JFK's Assassination

[Avumede]

I think my post is so long, it is unpostable. ANyway, I will split it into two parts.

Part 1:

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.

[Avumede]

Sorry about posting so many times. I am ashamed of my carelessness… I seem to be unable to delete my posts. Moderator, can you do this?

I assure you I am not trying to win any arguments by repeating myself!

[jab1]

Maybe that’s why the Board was down an hour ago? (Just joking!)

---

>< DARWIN >
__L___L

[mipsman]

What if the FBI/CIA KNEW immediately after (or even before) that there was a Cuban or Russian link to the assassination? We were only one year out of the Cuban missile crisis. Would this have been the rationale for a “pious fraud” coverup immediately after the assassination? Would outrage have led to saber rattling to war? Did the govt fear this outcome and plant evidence and bungle the investigation to preempt this possibility? This would also explain the intransigence every administation has shown to Cuba since then. (LHO had to have done something or he would not have run down to Oak Cliff that fast.)

[jab1]

You know, the person who started this thread and never came back!

Also, I wanted to see what the new software does to this old thread.