Your Theories Won?t Do It

[John Iacoletti]

How is that appeal to ridicule?

"if you consider the fart of every passing fly as anomalies that need accounted for"

That is most definitely an appeal to ridicule.

No, no it isn?t. If you a theory that says a shot came from the front, you get the hypothesis that there is evidence of a frontal shot.

This sentence doesn't really parse, but if you're saying that people who propose a frontal shot (like for example Sherry Fiester) have the burden of showing evidence for a frontal shot, then I agree.

I?m afraid that?s fallacy no 2 for you: false equivalence.

You mean like flies farting?

Proposing models to explain data is not that same thing is deciding a priori what data is valid and what isn?t.

Propose what you like.  There's no model in the world that will tell you who pulled the trigger.  Proposing a model that all the wounds were created by one bullet because you decide a priori that Oswald had to be a lone shooter is putting the cart before the horse.

Models fail in the absence of support.

And when you have to move wound locations and fudge people's seating locations to make your a prioi assumption work, then your model is a failure out of the starting gate.

Cherry-picking isn?t the same as only using those data which successfully integrate into a coherent model and ignoring all the weirdness that creates confusion and uncertainty.

And by "weirdness that creates confusion and uncertainty", you mean data that doesn't fit your model.  This is most certainly cherry-picking.

Unexplainable facts exist. As science marches forward, more things may become explainable. For now, let?s use what limited knowledge our species has accrued and try to make sense of things, cool?

I have no problem "trying to make sense of things".  What I have a problem with is pretending that "I don't know" really means "I do know, and it's my contrived cherry-picked model that explains everything, and you would see it too if you only ignored the right things".

[John Iacoletti]

The documents presented in evidence are false then?

The documents presented in evidence do not demonstrate ownership.

The Mauser BS was disputed in the 60s (see Six Seconds).

Three deputies described a Mauser on 11/22.  Nobody described a Carcano.

7.65 gun with 2 6.5 shells? How does that work?

What do you mean, "how does that work?"  Who says that shells on the floor must have been fired by a weapon found in the same building?

Couldn?t be that the 7.65 and 6.5 guns look similar, could it?

Here's we go again with "possible therefore true".

And I guess photographs of three shells is just smoke and mirrors?

According to Tom Alyea, yes it was smoke and mirrors.

Yes, those ones. Forgot to mention they had human tissue on them.

What do you think this demonstrates, exactly?

Bullet found at hospital with shooting victims. Bullet comes from gun found at the scene of this very shooting. You?re right, I see no connection here. What possible connection could those things have? Why would anybody think they were associated? Are you a professor?

Do you have any good reason to believe that CE399 was found at Parkland?

Also that stretcher thing is guesswork: nobody knows which one it was, and it doesn?t matter.

Nobody knows better than the guy who found it.

Robert Oswald, the folks who didn?t like Oswald for hitting Marina, and a few others.

And all this time I thought Robert Oswald was a salesman, not a clinical psychologist.

Was much too bored to cite anything else

Of course you are.

[John Iacoletti]

If we boil down all the banter, arguing, and posturing that goes on, the bottom line is this:

You think that "Oswald did it, and did it alone" is the conclusion that best fits the evidence, by ignoring the anomalies, discrepancies, and contradictory evidence.

I think that the conclusion that best fits the evidence is "indeterminate" by considering the anomalies, discrepancies, and contradictory evidence.

I know that humans always want to have an answer for everything -- even if they have to make one up -- but sometimes there just isn't one.

[Jack Trojan]

My evidence is literally front and centre of those volumes: despite the CT moaning about poorly matching dates on documents etc, there hasn?t been a serious, evidence-based rebuttal to any of the following claims:

There can be no serious, evidence-based rebuttal to a LNer claim because they have made up their minds and closed shop.

? Oswald owned the rifle and pistol

This is a conclusion, not evidence. Where's the beef?

? 6.5 rifle and 3 shells were found on the 6th floor

A rifle without a single print of Oswald's on it and 3 hulls that Fritz found in a tight group near the SN window, which he picked up with his bare hands and later tossed on the floor in a more scattered arrangement so he could take a more credible photo of the crime scene.

