# JFK's Assassination **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 20, 2000, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370 "2000-01-20T07:46:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2000, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370/101 "2000-01-30T06:12:00Z")
No one on either side thinks that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head was the one that hit Johnson. Johnson was shot well before this, and in the clip above is already hit. The bullet that hit Kennedy in the head disintegrated. This is another bit of ‘evidence’ that the conspiracy folks use to suggest there was a second shooter - Carcano bullets are heavy, with a heavy Full Metal Jacket around them. They are not known for fragmenting. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2000, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370/102 "2000-01-30T14:29:00Z")
[Moderator Hat: ON] No, the Zapruder film is not in the public domain (there was just a lawsuit resolution on that very topic). I’ve deleted it and the huge graphic that had been posted previously (both by Dhanson) for possible copyright problems and just being big honking things that screwed up the thread and made it take quite a while to load. Please post links to things like this, don’t put them in the actual thread. Thanks. * * * David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator [Moderator Hat: OFF] ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2000, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370/103 "2000-01-31T06:39:00Z")
dhanson wrote: > [@](#): > > The bullet that hit Kennedy in the head disintegrated. This is another bit of ‘evidence’ that the conspiracy folks use to suggest there was a second shooter - Carcano bullets are heavy, with a heavy Full Metal Jacket around them. They are not known for fragmenting. Thing is, every cartridge I’ve ever seen had metal-jacketed and non-metal-jacketed bullet variants made for it. If I were trying to assassinate somebody, I wouldn’t be worrying about the Geneva Convention rule requiring the use of metal-jacketed rounds; I’d want to use whatever kind of bullet would have the biggest chance of killing my target with a single hit. (Hollow-point ammo is best for this, if your target isn’t wearing kevlar, but hollow-point rounds have some aerodynamic problems over long ranges.) I guess the question I should be asking is: What kind of 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition was found in Oswald’s gun or on Oswald’s person? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2000, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370/104 "2000-01-30T19:10:00Z")
Western Cartridge, FMJ military surplus. The whole debate over the ‘pristine bullet’ emphasises how tough these bullets are. Bullet CE399 went through two people and causes seven wounds, and only lost 2.9 grains of material. It flattened slightly along its long axis, but 0therwise looks almost unfired. The conspiracy theorists claim that you can’t have it both ways - either these bullets are frangible and explode on impact, or they don’t. The one in Kennedy’s head broke into about a hundred pieces, the one that lodged in Connolly’s thigh was intact. I don’t know that I buy that argument. The physics of hitting a skull at 2000 fps are completely different than the physics of hitting soft tissue several times until finially hitting bone at 1000 fps. DavidB: Sorry about those posts. I didn’t really think it through. There is an interesting question of copyright law here, though. What’s the difference between a link that a user clicks on to display a picture, and a link that the browser automatically loads a picture into when the page is displayed? In terms of copyright law, I’m not sure I see the difference. Either way, the physical location of the original photo does not change, and no copies are made. I’m not sure copyright law has kept up with hypertext. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2000, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370/105 "2000-01-30T20:17:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by dhanson: > What’s the difference between a link that a user clicks on to display a picture, and a link that the browser automatically loads a picture into when the page is displayed? In terms of copyright law, I’m not sure I see the difference. The difference is, if the person who holds the copyright on the image/text in question has a problem, their problem will be with the person to whom whose site you link, not with the SDMB or Cecil or the Chicago Reader. Whoever posted those images on their site posted them there so that people would come _there_, not _here_. How many hits a site gets can have a major effect on how much they can charge for ads and the like. Even if the site itself doesn’t sell ads, it’s there to support someone else’s viewpoint of the assassination, even if it happens to match yours. It’s their property. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2000, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370/106 "2000-01-30T22:02:00Z")
Hey, don’t get me wrong - I’m all in favor of property rights and copyrights. I’m just curious if this has actually been tested in court. If I post a link to a page, it is displayed as a link. If I post a link to a photo, the photo is displayed in the browser. Either way, I haven’t copied any material. I’m curious about the LEGAL difference. For that matter, whenever you look at a page with photographs on it, the photos are copied to your machine, to a temp directory. Is having those copywritten photos on my machine a violation of the copyright? What if I move them out of my temp directory? At what point am I violating the law? Basically, I’m wondering if copyright law has been updated to deal with the unique nature of hyperlinked documents. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2000, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370/107 "2000-01-31T03:38:00Z")
