David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[John Iacoletti]

The only reason that WC-cultists are always demanding an “alternative narrative” is to shift the burden of proof and draw attention away from their own inability to substantiate their own narrative.

[Andrew Mason]

The only reason that WC-cultists are always demanding an “alternative narrative” is to shift the burden of proof and draw attention away from their own inability to substantiate their own narrative.

No.  I think the WC defenders want to know what the alternative to the LN conclusion is.  The only alternative seems to be one that considers all of the evidence to either be faked or the result of some miracle that not only allowed this huge body of mutually consistent evidence to exist by random chance.  Fakery requires an enormous number of people all working together to deceive the public and to keep completely silent for 58+ years.  The coincidence argument is statistically as likely as heat flow occurring spontaneously from cold to hot.

[John Iacoletti]

No.  I think the WC defenders want to know what the alternative to the LN conclusion is. 

The alternative to the LN faith-based conclusion is:

Indeterminate

The only alternative seems to be one that considers all of the evidence to either be faked or the result of some miracle that not only allowed this huge body of mutually consistent evidence to exist by random chance.

I don’t consider all of the evidence to either be faked or the result of some miracle. What little evidence there is (real evidence, not nonsense like a ring in a cup) is weak, unreliable, circumstantial, contradictory, and tainted. It simply doesn’t lend itself to any solid conclusion.

[Paul J Cummings]

Chauncey Holt said it best in the long interview he gave to his daughter which has been taken down on Youtube. He said something that has stuck with me about the JFK case and just because you find yourself around the events doesn't mean you knew what was going on. Holt was identified by Lois Gibson (loisgibson.com) as one of the three tramps and Holt said he was there and was arrested. He received instructions but thought the situation in Dallas was to scare Kennedy. He had no idea and he followed his instructions. That's what people did in the Kennedy Assassination they followed instructions but that doesn't mean they were all in on it.

No.  I think the WC defenders want to know what the alternative to the LN conclusion is.  The only alternative seems to be one that considers all of the evidence to either be faked or the result of some miracle that not only allowed this huge body of mutually consistent evidence to exist by random chance.  Fakery requires an enormous number of people all working together to deceive the public and to keep completely silent for 58+ years.  The coincidence argument is statistically as likely as heat flow occurring spontaneously from cold to hot.

[Andrew Mason]

The alternative to the LN faith-based conclusion is:

Indeterminate

I don’t consider all of the evidence to either be faked or the result of some miracle. What little evidence there is (real evidence, not nonsense like a ring in a cup) is weak, unreliable, circumstantial, contradictory, and tainted. It simply doesn’t lend itself to any solid conclusion.

Even if each piece of evidence could be considered weak or unreliable on its own, the sheer amount of it makes it reliable and strong.  Matching one point of a fingerprint doesn't mean much.  But matching 12 is conclusive. 

In this case, each piece of evidence forms a few pixels but when you put them together they display a high resolution picture that is unmistakably Oswald.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Even if each piece of evidence could be considered weak or unreliable on its own, the sheer amount of it makes it reliable and strong.  Matching one point of a fingerprint doesn't mean much.  But matching 12 is conclusive. 

In this case, each piece of evidence forms a few pixels but when you put them together they display a high resolution picture that is unmistakably Oswald.

Known formally as: consilience of evidence.

But one has to be able to consider the totality of evidence and not isolate one piece while ignoring the rest. Which is what the Oswald defenders do, consciously or not.

It's also why, for me, the alternative idea of this being planned and carried out - in secret - with some larger force directing it is simply not plausible. Too many parts, too many people, too many aspects to control or direct. Read some of the millions of pages of documents that the government has released. Other than seeing the astonishing amount of paperwork that government generates (good lord, memos and cables and cables and memos about other cables and memo ad infinitum) one can see the confusion and disarray of the people inside government. Even people like a Hoover or McCone were unable to keep on top of this.

[John Iacoletti]

Even if each piece of evidence could be considered weak or unreliable on its own, the sheer amount of it makes it reliable and strong.

What “sheer amount”?

The idea that a few things that aren’t evidence somehow combine to form evidence is frankly silly.

[John Iacoletti]

But one has to be able to consider the totality of evidence and not isolate one piece while ignoring the rest. Which is what the Oswald defenders do, consciously or not.

The WC narrative is the poster child for ignoring whatever doesn’t fit.