Off Topic > Other Conspiracy Theories
JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Jason Thompson:
--- Quote from: profmunkin on June 09, 2012, 02:59:34 PM ---Good question, I have been using the above site to draw quotes from.
Maybe the mcadams site should not be used to draw evidence from.
--- End quote ---
Or maybe you should learn to read, or develop some kind of intellectual honesty when presenting your 'evidence'. That is the SAME place I looked at, and the SAME source for my statement that Tague is the first to mention the depository as a possible location for the shots, BEFORE Liebeler asks him if it is possible they came from there.
gillianren:
For heaven's sake, that site is pro-Warren Report! I am the one who pointed Profmunkin to it, and every single time he's cited it, it has been shown that he's taking things out of context and is ignoring evidence presented later on the page. I know we're all supposed to be pretending that we don't think Profmunkin is a sock, but isn't this level of intellectual dishonesty itself cause for censure from LO?
Echnaton:
--- Quote from: Echnaton on June 09, 2012, 04:00:57 PM ---
--- Quote from: profmunkin on June 09, 2012, 02:59:34 PM ---
--- Quote from: gillianren on June 09, 2012, 02:22:38 PM ---You know, it wouldn't surprise me if the bits are getting left out because they simply don't appear in the source Profmunkin is using. Because I don't really believe he's using the actual Warren Report.
--- End quote ---
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
Good question, I have been using the above site to draw quotes from.
Maybe the mcadams site should not be used to draw evidence from.
--- End quote ---
It is not evidence, it is testimony. There is a difference.
--- End quote ---
I am retracting this, because while there is a difference, testimony is one form of evidence, so profmunkin's statement of drawing evidence from the web site is correct.
SolusLupus:
--- Quote from: profmunkin on June 09, 2012, 02:59:34 PM ---http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
Good question, I have been using the above site to draw quotes from.
Maybe the mcadams site should not be used to draw evidence from.
--- End quote ---
Prof, I'm going to give a shot at this here. Do you know what cherry picking is?
It's where you start with a conclusion and work backwards, trying to fit every piece of data you can find to support the conclusion, ignoring everything else that doesn't seem to support it.
This is a very easy trap to fall into, especially when you're more concerned with "winning" an argument than finding a satisfactory conclusion involving the data. The problem with conspiracy theories is that they almost invariably involve an extreme form of this kind of thinking, often presenting things far from the truth, to the point of just being a complete fabrication at points (just see this for an example: http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html).
You're looking into things to try to draw testimony into supporting your ideas, can't you see that? You're not reading the testimony, you're reading snippets of the testimony and stopping when you see something that, when out of context (since you aren't reading for context), sounds suspicious. You interpret every word to mean the most insidious possible definition of that word, every sentence to mean the most insidious meaning it can bear.
All the while, you aren't contributing anything. You're saying, "Look at the suspicious things these people are saying", while not actually putting anything together. Pointing out perceived discrepancies doesn't actually paint a convincing narrative. In fact, the narrative you're going with, several shooters (even just two), seems highly unlikely, as it's extremely high risk for very little reward, by a party that you have yet to identify.
I really hope you someday learn to realize the problems with this. It probably won't be in the lifespan of this thread, but I do hope you can take something away from this to make you think later on in your life.
Mr Gorsky:
In many ways, what is going on in this thread is very similar to the stuff we see in the Apollo threads.
HB: Hey look at the anomaly in this picture.
AH: That isn't an anomaly, it is [scientific explanation]
HB: That's ridiculous, you are parroting the official story. Besides what about this anomaly in this other picture.
AH: *Facepalm*
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version