? Bullet fragments recovered from the limo matched Oswald?s gun

Correction:  bullet fragments that were allegedly recovered from the limo by a secret service agent and a Navy corpsman, with no documented chain of evidence which were mutilated were matched to a rifle allegedly belonging to Oswald by Robert Frazier lining up marks in his mind after they didn't line up under the microscope.

? CE-399 matched Oswald?s gun

• There isn't a bullet trajectory from the 6th floor window into JFK's back at the T1 vertebrae and out his throat at the C7 vertebrae, otherwise, prove it sucka.
• CE-399 had no blood, bone or tissue on it after causing 7 wounds and smashing thru bones.
• CE-399 was pristine (>95% intact) after causing 7 wounds and smashing thru 3 bones.
• CE-399 was planted on the wrong gurney.

Conclusion: CE-399 was either magic or shot into a swimming pool then planted at Parkland.

? Oswald, by all the accounts that you consistently miss when reading the volumes, was a classic psychopath

And being a classic armchair psychoanalyst, you should know.

? Etc, etc, etc

More of the same? Bring it.

How about you cite some credible evidence suggesting some of this data isn?t to be trusted? Let?s start with just one: the bullet fragments, how did they get from LHO?s weapon on the sixth floor to the limousine, with human tissue attached them? Or do we agree they came from a bullet striking somebody in that car fired from that window?

Again, your false premise that the bullet fragments were linked to the rifle result in GIGO. You haven't even linked Oswald to the rifle with credible evidence. In fact, all the evidence you cite supports Oswald being a sheep-dipped patsy and not a lone nut assassin.

[Rob Caprio]

Dude, your only knowledge of the volumes comes from your CT books 

My evidence is literally front and centre of those volumes: despite the CT moaning about poorly matching dates on documents etc, there hasn?t been a serious, evidence-based rebuttal to any of the following claims:

? Oswald owned the rifle and pistol
? 6.5 rifle and 3 shells were found on the 6th floor
? Bullet fragments recovered from the limo matched Oswald?s gun
? CE-399 matched Oswald?s gun
? Oswald, by all the accounts that you consistently miss when reading the volumes, was a classic psychopath
? Etc, etc, etc

How about you cite some credible evidence suggesting some of this data isn?t to be trusted? Let?s start with just one: the bullet fragments, how did they get from LHO?s weapon on the sixth floor to the limousine, with human tissue attached them? Or do we agree they came from a bullet striking somebody in that car fired from that window?

How could you possibly know this? This is McAdams 101 stuff.

I see NO evidence. I see a bunch of UNSUPPORTED claims made by the WC. Then you expect people to believe that you were a CTer. Please.

[Tom Scully]

It is obvious the opinions of the thread author and those posting in support of his opinions
do not consider what usually happens in reaction to the historical S.O.P., the "hail mary play"
triggered by the "what have we got to lose?" moment of recognition.

"The Fix" is the "hail mary play". In the Oswald example, we will probably never know if "The Fix"
was put in initially because Hoover and LBJ knew by Saturday morning, discussing "the tapes"  from
Mexico City Hoover's agents familiar with Oswald's voice Hoover described to Johnson in late morning on 11/23, or if it was put in after Oswald was assassinated while surrounded by DPD, or put in in reaction to the combination of both. The American people were kept unaware of attempt by Dallas FBI
to compare tapes of Oswald's voice recorded in Mexico City with their memories of Oswald's real time
voice...listening to tapes since officially denied to have existed by November, 1963.

Some history of the case and another example of putting in the fix...a big news story in our own
current events.

This convo in late afternoon, Nov. 24 between Moyers in DC and Rostow in New Haven describes
"The Fix". It was described at exactly the same time the innermost viscera in Oswald's corpse had
cooled to room  temperature.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/pdf/LBJ_11-24-63_Moyers-Rostow.pdf


In hindsight, considering what the later developed evidence indicates, was "the Fix" aka the Warren Commission, sorely in need of a "magic bullet" from the moment "the Commission" was concocted (less than 30 hours after JFK died...) as the "hail mary play".

Didn't Nixon turn out to be Nixon and Tom Dooley a CIA asset run by Paul Hellmuth?