dhanson wrote: > [@](#): > > If I post a link to a page, it is displayed as a link. If I post a link to a photo, the photo is displayed in the browser. Either way, I haven’t copied any material. A photo appearing in the middle of a posting looks and reads like a printed page in which a photo has been embedded. It doesn’t matter that the photo resides on its owner’s server; the way the page is laid out makes it look like it’s your own work. Since U.S. copyright law began in the age of the printing-press and evolved by incorporating new media into its printing-press model, I’d guess the courts would treat a web page _in the form it was intended to be displayed by a browser_ as though it were a printed page. Thus, embedding an \ tag, without getting permission to display Jim’s copyrighted picture, would be a copyright violation. * * * The truth, as always, is more complicated than that. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2000, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370/108 "2000-01-31T06:26:00Z")
That sounds pretty logical to me. It might also fit under the definition of ‘rebroadcast’ which is used in copyright of analog and digital media. Now, how about the hundreds of copywritten images sitting in my temp directories? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2000, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370/109 "2000-01-31T13:52:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by dhanson: > \*\*That sounds pretty logical to me. It might also fit under the definition of ‘rebroadcast’ which is used in copyright of analog and digital media. > > Now, how about the hundreds of copywritten images sitting in my temp directories? \*\* As long as they stay either in your drive(s) and don’t go further than your monitor/personal printer, I don’t know of anyone who’s going to make an issue of it. ‘Personal use only’ is the most typical exception that most on-line copyright holders are willing to make. But, that _doesn’t_ extend to posting such things anywhere else. * * * "You’ll never get as much out of being right as you will from finding out why you were wrong . . . " _The Papoon Principles_ Ch. 1. ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2000, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370/110 "2000-02-01T06:26:00Z")
Well, Reply W/ Quote seems to not have processed things correctly, probably because of the multiple quote’s already in the article… ANyway, it did get this quote… > [@](#): > > Originally posted by George Papoon: > \*\* Yeah, and ya know what? We’ll also find things like penicillin, the Hubble Constant, _et al_. _If_ that is, we are intelligent enough to recognize the _signficance_ of the ‘unexplainable’ and find a real explanation. > > \*\* Yeah, you know… that’s science. It’s verifiable. Conspiracy theory is about as far away from science as you can get. As I explained to you before, that’s because there is no real alternate theory to the lone-gunman theory. Now, for some manual quoting… I said that shooting holes in the lone-gunman theory without postulating an alterate series of events that would explain the evidence doesn’t mean a whole lot. George responds: > [@](#): > > Your opinion, not fact. How much it ‘means’ depends on the extent to which one can establish that theory ‘A’ is less likely than theory ‘B’. That’s right. However, there is no theory ‘B’ as far as I can tell. All I know of ‘B’ are many conpsiracy theorists giving various mutually exclusive scenarios. The amount of proof (PROOF, not speculation) for any of the ‘B’ scenarios can probably be detailed in a pamphlet (I’m being generous here), while the proof for ‘A’ is so exhaustive that it spans Volume 1 to whatever (more than 20, if I remember) of the Warren Commission Report. I’ve explained before that you need a theory to compare it against. That’s the whole point of the post George responded to. But he still doesn’t get it, and proceeds to once again show what he thinks is wrong with the lone-gunman theory. These points are not incredibly impressive, saying that he sees this or that in some picture or video (yeah, so what - people see faces on pictures of Mars). The brain sees what it wants to see, and no one is poring over the Zapruder family christmas film looking for strange shadows. No, everyone looks at when JFK got shot. And, oh my god, people imagine a shape in that grainy blurry video! By George’s logic, you would have to agree that the driver shot JFK, since it certainly looks that way due to certain shadows, and what a coincidence for it to look that way just when JFK is getting shot! Then, to top it all off, George insists on claiming unverified evidence, thinking we should just all believe on faith that this is good evidence. Anyway, I am uninterested in getting involved in the particulars of the evidence. There really is no need. So far, no one given a reference to a completely fleshed out theory of what happened that day. When someone does that, we will have a debate. What we have right now is just mental masturbation. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2000, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370/111 "2000-02-01T00:09:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by dhanson: > **No one on either side thinks that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head was the one that hit Johnson.** I think you mean Connally, not Johnson. I realize now I have forgotten an important detail: How many times was Connally hit, once or twice? If only once, I retract my analysis I made above and surmise that Connally was simply trying to duck for cover and was not thrown forward by a bullet hitting him in the back. Still, I say Kennedy slumped back and to the left because the right side of brain was destroyed and because of the slope of the seat. * * * \>\< DARWIN \> \_\_ **L\_\_\_L** ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2000, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370/112 "2000-02-01T01:43:00Z")
Did I say Johnson? Wow. Of course it was Connolly. He was hit once, but the hit caused multiple wounds. In through his back, out the chest, through his wrist, into his leg. Ouch. ---
