Burden of Proof

[[e-mail]]

Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,

"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "

I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

And I am not "presumably aware of the body of evidence which proves it",
any more than I am aware of the body of evidence that proves witches and
ghosts exist :-)

Utah never believed that either, neither does anyone in this forum. If
they did, they would be telling us all about it. Of course, you have good
excuses. It's hard to prove a negative. But that doesn't alter the fact
that Utah deliberately lied and never once, told the forum about his
mythical evidence. Whenever I challenged him to present it, he repeated
his pathetic argument that he doesn't have to present any evidence, even
after pretending that he has it:-)

I do want to thank Bud though. I have told you all what kind of a person
this character is, but Bud has done a great job of proving it.


Bob Harris

[John Corbett]

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

It isn't necessary to show evidence that Oswald acted alone. It is only
necessary to show evidence he acted and we have ample evidence of that.
Those postulating others took part have the burden of providing evidence
of such conspirators. In absence of such evidence, there is absolutely no
reason to believe there were any.

[[e-mail]]

Post by John Corbett

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

It isn't necessary to show evidence that Oswald acted alone. It is only
necessary to show evidence he acted and we have ample evidence of that.
Those postulating others took part have the burden of providing evidence
of such conspirators. In absence of such evidence, there is absolutely no
reason to believe there were any.

It's necessary when you state that you have the evidence, as Utah did.
When you do that, you bear the burden of proving what you said. And it's
necessary even when you only claim that Oswald acted alone. The simple
fact is, that you bear the burden of proving what you claim - no excuses.
I claim Oswald couldn't have acted alone and I prove it, beyond any
possible doubt.

[John Corbett]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by John Corbett

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

It isn't necessary to show evidence that Oswald acted alone. It is only
necessary to show evidence he acted and we have ample evidence of that.
Those postulating others took part have the burden of providing evidence
of such conspirators. In absence of such evidence, there is absolutely no
reason to believe there were any.

It's necessary when you state that you have the evidence, as Utah did.
When you do that, you bear the burden of proving what you said. And it's
necessary even when you only claim that Oswald acted alone. The simple
fact is, that you bear the burden of proving what you claim - no excuses.

My position is that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and there is no
evidence of any conspirators. It is not necessary for me to prove there
were no conspirators. That would be proving a negative. It suffices to so
there is no evidence of such conspirators.

I believe your position is that God does not exist. Can you prove God does
not exist?

Post by ***@gmail.com
I claim Oswald couldn't have acted alone and I prove it, beyond any
possible doubt.

Then why do so many doubt you.

[[e-mail]]

Post by John Corbett

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by John Corbett

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

It isn't necessary to show evidence that Oswald acted alone. It is only
necessary to show evidence he acted and we have ample evidence of that.
Those postulating others took part have the burden of providing evidence
of such conspirators. In absence of such evidence, there is absolutely no
reason to believe there were any.

It's necessary when you state that you have the evidence, as Utah did.
When you do that, you bear the burden of proving what you said. And it's
necessary even when you only claim that Oswald acted alone. The simple
fact is, that you bear the burden of proving what you claim - no excuses.

My position is that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and there is no
evidence of any conspirators. It is not necessary for me to prove there
were no conspirators. That would be proving a negative. It suffices to so
there is no evidence of such conspirators.
I believe your position is that God does not exist. Can you prove God does
not exist?

Post by ***@gmail.com
I claim Oswald couldn't have acted alone and I prove it, beyond any
possible doubt.

Then why do so many doubt you.

I commend you for the honesty that Jay Utah lacks. Unlike you, he
repeatedly claimed that there WAS evidence that Oswald acted alone. When
challenged to describe his evidence, he offered nothing but phony excuses.

As for gods, of course I can't prove that none exist, but in my case,
there REALLY IS NO EVIDENCE that they do.

