Why exactly, is a "list of names" required?
Should we assume that the last hundred or two, terrorist acts never happened if we don't have a "list" of the perps' names?
No. Read at least the last few pages of the thread.
OK, I read 'em and your argument still makes no sense at all to me. Perhaps you could be more specific.
Do not attempt a disingenuous argument where you dismiss Oswald based on one standard of evidence and then are unwilling to present an alternative theory and defend it to the same standard.
Excellent advice! I couldn't agree more.
Despite your cherry-picking of the HSCA evidence, the committee concluded that Kennedy was killed by bullets fired only by Oswald.
Whoa!!
Why would you accuse me of cherry picking when I stated that the FBI and HSCA conducted tests which defined specific attributes and limitations of the alleged murder weapon? As you will see a bit later, those tests constitute verifiable, objective evidence which will be extremely important.
And I couldn't care less about the thoroughly discredited acoustic evidence the HSCA used to form its conclusions. I'm rather surprised that you do.
Don't assume your soon-to-be critics are unfamiliar with the HSCA and Warren Commission findings as well as most of the popular conspiracy claims and the books they're lifted from.
Good idea! I'll also stop beating my wife and eating without utensils!
You are likely to find most of your critics here to be better informed than you.
That's great. I am eager to learn from such experts.
As skeptics, we are willing to change our minds if the evidence directs us to, but not until. And evidence against Oswald does not constitute evidence for some accomplice -- named or unnamed.
Can't argue with that.
BTW, have you found evidence that isolates Oswald as the only shooter?
No, read the thread first.
Perhaps you could email me a list of instructions. I will certainly do my best to follow them.
I'm entirely serious. You're spooling up to make exactly the same kind of argument every conspiracy theorist attempts, and which is entirely unconvincing.
As a skeptic myself, I find it hard to accept that you know in advance, what I am going to say. Didn't the Psychic Hotline close down, some time ago
Hey! I have a wild and crazy idea. Why don't you wait and see what I have to say before you start swinging your ball bat?
Here's why it's unconvincing, and why this thread persists for so long going over the same topics. Do not make the same mistakes as your many predecessors.
Sigh... this is all starting to lose it's humorous appeal.
First, if you have no alternative theory as to who killed Kennedy, you are likely to be dismissed outright.
Not by honest members of the forum. Even without an alternative theory, it would be possible to prove that Oswald didn't act alone. For example, if I can prove that shots were fired that were substantially less than 2.3 seconds apart, that would constitute proof that Oswald didn't fire all the shots.
As it happens however, I have a very strong, alternative theory, but that is not the critical issue.
You seem to be trying to raise the bar, waaay higher than it belongs. That is not how critical thinkers do things.
This is a board (and thread) populated largely by skeptics.
I kinda got that from the name.
As skeptics, we believe that the best theory is that which explains the most observations while requiring the fewest loose ends or assumptions.
I certainly hope you are wrong about that. I seriously doubt that most skeptics think that way. They do not make up all kinds of rules and restrictions, but prefer to cut to the chase and evaluate the empirical evidence and verifiable facts.
ONE SIMPLE FACT can prove a theory wrong - your theory, mine, anyone's.
And YOUR THEORY requires that you be able to prove that Oswald
COULD have fired all the shots.
You must have a competing theory, and be willing to defend it.
With all due respect sir, your claim does not improve with repetition.
Simply pretending to exonerate Oswald based on eroding faith in the various affirmative cases made against him is not logically valid or rhetorically persuasive if you have no alternative.
It might be helpful to actually read the posts you are attacking. If you did, you would realize that I said Oswald was probably guilty
Second, do not attempt to shift the burden of proof. Every single conspiracy theorist tries to recruit his critics to stand as proxies for the Warren Commission, the HSCA, or the conventional narrative in general, in order to distract from his own generally weak case.
Those dirty bastards!!
And to think, 75% or so of all Americans pull that dirty trick!
The evidence is easily available
What exactly, is the best evidence you have seen, which isolates Oswald as the only shooter?
and the conclusions commonly drawn from it are a matter of public knowledge.
You certainly know your stuff. Those websites are quite a discovery, eh?
As the challenger to all that, you bear the burden of proof.
No I don't. Forget that most people, most researchers, and the head of the HSCA believe this was a conspiracy. Forget that you represent a very small minority.
What others believe is irrelevant. What matters are the verifiable facts and evidence - nothing more and nothing less. My burden of proof is no greater than yours.
And since you cannot prove that Oswald acted alone, you aren't getting off to a very impressive start.
Especially if you allege there was an accomplice or an alternative suspect -- that is an affirmative claim no matter how you slice it, and you will be rigorously held to the burden to prove that case.
You can rigorously hold anything that makes you happy.
I will be discussing facts and empirical evidence associated with the question of whether Oswald could have fired all the shots.
Third, your burden of proof is exactly that which you propose for the conventional narrative.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
We are well attuned to the "reasonable doubt" method of attempting to style the debate as a mock criminal trial, and the various "just asking questions" methods of weaseling out of any intellectual responsibility.
Nothing gets by you, does it?
Is it possible though, that you are telling me not to "ask questions" because you are intending to do the "weaseling"
Do not try to put some double standard into play.
OK, with all due respect, I've had enough phony rules to last a lifetime.
I will discuss facts and empirical evidence related to the most important issues. You can do whatever it is that makes you happy.