**Author:** ![ConMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6f9a4e/32.png) [@ConMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ConMan)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2000, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370/113 "2000-02-01T14:30:00Z")
What about Newton’s other law, which states: An object at rest will remain at rest until acted upon but an outside force, i.e. JFK’s head - a rest - and the bullet - outside force? * * * “Quoth the Raven, ‘Nevermore.’” E A Poe ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2000, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370/114 "2000-02-01T14:44:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Avumede said:Yeah, you know… that’s science. It’s verifiable. So are each of the assertions I made. > [@](#): > > Conspiracy theory is about as far away from science as you can get. Once again, a typical _segue_ away from facts and into personal opinion . . . > [@](#): > > As I explained to you before, that’s because there is no real alternate theory to the lone-gunman theory. Explained? _Explained?_ You haven’t explained _squat_, my man! Then, in response to my assertion that pointing out holes in theory ‘A’ does not necessitate having a theory ‘B’ . . . > [@](#): > > That’s right. Thanks again for conceding I am right. > [@](#): > > However, there is no theory ‘B’ as far as I can tell. Oh, puh-_leeaaassssse_! Hasn’t it been hard walking around for the last 30 years with your head that far up your derriere? > [@](#): > > All I know of ‘B’ are many conpsiracy _(sic)_ theorists giving various mutually exclusive scenarios . . . And your point, peanut, is - ? As if the fact that some of the alternate theories of the assassination are exclusive of others means that _all_ must be in error. Ever studied an everyday, run-of-the-mill murder investigation? Many theories may initially be devised for how & by whom a crime is committed; each, because they focus on alternate suspects, may be mutually exclusive of the others. One may eventually be settled on as the ‘most likely’ explanation, and form the basis of the state’s case. However, as the Governor of Illinois demonstrated only yesterday, that’s no guarantee that it will be the _right_ one; it’s only the one the prosecution thinks will be easiest to prove. > [@](#): > > The amount of proof (PROOF, not speculation) for any of the ‘B’ scenarios can probably be detailed in a pamphlet (I’m being generous here), while the proof for ‘A’ is so exhaustive that it spans Volume 1 to whatever (more than 20, if I remember) of the Warren Commission Report. You’ve never even _read_ the Warren Commission Report, have you? Sure, the ‘proof’ is exhaustive – if you rigorously ignore anything that conflicts with it, confident that the majority of the public will be credulous dupes who, for the sake of emotional comfort, will leap at the opportunity to believe the ‘summary’ of evidence because it is the easiest thing there is to believe, rather than actually examine the report and realize how many internal inconsistencies it displays. > [@](#): > > I’ve explained before that you need a theory to compare it against. Hey, guy! You’ve already conceded not once but _twice_ that I’m right and you’re not on that point; don’t you get tired of being wrong, or is that your idea of “mental flagellation”? > [@](#): > > . . . These points are not incredibly impressive,. . . So, you concede they _are_ impressive, _nicht wahr_? > [@](#): > > . . . saying that he sees this or that in some picture or video (yeah, so what - people see faces on pictures of Mars). Haven’t you been paying _any_ attention, Squamous? Not _me_ – not _just_ me, anyway – but a significant number of people with expertise in photoanalysis and criminal and journalistic investigation. Expertise sufficiently credible to have them testify as experts before Congressional committees. > [@](#): > > The brain sees what it wants to see. . . And refuses to admit what it can’t bear to face . . . > [@](#): > > No, everyone looks at when JFK got shot. That _is_ the subject, Stegomya! > [@](#): > > And, oh my god, people imagine a shape in that grainy blurry video! By George’s logic, you would have to agree that the driver shot JFK, since it certainly looks that way due to certain shadows, and what a coincidence for it to look that way just when JFK is getting shot! Then, to top it all off, George insists on claiming unverified evidence, thinking we should just all believe on faith that this is good evidence. Getting desperate, aren’t you, bunkie? You can’t give a truly rational response to the points I’ve made, so you try to divert to the straw man you think you _can_ knock down. The evidence I cited can be seen clearly by anyone who cares to look without scales over their eyes. > [@](#): > > Anyway, I am uninterested in getting involved in the particulars of the evidence. There really is no need. Well, I can see you’ll certainly get somewhere with _that_ attitude. Now, that’s what I call being _open-minded_. Just to be sure you don’t miss it, that last sentence was me, being sarcastic. > [@](#): > > So far, no one given a reference to a completely fleshed out theory of what happened that day. Once _again,_ Nimnul – no one _needs_ to provide you with an ‘alternate theory’ of the crime, if they can instead show in a myriad of ways how the _asserted_ evidence of the LGT is contradicted by actual evidence which was overlooked or ignored, either deliberately or not. > [@](#): > > When someone does that, we will have a debate. What we have right now is just mental masturbation. No, _we_ will have no debate because I won’t waste time and effort trying to educate a wilful ignoramus. In the typical fashion of someone who realizes he’s losing a dispute, you cobble up a ‘sour grapes’ remark and flee. I’ll gladly concede to you the expertise in being a jerk-off. But, before I go – just a word of advice. Don’t spend 30 years researching the assassination (the way some people have); don’t even spend 20 or 10 or even 1; don’t invest so much as a month or a week; just research it for a _weekend_. Have the ethical integrity _not_ to seize on the obvious crackpot explanations as if they are truly representative of the most serious investigations. And then 1)establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the book depository at the time of the assassination; 2) establish that he fired the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that day; 3) establish that the M-C rifle was the murder weapon; 4) establish that the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital hit either Kennedy or Connally. Eyewitness testimony from credible witnesses is permitted. However, if contradictory testimony from equally credible witnesses is found, you must admit that as well. Otherwise, normal standards of forensic evidence should be followed. ## _As if . . ._ Your kid may be an honors student, but you’re still an idiot. . . ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2000, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370/115 "2000-02-01T19:35:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by George Papoon: > Then, in response to my assertion that pointing out holes in theory ‘A’ does not necessitate having a theory ‘B’ . . . You either are being dishonest, or you have misunderstood some key points. You point out that I agreed with you, which was correct. However, your statement above was not at all what I agreed with. I was not even aware you ever made such an assertion. The statement you made in a previous post that you are talking about is this: > [@](#): > > How much it ‘means’ depends on the extent to which one can establish that theory ‘A’ is less likely than theory ‘B’. Notice that you never say in the above statement that theory ‘B’ is not necessary. You correctly state that poking holes in the lone-gunman conspiracy is effective if you have an alternate theory that starts to look comparitively better as the lone-gunman theory looks comparitively worse. You have misrepresented what I said to make it sound as if I retraced my fundamental point. I certainly did not. > [@](#): > > You’ve never even read the Warren Commission Report, have you? Sure, the ‘proof’ is exhaustive --if you rigorously ignore anything that conflicts with it, confident that the majority of the public will be credulous dupes who, for the sake of emotional comfort, will leap at the opportunity to believe the ‘summary’ of evidence because it is the easiest thing there is to believe, rather than actually examine the report and realize how many internal inconsistencies it displays. Nope, I’ve never read the Warren Commission report. I’m really not all that interested in the JFK assassination. I just like correcting bad logic and promoting skepticism. By Occam’s Razor, we should by default believe the simplest theory. Then we examine that theory to see if it is correct. If not, we can believe in more complex theories. So let me ask you a few questions. How much of the Warren Commission report is provably false? I’m not talking “debatable”, I’m talking everyone agrees it’s wrong. 5%? 10% 100%? How much of your favorite conspiracy theory would stand up to the level of scrutiny the Warren Commission Report has been subjected to? I have seen many a debate about the JFK assassination. The one great truth of the matter is that conspiracy theorists demand un-arguable proof (is there even such a thing in cases like these?), but for their own theories they have little more than conjecture and a few witnessess. > [@](#): > > Getting desperate, aren’t you, bunkie? You can’t give a truly rational response to the points I’ve made, so you try to divert to the straw man you think you can knock down. The evidence I cited can be seen clearly by anyone who cares to look without scales over their eyes. See, this is a great example of what I was talking about. Check out this conspiracy double-think, here: 1. A good quality picture that unmistakably shows Oswald holding the rifle? Fake. 2. Mysterious shadows in a grainy movie indicating a second gunman? Real! This kind of sums up the whole thing. I know that you did not ever indicate that you believe that that LIFE picture was fake - but it’s a standard conspiracy theorist belief, so forgive me if I make the assumption. I’ll tell you what. I believe I am rational, scientific person. If you tell me that ALL experts are in agreement that 1. The shapes you talk about in the movie are real things, and not just tricks of light and shadow 2. Those shapes clearly show a person holding a rifle (or whatever…) Then we have something. But I think if there was such agreement, I might have heard about it by now… most likely a few experts think it’s real. Which is nothing special. UFO believers also are able to dredge up “experts” who think their pictures are real. In response to me saying i have no interested in debating the particulars of the case: > [@](#): > > Well, I can see you’ll certainly get somewhere with that attitude. Now, that’s what I call being open-minded. Just to be sure you don’t miss it, that last sentence was me, being sarcastic. Actually, I am open-minded. I just happen to know about the case in general. I used to know a lot of specifics, but now have forgotten. I’ve seen much debate. I know the story, and I know the debate - it never changes. I’ve seen that the conspiracy theorists are misled, and I’ve seen nothing here to change that. Why should I devote my life to stuyding this case? Just because you say the Lone-Gunman theory is wrong? Neo-nazis say the Holocaust never happened. Christians believe in creationism. Other people believe in UFO’s. Other people believe in ghosts. Other people believe in astrology. Can you please tell me how I’m supposed to know which things to investigate and which things to dismiss out of hand? Because I only have so much free time. And each group is adamant that they are right. And each group will say “but you haven’t heard all our arguments, how can you judge us without studying it exhaustively??” I really am curious to how you think I should decide to investigate things or not. In the meantime, I know in general what’s reasonable and what’s not reasonable, and that’s a good enough guide for me. The conspiracy theory is not reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2000, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370/116 "2000-02-01T19:40:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by George Papoon: > Then, in response to my assertion that pointing out holes in theory ‘A’ does not necessitate having a theory ‘B’ . . . You either are being dishonest, or you have misunderstood some key points. You point out that I agreed with you, which was correct. However, your statement above was not at all what I agreed with. I was not even aware you ever made such an assertion. The statement you made in a previous post that you are talking about is this: > [@](#): > > How much it ‘means’ depends on the extent to which one can establish that theory ‘A’ is less likely than theory ‘B’. Notice that you never say in the above statement that theory ‘B’ is not necessary. You correctly state that