeal to authority or popularity, and fundamentally flawed. It actually matters what these conclusions are based on.

His response to all of this was to label it "BS" and dismiss it. Even though he doesn't know what all of this revealed (neither do I; it's a lot of material: but I do know what they concluded).

Speak for yourself, dude. So you don’t know what evidence actually shows that Oswald killed Kennedy, but you believe it because that’s what they concluded?

[Mitch Todd]

His method is to characterize any evidence that implicates Oswald in the assassination as "claims" or "speculation" and then it can be dismissed. He "deconstructs" accounts until they essentially disappear.

But he gets to make all sorts of speculation and "claims" and theories about evidence, about the motivations of people who identified Oswald or implicated him.

It's cheap and easy - we can do this with any event - and fundamentally disingenuous.

I noted above all of the fifty plus years of investigations, directly or indirectly, into the assassination and that concluded that Oswald alone killed JFK. Government investigations, news media investigations, investigative reporters, historians, biographers. This is the most studied event in US history.

His response to all of this was to label it "BS" and dismiss it. Even though he doesn't know what all of this revealed (neither do I; it's a lot of material: but I do know what they concluded). Whatever evidence is found will be dismissed by him. Simply by waving it off as "claims" or "speculation." Ballistics, forensics, fingerprints, photographic analysis, handwriting analysis, eyewitnesses, documents - whatever is present he will wave off.

Well, I think he'd like to call it "hand waving"    Really, he tries to create an impossible standard of proof whereby if it can't be shown to him to a metaphysical certainty it must be part of the coverup. Which is just a variation of moving the goal posts by trying to rewrite the rules. This time around, he made a couple of gross overstatements and his ego won't let him walk them back. God forgive me, but watching his performance as he tries to squirm and twist himself out of the mess he got himself into is getting pretty entertaining.

[John Iacoletti]

What you actually said was, "in all candor, Kirk had no friggin idea what Shaneyfelt looked at." But Kirk explicitly mentioned Shaneyfelt's testimony. Shaneyfelt explicitly mentioned using CE133A and B. Shaneyfelt never mentions using CE134, not mentioning it at all in his discussion of the back yard photographs. That's a a pretty good indication that he didn't use CE134.

No it’s not. Testimony is the answering of questions put to you. Did they ask him for an exhaustive list of everything he looked at? Why wouldn’t an investigator look at whatever was provided? Unless you’re saying that CE 134 may not have actually been provided when and how they said it was. After all, the negative mysteriously disappeared.

What’s interesting is that you seem to be more interested in quibbling over my word choices than in examining the quality of the evidence.

[Bill Chapman]

WOW! Ralphie's photo-presentation style lives on!
As does CT#OswaldAs I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day?  It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair.  His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate.  Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare.  There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'es' desparate quest to be somebodies...

[John Iacoletti]

WOW! Ralphie's photo-presentation style lives on!
As does CT#OswaldAs I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day?  It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair.  His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate.  Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare.  There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'es' desparate quest to be somebodies...

Awesome rebuttal, bro!

[Bill Chapman]

Awesome rebuttal, bro!

OMG

[Jerry Freeman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Steele_Commager 

 

For more than 40 years I have studied, researched and taught about the Kennedy assassination. Because so much of the evidence about this case has never been released, I still do not know the answer to the most fundamental question of all – who killed President Kennedy? We deserve to know the answer.....

Michael Kurtz----  Professor of history at Southeastern Louisiana University, and the author of The JFK Assassination Debates. The third edition of his book, Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination From a Historian’s Perspective, was published earlier this month.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_L._Kurtz

[Thomas Graves]

 Michael Kurtz----  Professor of history at Southeastern Louisiana University, and the author of The JFK Assassination Debates. The third edition of his book, Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination From a Historian’s Perspective, was published earlier this month.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_L._Kurtz

Jerr-wee, Jerr-wee, Jerr-wee ...

Your boy Kurtz must be "The Absent-Minded Professor".

--  MWT