On ‎8‎/‎29‎/‎2012 at 4:49 AM, Tom Scully said:

....I did not even get into the history of Paul Hellmuth and Dr. Tom Dooley. John A. Bross and Eli Whitney Debevoise both were assistant counsels to the HICOG at about the same time. McCloy took Debevoise's father's place as John D. Rockefeller, Jr.'s attorney when Debevoise's father, Thomas, retired. Eli Whitney Debevoise's law partner was Francis Plimpton, Plimpton's brother was appointed by McCloy as president of Amherst U. Plimpton's son George (with Cass Canfield's stepson and Peter Matthiessen) was part of what the Tom Dooley propaganda / espionage Op was about, steering and controlling young hearts and minds. Francis Plimpton was implicated with Houghton at the Met. Museum, along with Paul Hellmuth and David B. Stone in the CIA funding of student Orgs ...... Hellmuth, Stone, and Weston Howland, Jr., a cousin who was one of the less than 20 named with Michael Paine as shareholders of Naushon Island were founders of the New England Aquarium and served on the board and or funded the Woods Hole Institute....

On ‎8‎/‎4‎/‎2012 at 10:50 PM, Tom Scully said:
......a group of Woods Hole Institute trustees including Thomas J Devine and a Mr. Howland, former OSS who was linked to the CIA's Paul Hellmuth and David Stone of the NE Aquarium and (Howland and his sisters) was one of less than two dozen named along with Michael Paine bequeathed shares in Naushon Island. .....

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958&relPageId=147&search=backyard_photos%20first


https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1138&relPageId=222&search=wright_and%20path%20of%20the%20bullet


Harrison Livingston

https://obits.dallasnews.com/obituaries/dallasmorningnews/obituary.aspx?n=shirley-wright-dean&pid=147489016

Dean, Shirley Wright 76 went to be with her family in Heaven on December 27, 2010. Preceded in death by husband Patrick Trevore Dean, parents O.P. "Pokey" Wright and Joe Madeline Kerr Wright and grandson ?.. Survived by daughter Tivilla ?.

"The Fix" 1992 - 2019

Essay; 1st Global Political Scandal - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/12/opinion/essay-1st-global-political-scandal.html
Nov 12, 1992 - By WILLIAM SAFIRE NOV. ... Coverup-General Barr and Mr. Mueller were instrumental in appointing the lawyer for the American subsidiary of ?

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Appendix%20to%20Barr%20QFR%20Responses3.pdf
APPENDIX TO THE QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD WILLIAM P. BARR  NOMINEE TO BE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL   Letter from William P. Barr, nominee to be Attorney General of the United States, to Chairman Lindsey Graham, Senate Committee on the Judiciary (January 14, 2019)

...In 2017 and 2018, much of the news media was saturated with commentary and speculation about various obstruction theories that the Special Counsel may have been pursuing at the time, including theories under section 1512(c).  I decided to weigh in because I was worried that, if an overly expansive interpretation of section 1512(c) were adopted in this particular case, it could, over the longer term, cast a pall over the exercise of discretionary authority, not just by future Presidents, but by all public officials involved in administering the law, especially those in the Department.  I started drafting an op-ed.  But as I wrote, I quickly realized that the subject matter was too dry and would require too much space.  Further, my purpose was not to influence public opinion on the issue, but rather to make sure that all of the lawyers involved carefully considered the potential implications of the theory.  I discussed my views broadly with lawyer friends; wrote the memo to senior Department officials; shared it with other interested parties; and later provided copies to friends.  I was not representing anyone when I wrote the memorandum, and no one requested that I draft it.  I wrote it myself, on my own initiative, without assistance, and based solely on public information.   
 
You requested that I provide you with additional information concerning the lawyers with whom I shared the memorandum or discussed the issue it addresses.  As the media has reported, I provided the memorandum to officials at the Department of Justice and lawyers for the President.  To the best of my recollection, before I began writing the memorandum, I provided ...
?.

Dillon, can you understand why it is reasonable to regard your thread and Barr's 19 page unsolicited
memo to DOJ officials in mid-2018 as solutions seeking problems?