poking holes in the lone-gunman conspiracy is effective if you have an alternate theory that starts to look comparitively better as the lone-gunman theory looks comparitively worse. You have misrepresented what I said to make it sound as if I retraced my fundamental point. I certainly did not. > [@](#): > > You’ve never even read the Warren Commission Report, have you? Sure, the ‘proof’ is exhaustive --if you rigorously ignore anything that conflicts with it, confident that the majority of the public will be credulous dupes who, for the sake of emotional comfort, will leap at the opportunity to believe the ‘summary’ of evidence because it is the easiest thing there is to believe, rather than actually examine the report and realize how many internal inconsistencies it displays. Nope, I’ve never read the Warren Commission report. I’m really not all that interested in the JFK assassination. I just like correcting bad logic and promoting skepticism. By Occam’s Razor, we should by default believe the simplest theory. Then we examine that theory to see if it is correct. If not, we can believe in more complex theories. So let me ask you a few questions. How much of the Warren Commission report is provably false? I’m not talking “debatable”, I’m talking everyone agrees it’s wrong. 5%? 10% 100%? How much of your favorite conspiracy theory would stand up to the level of scrutiny the Warren Commission Report has been subjected to? I have seen many a debate about the JFK assassination. The one great truth of the matter is that conspiracy theorists demand un-arguable proof (is there even such a thing in cases like these?), but for their own theories they have little more than conjecture and a few witnessess. > [@](#): > > Getting desperate, aren’t you, bunkie? You can’t give a truly rational response to the points I’ve made, so you try to divert to the straw man you think you can knock down. The evidence I cited can be seen clearly by anyone who cares to look without scales over their eyes. See, this is a great example of what I was talking about. Check out this conspiracy double-think, here: 1. A good quality picture that unmistakably shows Oswald holding the rifle? Fake. 2. Mysterious shadows in a grainy movie indicating a second gunman? Real! This kind of sums up the whole thing. I know that you did not ever indicate that you believe that that LIFE picture was fake - but it’s a standard conspiracy theorist belief, so forgive me if I make the assumption. I’ll tell you what. I believe I am rational, scientific person. If you tell me that ALL experts are in agreement that 1. The shapes you talk about in the movie are real things, and not just tricks of light and shadow 2. Those shapes clearly show a person holding a rifle (or whatever…) Then we have something. But I think if there was such agreement, I might have heard about it by now… most likely a few experts think it’s real. Which is nothing special. UFO believers also are able to dredge up “experts” who think their pictures are real. In response to me saying i have no interested in debating the particulars of the case: > [@](#): > > Well, I can see you’ll certainly get somewhere with that attitude. Now, that’s what I call being open-minded. Just to be sure you don’t miss it, that last sentence was me, being sarcastic. Actually, I am open-minded. I just happen to know about the case in general. I used to know a lot of specifics, but now have forgotten. I’ve seen much debate. I know the story, and I know the debate - it never changes. I’ve seen that the conspiracy theorists are misled, and I’ve seen nothing here to change that. Why should I devote my life to stuyding this case? Just because you say the Lone-Gunman theory is wrong? Neo-nazis say the Holocaust never happened. Christians believe in creationism. Other people believe in UFO’s. Other people believe in ghosts. Other people believe in astrology. Can you please tell me how I’m supposed to know which things to investigate and which things to dismiss out of hand? Because I only have so much free time. And each group is adamant that they are right. And each group will say “but you haven’t heard all our arguments, how can you judge us without studying it exhaustively??” I really am curious to how you think I should decide to investigate things or not. In the meantime, I know in general what’s reasonable and what’s not reasonable, and that’s a good enough guide for me. The conspiracy theory is not reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2000, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370/117 "2000-02-01T19:45:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by George Papoon: > Then, in response to my assertion that pointing out holes in theory ‘A’ does not necessitate having a theory ‘B’ . . . You either are being dishonest, or you have misunderstood some key points. You point out that I agreed with you, which was correct. However, your statement above was not at all what I agreed with. I was not even aware you ever made such an assertion. The statement you made in a previous post that you are talking about is this: > [@](#): > > How much it ‘means’ depends on the extent to which one can establish that theory ‘A’ is less likely than theory ‘B’. Notice that you never say in the above statement that theory ‘B’ is not necessary. You correctly state that poking holes in the lone-gunman conspiracy is effective if you have an alternate theory that starts to look comparitively better as the lone-gunman theory looks comparitively worse. You have misrepresented what I said to make it sound as if I retraced my fundamental point. I certainly did not. > [@](#): > > You’ve never even read the Warren Commission Report, have you? Sure, the ‘proof’ is exhaustive --if you rigorously ignore anything that conflicts with it, confident that the majority of the public will be credulous dupes who, for the sake of emotional comfort, will leap at the opportunity to believe the ‘summary’ of evidence because it is the easiest thing there is to believe, rather than actually examine the report and realize how many internal inconsistencies it displays. Nope, I’ve never read the Warren Commission report. I’m really not all that interested in the JFK assassination. I just like correcting bad logic and promoting skepticism. By Occam’s Razor, we should by default believe the simplest theory. Then we examine that theory to see if it is correct. If not, we can believe in more complex theories. So let me ask you a few questions. How much of the Warren Commission report is provably false? I’m not talking “debatable”, I’m talking everyone agrees it’s wrong. 