Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[John Mytton]

It’s what you always end up doing to desperately try to prop up a failing argument — make something up as the “alternative”, and pretend that’s what’s being argued.

I never make the ridiculous claim that anybody “lied in unison”. And you still can’t prove that it was “Oswald’s rifle”.

It’s what you always end up doing...

Fallacy of Exaggeration

desperately try to prop up a failing argument

Ad hominen Fallacy

I never make the ridiculous claim that anybody “lied in unison”.

Quoting Out of Context Fallacy

And you still can’t prove that it was “Oswald’s rifle”.

Red Herring Argument

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Fallacy of Exaggeration

No, that’s your ignorance about what fallacy of exaggeration means.

Ad hominen Fallacy

No, attacking your argument is not attacking you.

Quoting Out of Context Fallacy

Not out of context at all. Exact quote:

“you personally even go further and absurdly claim that due to "group think psyche" derived from some supernatural "grapevine" that Law Enforcement Officers and a Postal Inspector all lied in unison”

Red Herring Argument

Not at all. Again, an exact quote:

“The sensible solution and Occam's razor conclusion is simply that Oswald invented the Hidell alias and ordered his rifle through legitimate channels which was processed and sent out by Kleins”.

Nice try though.

[Mitch Todd]

I keep quoting what you actually said.

Yes, and what I didn't say is that I believe the patrolman gave the wallet to Rose.

You are the one who jumps to a flawed conclusion about something I "tried to argue" but did not argue at all.

The point I was actually making was/is that if your repeated suggestion is true, that Baker gave Rose the wallet, the latter would not have mentioned the patrolman at all as a potential source of the wallet, because "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman."

I can't help it if you don't understand basic English.

This is a little more detailed, but it has the same fundamental issue. You keep creating this dilemma between Baker and the Patrolmen,

then rule out Baker.

Which leaves the Patrolmen. 

Do you not get that you keep doing that? 

And you say I don't understand English 

Other than that, your problem is that you continue to presume what Rose would have done and what was going through his mind. In reality, you have no idea what Rose would have been thinking or how he would have acted in the situation.

[Martin Weidmann]

This is a little more detailed, but it has the same fundamental issue. You keep creating this dilemma between Baker and the Patrolmen,

then rule out Baker.

Which leaves the Patrolmen. 

Do you not get that you keep doing that? 

You still haven't figured out that it has nothing to do with the patrol man and everything to do with your suggestion that Baker gave the wallet to Rose?

And you say I don't understand English 

Well, apparently you don't because you have been making the same mistake over and over again. You keep on insisting that if it wasn't Baker who gave the wallet to Rose, it must have been the patrol man. And you couldn't have been more wrong. I never claimed that the patrol man gave the wallet to Rose. I, in fact, accepted that Rose wasn't sure who gave him the wallet.

I merely stated that if Rose did get the wallet from Baker (who he knew very well), as you suggested, he would have had no need to even bring up any other possible source for the wallet, which of course includes the patrol man. At some point you argued (I'm paraphrasing) that Rose simply may have forgotten the event, because it was a mundane act that frequently happened. This, of course, makes no sense, because first of all it doesn't happen every day that you get to talk to a man accused of killing the President. But more importantly, you want us to believe that it is plausible that he simply had forgotten that Baker (who he knew well) gave him the wallet, yet at the same remembered the presence of an unknown police man. Really?

For all I know it was neither Baker or the patrol man who actually gave the wallet to Rose. But that - and you probably will not understand this - was never the subject of our discussion.

Other than that, your problem is that you continue to presume what Rose would have done and what was going through his mind. In reality, you have no idea what Rose would have been thinking or how he would have acted in the situation.

Sorry, I can't fix stupid.

Other than that, your problem is that you continue to presume what Rose would have done and what was going through his mind.

No. That was you;

It may be that the handover was such a mundane, routine, trivial act --repeated many times a week, week after week as suspects came and went-- that it faded into the background noise of Rose's memory

And not only that, but you also presumed to know what I was thinking;

Again, the statement makes no sense in the current discussion unless you thought that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.

I'm done with this pointless argumentative BS. I'm sure you'll find somebody else to bore to death.

[John Mytton]

No, that’s your ignorance about what fallacy of exaggeration means.

No, attacking your argument is not attacking you.

Not out of context at all. Exact quote:

“you personally even go further and absurdly claim that due to "group think psyche" derived from some supernatural "grapevine" that Law Enforcement Officers and a Postal Inspector all lied in unison”

Not at all. Again, an exact quote:

“The sensible solution and Occam's razor conclusion is simply that Oswald invented the Hidell alias and ordered his rifle through legitimate channels which was processed and sent out by Kleins”.

