The Lone-Gunman Theory Collapses without the Single-Bullet Theory

[Bill Chapman]

No, you never made it out of the starting gate
No gates at the Tour de France starting point. Just a bunch of rude, anorexic French guys on 'roids and really expensive bikes. I didn't see you there. But a somebody later reported a guy with a bald spot stepping out of a really old Rambler and sneaking onto the course, asking directions to the finish line, a concept he and his grumpy conspiracy-crowd attack dogs have yet to come to terms with hereabouts.

Incoherent babble read between the lines is still incoherent babble.
My condolences for your reading-comprehension difficulties

So you were sharing your hurt feelings merely as a means of self-reflection?
I see you have Wikipedia bookmarked. And my feelings are reserved for my loved ones.

So we can add "shifting the goalposts" to the long list of concepts that you do not correctly understand the meaning of.
Your Wikipedia bookmark is getting dog-eared. Plus separating any given part from the whole is indeed giving one an advantage by dint of ignoring what could be a critical point that might keep level the playing field, or unfairly tilt it in one direction or another.

You are however, quite adept at the strawman fallacy.
Your 'strawman' is my tongue-in-cheek-cum-spoof

[John Iacoletti]

And note that I used 'shooter' in my simple request for a list of those who knew a hit on Kennedy was on anybody else's bucket list that day.

Who knows and who cares?

[John Iacoletti]

No, you never made it out of the starting gate
No gates at the Tour de France starting point. Just a bunch of rude, anorexic French guys on 'roids and really expensive bikes. I didn't see you there. But a somebody later reported a guy with a bald spot stepping out of a really old Rambler and sneaking onto the course, asking directions to the finish line, a concept he and his grumpy conspiracy-crowd attack dogs have yet to come to terms with hereabouts.

This must be more irrelevant incoherent babble, er I mean "reading between the lines".

I see you have Wikipedia bookmarked.

Huh?

And my feelings are reserved for my loved ones.

Well then this forum must be your "loved ones".

This 'babble' thing makes me feel cheapened is some way.
I'm really hurt. No, really.

Your Wikipedia bookmark is getting dog-eared. Plus separating any given part from the whole is indeed giving one an advantage by dint of ignoring what could be a critical point that might keep level the playing field, or unfairly tilt it in one direction or another.

I'm not sure why you keep referring to Wikipedia.  You don't understand what "shifting the goalposts" means.  It's not "separating any given part from the whole", whatever that means.  If you're trying to pretend that several questionable, unsupported claims somehow combine to form a valid argument then you're going to have to invent a new term for that one.  Chapman-logic, I guess.

You are however, quite adept at the strawman fallacy.
Your 'strawman' is my tongue-in-cheek-cum-spoof

Your "tongue-in-cheek spoofs" involve attributing things to "CT" that no CT has ever said.  So, yes, normal people refer to that as a strawman argument, no matter how much it amuses you to make them.

[Bill Chapman]

Your "witty spoofs" have yet to show that Oswald shot anybody that day.

Point out where I ever said "witty spoofs"

[Bill Chapman]

Well then this forum must be your "loved ones"
WOW
 
You're a real piece of work, Tex.

But I do love this forum
@Duncan: Note that I have my brownnoser tie and butt-kisser suit on presently

I'm not sure why you keep referring to Wikipedia.  You don't understand what "shifting the goalposts" means.  It's not "separating any given part from the whole", whatever that means.
You don't understand what 'spoof' means. And see [the-forest-for-the-] 'trees' below for another teaching moment. It covers any questions you may have regarding my choice of MTG as a teaching aid.

If you're trying to pretend that several questionable, unsupported claims somehow combine to form a valid argument then you're going to have to invent a new term for that one.  Chapman-logic, I guess.
No pretending required. Chapman already combines logic with conspiracy-crowd paranoia into a finding for the prosecution.

Logic in conspiracy-crowd, Oswald-lover territory means extracting one tree at a time and requiring proof that it came from a forest. This is why you lot remain eternally (aka 56 years & counting) stranded up the creek track with no paddle station in sight.
 
Your "tongue-in-cheek spoofs" involve attributing things to "CT" that no CT has ever said.  So, yes, normal people refer to that as a strawman argument, no matter how much it amuses you to make them.
Firstly, spoofs are tongue-in-cheek in nature, so no need to put the two together (unless indicating the similarity between the two) in one phrase, professor. Additionally, my spoofs are generally meant as proof-of-concept efforts. Using Kennedy assassination lore, whether proving anything or not, is fair game in feasibility efforts whether you like it or not.

[John Iacoletti]

You don't understand what 'spoof' means. And see [the-forest-for-the-] 'trees' below for another teaching moment. It covers any questions you may have regarding my choice of MTG as a teaching aid.

What I understand is that your "spoofs" are neither clever, funny, relevant, or "teaching aids".

No pretending required. Chapman already combines logic with conspiracy-crowd paranoia into a finding for the prosecution.

If that's your strategy, then you are failing miserably.  You've never advanced a single thing that would be a "finding for the prosecution".

Logic in conspiracy-crowd, Oswald-lover territory means extracting one tree at a time and requiring proof that it came from a forest. This is why you lot remain eternally (aka 56 years & counting) stranded up the track with no station in sight.

What little real evidence there is in this case is circumstantial and arguable, impeachable, questionable, or tainted in some way.  If you disagree, then specify some evidence that isn't.  But then you never discuss the actual evidence, because you don't know it.  There is no "forest" and there never was.

[Bill Chapman]

What I understand is that your "spoofs" are neither clever, funny, relevant, or "teaching aids"
What I understand is that a certain grumpy old man has blown a gasket or two over nothing more than a little light-hearted tire-kickin'

If that's your strategy, then you are failing miserably.  You've never advanced a single thing that would be a "finding for the prosecution".
See my interest in 'proof-of-concept'
And also in 'standard-of-proof'

What little real evidence there is in this case is circumstantial and arguable, impeachable, questionable, or tainted in some way.  If you disagree, then specify some evidence that isn't. There is no "forest" and there never was
Thanks so much for the heads-up, No, really. Your posts are always so darned useful. And seeing an Oswald-lover in full rapture is always a bonus.

But then you never discuss the actual evidence, because you don't know it.
Um... does that mean I get an Oswald-style 'Ok, you can go?

[Gerry Down]

I attended K thru 12 with the same girl, Denise R. This was from 1967 to 1980, in Los Angeles. Every morning, the national anthem was played over the loudspeaker, the flag was raised on the outdoor flag pole - except for rainy days, Ithink, I'm not totally sure - and the pledge of allegiance was recited. All students stood for this. - in retrospect- rather strange, nationalistic oath taking...except for Denise. Now, it was explained to us youngsters, early on, that Denise R. was, gasp!, a Jehovah's Witness, and therefore not required to participate, on personal religious grounds.
Amazingly, life went on, I became - gasp!- friends with this Kaepernick of her time, as did many other children...because no one really cared about the whole fascist pageantry.
PS I think we children understood the Constitution better than most adult Americans do now.

Its different now. Youngsters want socialism now. Denise i'm guessing probably didn't.