5%? 10% 100%? How much of your favorite conspiracy theory would stand up to the level of scrutiny the Warren Commission Report has been subjected to? I have seen many a debate about the JFK assassination. The one great truth of the matter is that conspiracy theorists demand un-arguable proof (is there even such a thing in cases like these?), but for their own theories they have little more than conjecture and a few witnessess. > [@](#): > > Getting desperate, aren’t you, bunkie? You can’t give a truly rational response to the points I’ve made, so you try to divert to the straw man you think you can knock down. The evidence I cited can be seen clearly by anyone who cares to look without scales over their eyes. See, this is a great example of what I was talking about. Check out this conspiracy double-think, here: 1. A good quality picture that unmistakably shows Oswald holding the rifle? Fake. 2. Mysterious shadows in a grainy movie indicating a second gunman? Real! This kind of sums up the whole thing. I know that you did not ever indicate that you believe that that LIFE picture was fake - but it’s a standard conspiracy theorist belief, so forgive me if I make the assumption. I’ll tell you what. I believe I am rational, scientific person. If you tell me that ALL experts are in agreement that 1. The shapes you talk about in the movie are real things, and not just tricks of light and shadow 2. Those shapes clearly show a person holding a rifle (or whatever…) Then we have something. But I think if there was such agreement, I might have heard about it by now… most likely a few experts think it’s real. Which is nothing special. UFO believers also are able to dredge up “experts” who think their pictures are real. In response to me saying i have no interested in debating the particulars of the case: > [@](#): > > Well, I can see you’ll certainly get somewhere with that attitude. Now, that’s what I call being open-minded. Just to be sure you don’t miss it, that last sentence was me, being sarcastic. Actually, I am open-minded. I just happen to know about the case in general. I used to know a lot of specifics, but now have forgotten. I’ve seen much debate. I know the story, and I know the debate - it never changes. I’ve seen that the conspiracy theorists are misled, and I’ve seen nothing here to change that. Why should I devote my time to stuyding this case? Just because you say the Lone-Gunman theory is wrong? Neo-nazis say the Holocaust never happened. Christians believe in creationism. Other people believe in UFO’s. Other people believe in ghosts. Other people believe in astrology. Can you please tell me how I’m supposed to know which things to investigate and which things to dismiss out of hand? Because I only have so much free time. And each group is adamant that they are right. And each group will say “but you haven’t heard all our arguments, how can you judge us without studying it exhaustively??” I really am curious to how you think I should decide to investigate things or not. In the meantime, I know in general what’s reasonable and what’s not reasonable, and that’s a good enough guide for me. The conspiracy theory is not reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2000, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370/118 "2000-02-01T19:50:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by George Papoon: > Then, in response to my assertion that pointing out holes in theory ‘A’ does not necessitate having a theory ‘B’ . . . You either are being dishonest, or you have misunderstood some key points. You point out that I agreed with you, which was correct. However, your statement above was not at all what I agreed with. I was not even aware you ever made such an assertion. The statement you made in a previous post that you are talking about is this: > [@](#): > > How much it ‘means’ depends on the extent to which one can establish that theory ‘A’ is less likely than theory ‘B’. Notice that you never say in the above statement that theory ‘B’ is not necessary. You correctly state that poking holes in the lone-gunman conspiracy is effective if you have an alternate theory that starts to look comparitively better as the lone-gunman theory looks comparitively worse. You have misrepresented what I said to make it sound as if I retraced my fundamental point. I certainly did not. > [@](#): > > You’ve never even read the Warren Commission Report, have you? Sure, the ‘proof’ is exhaustive --if you rigorously ignore anything that conflicts with it […] realize how many internal inconsistencies it displays. Nope, I’ve never read the Warren Commission report. I’m really not all that interested in the JFK assassination. I just like correcting bad logic and promoting skepticism. By Occam’s Razor, we should by default believe the simplest theory. Then we examine that theory to see if it is correct. If not, we can believe in more complex theories. So let me ask you a few questions. How much of the Warren Commission report is provably false? I’m not talking “debatable”, I’m talking everyone agrees it’s wrong. 5%? 10% 100%? How much of your favorite conspiracy theory would stand up to the level of scrutiny the Warren Commission Report has been subjected to? I have seen many a debate about the JFK assassination. The one great truth of the matter is that conspiracy theorists demand un-arguable proof (is there even such a thing in cases like these?), but for their own theories they have little more than conjecture and a few witnessess. > [@](#): > > Getting desperate, aren’t you, bunkie? You can’t give a truly rational response to the points I’ve made, so you try to divert to the straw man you think you can knock down. The evidence I cited can be seen clearly by anyone who cares to look without scales over their eyes. See, this is a great example of what I was talking about. Check out this conspiracy double-standard, here: 1. A good quality picture that unmistakably shows Oswald holding the rifle? Fake. 2. Mysterious shadows in a grainy movie indicating a second gunman? Real! This kind