Nice try though.

No, that’s your ignorance about what fallacy of exaggeration means.

What I always do (or do not do) is an irrelevant addition to my "propping up a failing argument."

No, attacking your argument is not attacking you.

You attacked my state of mind(desperation) of why I made a particular argument, which I take great offence at!

Not out of context at all. Exact quote:

“you personally even go further and absurdly claim that due to "group think psyche" derived from some supernatural "grapevine" that Law Enforcement Officers and a Postal Inspector all lied in unison”

From my original post where this discussion initially surfaced, you argued against my evidence that, (the Hidell name was discussed with Oswald and at some point Oswald even admitted carrying the Hidell ID), with your opinion of "group think psyche" and "Law enforcement grapevine" therefore under these circumstances we only have two conclusions they were ALL telling the truth or they ALL lied in unison!

Not at all. Again, an exact quote:

“The sensible solution and Occam's razor conclusion is simply that Oswald invented the Hidell alias and ordered his rifle through legitimate channels which was processed and sent out by Kleins”.

Show me where I said that quote in the post you responded to, otherwise it's a tacked on Red Herring.

Nice try though.

 

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

What I always do (or do not do) is an irrelevant addition to my "propping up a failing argument."

You attacked my state of mind(desperation) of why I made a particular argument, which I take great offence at!

Well now we can add hypocrisy to your long list of character flaws:

This sequence of inconceivable events I doubt would even be contemplated by a fiction author like Ian Fleming or Robert Ludlum, because of the absurd unbelievability, yet almost 60 years later the mind of an ever increasingly desperate conspiracy theorist who believes anything and I mean anything is possible, just take it all in their stride. -sigh-

From my original post where this discussion initially surfaced, you argued against my evidence that, (the Hidell name was discussed with Oswald and at some point Oswald even admitted carrying the Hidell ID), with your opinion of "group think psyche" and "Law enforcement grapevine" therefore under these circumstances we only have two conclusions they were ALL telling the truth or they ALL lied in unison!

You sure love your false dichotomies.

If months later somebody reports something he has a memory of hearing from somebody else, it’s not a “lie”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true either.

Show me where I said that quote in the post you responded to, otherwise it's a tacked on Red Herring.

Now that’s funny. The guy who whinges about evidence being examined in isolation wants one post in a long conversation to be responded to in isolation.

[John Mytton]

Well now we can add hypocrisy to your long list of character flaws:

You sure love your false dichotomies.

If months later somebody reports something he has a memory of hearing from somebody else, it’s not a “lie”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true either.

Now that’s funny. The guy who whinges about evidence being examined in isolation wants one post in a long conversation to be responded to in isolation.

...your long list of character flaws:

Yet another Ad-Hominin. Yawn!

You sure love your false dichotomies.
If months later somebody reports something he has a memory of hearing from somebody else, it’s not a “lie”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true either.

Moving the Goalposts.

Either the guys at the interrogation heard Oswald being questioned about the Hidell ID or they didn't.
Either the guys who heard Oswald admit carrying the Hidell Identification or they didn't.
Either the guys in the squad car heard Bentley mention a second identification or they didn't.

Now that’s funny. The guy who whinges about evidence being examined in isolation wants one post in a long conversation to be responded to in isolation.

Huh? The rifle wasn't being discussed! Because you had no answers, as a diversion, you added the rifle as a Red Herring. Whatever it takes seems to be a running theme with you.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Yet another Ad-Hominin. Yawn!

Nope. I didn’t say your argument was wrong because you’re a hypocrite. I’m just pointing out that you’re a hypocrite.

Either the guys at the interrogation heard Oswald being questioned about the Hidell ID or they didn't.
Either the guys who heard Oswald admit carrying the Hidell Identification or they didn't.
Either the guys in the squad car heard Bentley mention a second identification or they didn't.

Well we finally agree on something.

But how does this show that it’s either true or they necessarily “lied in unison”? You don’t understand “moving the goalposts” either.

Huh? The rifle wasn't being discussed! Because you had no answers, as a diversion, you added the rifle as a Red Herring. Whatever it takes seems to be a running theme with you.

Of course it was being discussed. It’s right there in your quote. Don’t blame me if you can’t remember what you said.

“The sensible solution and Occam's razor conclusion is simply that Oswald invented the Hidell alias and ordered his rifle through legitimate channels which was processed and sent out by Kleins”.

This whole discussion about Oswald allegedly carrying a Hidell ID (that nobody bothered to mention in any interview or report made before the Klein’s order “turned up”) is irrelevant if you’re not trying to use it to connect Oswald with the rifle you want to believe is the murder weapon.