Just out of curiosity, what would be considered ‘sufficient evidence’ for the “Lone Gun Theorists” to revise their opinions?
Something credible would be nice. Got anything like that?
Regards,
Shodan
Impotent, useless, and pretty much a believer’s bitch? OK, if you want it that way…
Because most of us are scratching our heads.
What was the purpose of linking to a video about human levitation? To show that rather than debunking stories of human levitation, we should take a neutral stance–remain agnostic about human levitation? After all, we weren’t there, so it’s pretty arrogant of us to assume that human beings can’t fly?
What’s the point again?
More bullet holes in the limo (or its passengers) would have done it.
I get the impression the point is that Joe Nickel is wrong (and thus anyone who who tends to agree with Joe Nickel on any subject is wrong) becaue Joe Nickel is a big fat meanie poopyhead.
I wonder if his point is:
“Joe Nickel is just idly speculating for some plausble naturalistic explanation for these levitation stories. But he never stops to consider that maybe the stories are really true. Therefore, skeptics are dolts.”
Or if the autopsy (or the review of the autopsy photos and x-rays by the 1978 HSCA panel of experts) found that some of the wounds could only have been caused by JFK being fired on from somewhere other above and behind.
Or if the rifling marks on the ‘magic’ bullet didn’t match Oswald’s gun.
I’m sure there are others.
Assuming we’re not going to revisit autopsy results at this late date, perhaps some aged mafioso dies and in his private vault are three films on 1963-available stock showing Dealey Plaza from different angles and somebody other than Lee Harvey Oswald is shooting.
That might convince me, but first the hugely more likely solution that these are forgeries would have to be ruled out.
This is your big slapdown? That someone speculates on why 300+ year old tales of levitation might contain a grain of truth?
I thought you wanted to the CSICOP guys to be more respectful of the “woos”? Here’s a CSICOP guy not making fun of a paranormal claim. Make up your mind. Oops, I forgot, you can’t, you’re an agnostic.
Again, when 90% or more of the evidence says one thing, and the rest is ambiguous, then pretending the 10% is somehow proof of something is a fool’s game. Without some kind of hard evidence, not just speculation, there is no reason to continue flogging this particular horse. If you have any hard evidence, everyone here is willing to listen.
Bryan Ekers;11423480]
Don’t believe I ever said anything about Oswald not being there. Don’t feed me Straw-berry pie.
I believe the theories about where the second gunman’s bullet/bullets went say that some/all of the fragments in JFK’s head are from the 2nd, who, if there with the intention of making Oswald a patsy, would use the same rifle/same bullets.
You’re as shameless as Shameless Joe himself. The “Well, if humans with the power of levitation once existed, why don’t they exist now…” statement is weak and flawed logic. Look again at the height and distance vs the claim made by Shameless Joe Nickell. You’re saying that the absence is proof is proof of absence
Like this:
Verification of levitation abilities would be easy
No alleged levitators have come forward to be tested
Therefore, levitation is impossible.
All it would have taken Joe to prove his theory is to have an athlete the likes have never existed on the planet earth, not even on ‘stroids. The explanation of the guy levitating or a superman athlete equally unlikely. You will scoff at levitation but turn around and endorse the existence of a superman athlete. To paraphrase one of CSIOPtics™ terms pertaining to UFOs: Yeah (sarcasm) I believe in superhuman athletes as much as I believe in human levitation. Yeah, right (eyes rolling in head while shaking it back and forth)
This is exactly what I mean by a Forced Plausible. CSIOPtics™ will do anything in their power to not have to acknowledge the possibility that there might be human levitation, UFOs, etc. What happens with a CSIOPtic™ is that they have a psychological scotoma (blind spot) through which they view things like this. They refuse to acknowledge that Ocaam’s Razor is a double edged blade. The other blade is called Ocaam’s Beard – the simplest explanation is not always the best.
Another obvious explanation would have been that he levitated, for Christ’s sake. But because of no tangible evidence it is very remote.
CSIOPtics™ and CTers are each other’s evil twin. The CTers, UFOers, etc., are like Fox Muldar who wants to believe and CSIOPtics™ are like the evil twin who doesn’t want to believe. Each side will sometimes reach too far in an effort to prove themselves right.
Critical thinking is good but:
Be skeptical in all things, especially skepticism.
Oh, and one last thing: You said, “I understand your need to ridicule him (Joe Nickell)…” Brian, look in the mirror. You guys have an obsession to ridicule woo stuff and its done all the time in a disdainful, disrespectful, demeaning manner, isn’t it? So when the shoe is on the other foot, you don’t seem to like it. Think about that. Turnabout is fair play. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.