of sums up the whole thing. I know that you did not ever indicate that you believe that that LIFE picture was fake - but it’s a standard conspiracy theorist belief, so forgive me if I make the assumption. I’ll tell you what. I believe I am rational, scientific person. If you tell me that ALL experts are in agreement that 1. The shapes you talk about in the movie are real things, and not just tricks of light and shadow 2. Those shapes clearly show a person holding a rifle (or whatever…) Then we have something. But I think if there was such agreement, I might have heard about it by now… most likely a few experts think it’s real. Which is nothing special. UFO believers also are able to dredge up “experts” who think their pictures are real. In response to me saying i have no interested in debating the particulars of the case: > [@](#): > > Well, I can see you’ll certainly get somewhere with that attitude. Now, that’s what I call being open-minded. Just to be sure you don’t miss it, that last sentence was me, being sarcastic. Actually, I am open-minded. I just happen to know about the case in general. I used to know a lot of specifics, but now have forgotten. I’ve seen much debate. I know the story, and I know the debate - it never changes. I’ve seen that the conspiracy theorists are misled, and I’ve seen nothing here to change that. Why should I devote my time to stuyding this case? Just because you say the Lone-Gunman theory is wrong? Neo-nazis say the Holocaust never happened. Christians believe in creationism. Other people believe in UFO’s. Other people believe in ghosts. Other people believe in astrology. Can you please tell me how I’m supposed to know which things to investigate and which things to dismiss out of hand? Because I only have so much free time. And each group is adamant that they are right. And each group will say “but you haven’t heard all our arguments, how can you judge us without studying it exhaustively??” I really am curious to how you think I should decide to investigate things or not. In the meantime, I know in general what’s reasonable and what’s not reasonable, and that’s a good enough guide for me. The conspiracy theory is not reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2000, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370/119 "2000-02-01T20:00:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by George Papoon: > Then, in response to my assertion that pointing out holes in theory ‘A’ does not necessitate having a theory ‘B’ . . . You either are being dishonest, or you have misunderstood some key points. You point out that I agreed with you, which was correct. However, your statement above was not at all what I agreed with. I was not even aware you ever made such an assertion. The statement you made in a previous post that you are talking about is this: > [@](#): > > How much it ‘means’ depends on the extent to which one can establish that theory ‘A’ is less likely than theory ‘B’. Notice that you never say in the above statement that theory ‘B’ is not necessary. You correctly state that poking holes in the lone-gunman conspiracy is effective if you have an alternate theory that starts to look comparitively better as the lone-gunman theory looks comparitively worse. You have misrepresented what I said to make it sound as if I retraced my fundamental point. I certainly did not. > [@](#): > > You’ve never even read the Warren Commission Report, have you? Sure, the ‘proof’ is exhaustive --if you rigorously ignore anything that conflicts with it […] realize how many internal inconsistencies it displays. Nope, I’ve never read the Warren Commission report. I’m really not all that interested in the JFK assassination. I just like correcting bad logic and promoting skepticism. By Occam’s Razor, we should by default believe the simplest theory. Then we examine that theory to see if it is correct. If not, we can believe in more complex theories. So let me ask you a few questions. How much of the Warren Commission report is provably false? I’m not talking “debatable”, I’m talking everyone agrees it’s wrong. 5%? 10% 100%? How much of your favorite conspiracy theory would stand up to the level of scrutiny the Warren Commission Report has been subjected to? I have seen many a debate about the JFK assassination. The one great truth of the matter is that conspiracy theorists demand un-arguable proof (is there even such a thing in cases like these?), but for their own theories they have little more than conjecture and a few witnessess. > [@](#): > > Getting desperate, aren’t you, bunkie? You can’t give a truly rational response to the points I’ve made, so you try to divert to the straw man you think you can knock down. The evidence I cited can be seen clearly by anyone who cares to look without scales over their eyes. See, this is a great example of what I was talking about. Check out this conspiracy double-standard, here: 1. A good quality picture that unmistakably shows Oswald holding the rifle? Fake. 2. Mysterious shadows in a grainy movie indicating a second gunman? Real! This kind of sums up the whole thing. I know that you did not ever indicate that you believe that that LIFE picture was fake - but it’s a standard conspiracy theorist belief, so forgive me if I make the assumption. I’ll tell you what. I believe I am rational, scientific person. If you tell me that ALL experts are in agreement that 1. The shapes you talk about in the movie are real things, and not just tricks of light and shadow 2. Those shapes clearly show a person holding a rifle (or whatever…) Then we have something. But I think if there was such agreement, I might have heard about it by now… most likely a few experts think it’s real. Which is nothing special. UFO believers also are able to dredge up “experts” who think their pictures are real. In response to me saying i have no interested in debating the particulars of the case: > [@](#): > > Well, I can see you’ll certainly get somewhere with that attitude. Now, that’s what I call being open-minded. Just to be sure you don’t miss it, that last sentence was me, being sarcastic. Actually, I am open-minded. I just happen to know about the case in general. I used to know a lot of specifics, but now have forgotten. I’ve seen much debate. I know the story, and I know the debate - it never changes. I’ve seen that the