[Dillon Rankine]

"if you consider the fart of every passing fly as anomalies that need accounted for"

That is most definitely an appeal to ridicule.

It?s a broad statement which notes the confounding effect of errant data, not an argument.

Your biggest failure in all your responses is this failure to disengage from ?argument mode? and focus on things in the real world; reality is not a logical syllogism waiting for you to debunk.

This sentence doesn't really parse, but if you're saying that people who propose a frontal shot (like for example Sherry Fiester) have the burden of showing evidence for a frontal shot, then I agree.

It means that different models of understanding the shooting come with associated predictions about the state of the evidence (i.e., Kennedy was shot in the front entails that this must be possible given the available data; we?ll return to your failure to grasp this point next). 

Propose what you like.  There's no model in the world that will tell you who pulled the trigger.  Proposing a model that all the wounds were created by one bullet because you decide a priori that Oswald had to be a lone shooter is putting the cart before the horse.

Basic understanding of epistemology and philosophy of science is needed.

Models are proposed explanations which are tested against the evidence
? rule out the impossible ones and your left with a handful, and the whole reason Occam?s razor is a thing should tell you which one you side with until further evidence shows up.

If a model proposes (as in Phantom Shot) that the shooting was executed with only two bullets, we expect find evidence to support that this even possible ? there isn?t, so it?s false.

Despite what CT/mister lawyer-men tell you, you can?t use induction until the ?truth? appears. There?s bullet evidence, a weapon, victims, etc. Models are a way of finding order in that chaos, and their specific hypotheses is what rule them out. The LN model remains standing.

And when you have to move wound locations and fudge people's seating locations to make your a prioi assumption work, then your model is a failure out of the starting gate.

The shot works at T-1. The voodoo of the ideologues isn?t relevant to the evidence. I?m sure there?s a fallacy named for this style of discussion

And by "weirdness that creates confusion and uncertainty", you mean data that doesn't fit your model.  This is most certainly cherry-picking.

No, I don?t. Again, I?m sure there?s a fallacy named after this. Errant data is meaningless sh*t like ?dead SS agents,? ?gunsmoke? on the knoll, etc.

I have no problem "trying to make sense of things".  What I have a problem with is pretending that "I don't know" really means "I do know, and it's my contrived cherry-picked model that explains everything, and you would see it too if you only ignored the right things".

Some facts are more relevant than others, and terms like ?noise in the data? don?t exist for nothing. Order in the data that happens to conform to one model (the LN) is highly, highly unlikely to occur by chance. (Statisticians even have a way showing this ? the p-value.)

[Dillon Rankine]

The documents presented in evidence do not demonstrate ownership.

Three deputies described a Mauser on 11/22.  Nobody described a Carcano.

What do you mean, "how does that work?"  Who says that shells on the floor must have been fired by a weapon found in the same building?

Here's we go again with "possible therefore true".

Weitzman?s honest mistake is more plausible than ?all the photographs were altered.? He even admitted that his reasoning for saying Mauser was that the Carcano has a bolt resembling a Mauser ? in fact; it was designed to mimic the Mauser, and was less commonly known. 
 

According to Tom Alyea, yes it was smoke and mirrors.

That?s a unique conclusions to jump to. Last I checked there?s a rifle and shells.

What do you think this demonstrates, exactly?

Bullet fragments with human tissue found in limousine in which people were shot? Yeah, I can see where you might have difficulty understanding the proposal: it really gets the noggin joggin.

Do you have any good reason to believe that CE399 was found at Parkland?

Order in that data, mainly. Of course, the only reason you doubt it is because you?re fualty views on human memory ? a subject of intense scientific study (Nobel prizes and everything) which have revelaed that it?s malleable by design (of evolution). 

Nobody knows better than the guy who found it.

His guess done from memory is your evidence? Even if he?s right, who cares? It?s possible that evil conspiracy people planted it and never uttered a word, but totally impossible for someone to have saw something on the floor and put it on a stretcher, and said nothing afterward? Who cares?

And all this time I thought Robert Oswald was a salesman, not a clinical psychologist.

I described that multiple people gave descriptions of Oswald that consist of psychopathic personality traits.