I’ll share the perspective of someone who was on the sidelines when this happened:
My grandfather was a secret service bodyguard for President Kennedy as well as other protected people. Specifically, he was involved in maritime operations when the president was on his boat of on the water or others who carried a security detail at times (the Mercury astronauts are an example).
After a few too may scotches one night about a year ago, I asked him what he thought about the assassination. My whole life he made it clear that the topic was off limits. That night though, he talked about it. He said that there were huge screw-ups all over the place from a security detail standpoint (note: he was NOT there, as it was not a maritime trip). Tears ran down his cheeks as he talked about it. When asked if he thought Oswald did it he replied: No, it was Hoover who was really behind it. That was the end of the conversation. He quit immediately after Kennedy was killed and spent the rest of his career as a civilian working for the defense department overseas.
Do I believe he thinks that? Yes.
Do I think Oswald was part of a conspiracy? No, I’ve looked out the window Oswald shot from down to the street and he probably good have killed him with a lucky round from a slingshot. The evidence is overwhelming.
R
jake, do you believe there once existed humans who had the power of levitation, or are you agnostic about that, too? An “obvious explanation” is that he levitated? Okay… any theories on how he might have accomplished this? This isn’t even being asked scoffingly - if it is possible, I would find it extremely interesting. I’ll even admit the possibility that it might exist, though it would require a major shift in our current understanding of gravity. I just don’t see any hard evidence that it does (or did) exist.
Anyway, regarding JFK, I asked for an alternate theory which, quote, “involves Oswald not being the shooter (or being one of several shooters)”. The part in brackets wasn’t invisible. I can only assume you ignored it. There isn’t a hint of straw involved, and I take it as a further demonstration that you’re using a definition of “strawman” that differs from mine.
As for shoes being on the other feet, I haven’t seen anything in this thread that make me feel like I’m being ridiculed. Childishly mocked, maybe, in a manner similar to a six-year old who repeats back everything I say in an attempt at derision, but nothing so far that I have to take seriously, and I’m only vaguely familiar with what a “CSIOPTIC” is. Something to do with James Randi, I guess. I haven’t been to his website in at least a year.
I gather you don’t like these people, but every example you provide has them behaving far more rationally than you. It doesn’t matter if you think they’re arrogant or narrow-minded or whatever, because all I care about is if you can prove they are wrong. Hard evidence of a second shooter or hard evidence of human levitation will do so nicely. if you want to challenge a statement by John Doe, I genuinely don’t care if you have a personal hatred for John Doe that burns with the intensity of a thousand suns or indeed if John Doe is biggest jerk in human history and fully deserves your hatred. Challenge his facts, if you can.
I’ve described my uncle from AF Intelligence before. Ain’t it frustrating that they stop talking two seconds after they start? It could blow apart all of reality, or they could be jerking us around.
Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics.
Didn’t know that was such a terrible thing to be. I’m glad you set me straight.
The point was and still is the way a CSIOPtic™ will use a Forced Plausible™ to maintain the structural integrity of his reality tunnel. For the record, though, this seems to apply mainly to areas that for some reason are highly emotionally charged like woo, CTers, UFOs, etc. In other areas such they seem to be much more rational.
What’s arrogant is Shameless Joe Nickell spouting out garbage like that as though he is some kind of a qualified expert in the field of levitation. In wiki Joe describes himself, "Nickell (using Nickell’s own words) as an “investigator” and formerly an “undercover detective, teacher, draft dodger, river boat manager, carnival promoter, magician and spokesperson.” The scariest part is that some people lap it up like a kitten lapping up warm milk.
…
Never said I believed or even thought that 10% was proof of something, t. I said Shameless Joe’s explanation was as weak as a new born babe, that it was a Forced Plausible™. Stretching the bounds of credibility to the breaking point and beyond.
One of the things Shameless Joe is good at is “Nickell has evaluated manuscripts and written works for authenticity, including the purported diaries of Jack the Ripper and Adolf Hitler (both of which he helped to reveal as forgeries), and Hannah Crafts’ mid-nineteenth century novel The Bondwoman’s Narrative, whose authenticity he supported. (wiki)”. All he had to say is, “there is very little, if any evidence, that supports that. After having reviewed the written historical documents, I believe the most plausible explanation is religious fervor.” Instead, he proposes a superhuman athlete-type explanation. Why? Joe’s a much smarter guy than that.
So, you and Joe don’t believe in levitation, but you don’t like the way he doesn’t believe in levitation?
So basically, because the guy’s proposed explanation for accounts of human levitiation was, “Maybe the friar just jumped around a lot, and those medieval tards thought it was a miracle”, you think he’s the epitome of wrongheadedness?