conspiracy theorists are misled, and I’ve seen nothing here to change that. Why should I devote my time to stuyding this case? Just because you say the Lone-Gunman theory is wrong? Neo-nazis say the Holocaust never happened. Christians believe in creationism. Other people believe in UFO’s. Other people believe in ghosts. Other people believe in astrology. Can you please tell me how I’m supposed to know which things to investigate and which things to dismiss out of hand? Because I only have so much free time. And each group is adamant that they are right. And each group will say “but you haven’t heard all our arguments, how can you judge us without studying it exhaustively??” I really am curious to how you think I should decide to investigate things or not. In the meantime, I know in general what’s reasonable and what’s not reasonable, and that’s a good enough guide for me. The conspiracy theory is not reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2000, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370/120 "2000-02-01T20:05:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by George Papoon: > Then, in response to my assertion that pointing out holes in theory ‘A’ does not necessitate having a theory ‘B’ . . . You either are being dishonest, or you have misunderstood some key points. You point out that I agreed with you, which was correct. However, your statement above was not at all what I agreed with. I was not even aware you ever made such an assertion. The statement you made in a previous post that you are talking about is this: > [@](#): > > How much it ‘means’ depends on the extent to which one can establish that theory ‘A’ is less likely than theory ‘B’. Notice that you never say in the above statement that theory ‘B’ is not necessary. You correctly state that poking holes in the lone-gunman conspiracy is effective if you have an alternate theory that starts to look comparitively better as the lone-gunman theory looks comparitively worse. You have misrepresented what I said to make it sound as if I retraced my fundamental point. I certainly did not. > [@](#): > > You’ve never even read the Warren Commission Report, have you? Sure, the ‘proof’ is exhaustive --if you rigorously ignore anything that conflicts with it, confident that the majority of the public will be credulous dupes who, for the sake of emotional comfort, will leap at the opportunity to believe the ‘summary’ of evidence because it is the easiest thing there is to believe, rather than actually examine the report and realize how many internal inconsistencies it displays. Nope, I’ve never read the Warren Commission report. I’m really not all that interested in the JFK assassination. I just like correcting bad logic and promoting skepticism. By Occam’s Razor, we should by default believe the simplest theory. Then we examine that theory to see if it is correct. If not, we can believe in more complex theories. So let me ask you a few questions. How much of the Warren Commission report is provably false? I’m not talking “debatable”, I’m talking everyone agrees it’s wrong. 5%? 10% 100%? How much of your favorite conspiracy theory would stand up to the level of scrutiny the Warren Commission Report has been subjected to? I have seen many a debate about the JFK assassination. The one great truth of the matter is that conspiracy theorists demand un-arguable proof (is there even such a thing in cases like these?), but for their own theories they have little more than conjecture and a few witnessess. > [@](#): > > Getting desperate, aren’t you, bunkie? You can’t give a truly rational response to the points I’ve made, so you try to divert to the straw man you think you can knock down. The evidence I cited can be seen clearly by anyone who cares to look without scales over their eyes. See, this is a great example of what I was talking about. Check out this conspiracy double-think, here: 1. A good quality picture that unmistakably shows Oswald holding the rifle? Fake. 2. Mysterious shadows in a grainy movie indicating a second gunman? Real! This kind of sums up the whole thing. I know that you did not ever indicate that you believe that that LIFE picture was fake - but it’s a standard conspiracy theorist belief, so forgive me if I make the assumption. I’ll tell you what. I believe I am rational, scientific person. If you tell me that ALL experts are in agreement that 1. The shapes you talk about in the movie are real things, and not just tricks of light and shadow 2. Those shapes clearly show a person holding a rifle (or whatever…) Then we have something. But I think if there was such agreement, I might have heard about it by now… most likely a few experts think it’s real. Which is nothing special. UFO believers also are able to dredge up “experts” who think their pictures are real. In response to me saying i have no interested in debating the particulars of the case: > [@](#): > > Well, I can see you’ll certainly get somewhere with that attitude. Now, that’s what I call being open-minded. Just to be sure you don’t miss it, that last sentence was me, being sarcastic. Actually, I am open-minded. I just happen to know about the case in general. I used to know a lot of specifics, but now have forgotten. I’ve seen much debate. I know the story, and I know the debate - it never changes. I’ve seen that the conspiracy theorists are misled, and I’ve seen nothing here to change that. Why should I devote my life to stuyding this case? Just because you say the Lone-Gunman theory is wrong? Neo-nazis say the Holocaust never happened. Christians believe in creationism. Other people believe in UFO’s. Other people believe in ghosts. Other people believe in astrology. Can you please tell me how I’m supposed to know which things to investigate and which things to dismiss out of hand? Because I only have so much free time. And each group is adamant that they are right. And each group will say “but you haven’t heard all our arguments, how can you judge us without studying it exhaustively??” I really am curious to how you think I should decide to investigate things or not. In the meantime, I know in general what’s reasonable and what’s not reasonable, and that’s a good enough guide for me. The conspiracy theory is not reasonable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfks-assassination/17370.md?page=7)