Your pretense that there is no evidence for conspiracy, evades the
statements of the people who actually heard the shots, the analysis of Dr.
Alvarez, and the obvious startle reactions of the passengers who rode with
President Kennedy. Be sure you never look at this, John:

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by John Corbett

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by John Corbett

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

It isn't necessary to show evidence that Oswald acted alone. It is only
necessary to show evidence he acted and we have ample evidence of that.
Those postulating others took part have the burden of providing evidence
of such conspirators. In absence of such evidence, there is absolutely no
reason to believe there were any.

It's necessary when you state that you have the evidence, as Utah did.
When you do that, you bear the burden of proving what you said. And it's
necessary even when you only claim that Oswald acted alone. The simple
fact is, that you bear the burden of proving what you claim - no excuses.

My position is that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and there is no
evidence of any conspirators. It is not necessary for me to prove there
were no conspirators. That would be proving a negative. It suffices to so
there is no evidence of such conspirators.
I believe your position is that God does not exist. Can you prove God does
not exist?

Post by ***@gmail.com
I claim Oswald couldn't have acted alone and I prove it, beyond any
possible doubt.

Then why do so many doubt you.

I commend you for the honesty that Jay Utah lacks. Unlike you, he
repeatedly claimed that there WAS evidence that Oswald acted alone. When
challenged to describe his evidence, he offered nothing but phony excuses.

[rolleyes] Yeah, phony excuses like burden of proof. [/rolleyes]

No, he pointed you to the conventional narrative, which you know well
enough, or should know well enough. The conventional narrative is the
Warren Commission case. You were also urged to read the existing thread
(and its predecessor threads) so you would know what wouldn't work. You
ignored that advice.

Like all conspiracy theorists who post online, you wanted somebody to
stand in for the Warren Commission and argue for their case in their
stead, so you could attack it. Nobody did. Everyone told you it's your
burden to disprove the conventional narrative and you should carry it and
make your argument. Instead you whined about phony rules like "burden of
proof" promulgated by lone nutters.

More than occasionally, you would provide a link to a youtube video and
more-or-less say, "This proves the shot at Z285, and thereby proves a
conspiracy."

I asked if all the Warren Commission needed to do was post a video and
claim this proves Oswald did it alone and unaided to point out how
ludicrous your argument by video was, but of course you ignore the
point.

I took to pointing out that the Warren Commission Report and volumes of
evidence still exist, and it's your obligation to present your best case
and convince us that their evidence was wrong and/or conclusions mistaken.
You never shouldered your burden of proof.

Surely you remember all this.

Post by ***@gmail.com
As for gods, of course I can't prove that none exist, but in my case,
there REALLY IS NO EVIDENCE that they do.

Bingo. And there is no evidence of a shot at Z285. Only you see the
evidence of this shot.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Your pretense that there is no evidence for conspiracy, evades the
statements of the people who actually heard the shots,

No, I pointed out that those closest to the limo said they heard both the
sound of the head shot and also heard the impact of the bullet on the head
and those two distinct sounds could be confused by others as two almost
simultaneous shots. I also pointed out that this explains the witness
statements at least as well as your theory does, but doesn't invoke
invisible silenced weapons, invisible multiple shooters (other than
Oswald) and invisible bullets that made no damage and left no evidence of
themselves behind. You professed to not understand my point, misstating it
time after time.

Post by ***@gmail.com
the analysis of Dr.
Alvarez,

Alvarez didn't claim a gunshot at Z285 as you do. That too was covered in
detail in the other thread. You cite experts, but discard their
conclusions and replace them with your own. You did it with Alvarez, with
Stroscio, and with the lie detection examination, to name just three,
ignoring the expert conclusions and instead substituting your own.

Post by ***@gmail.com
and the obvious startle reactions of the passengers who rode with
President Kennedy.

If they are so obvious, how come nobody here but you professes to see
them?

Post by ***@gmail.com
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno

Argument by video. Be sure to drive traffic to your youtube channel to
supplement your income.

That too was covered in the International Skeptics forum. You would have
understood why that wouldn't work if you had read the thread as you were
advised.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10431846&postcount=659
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10751030&postcount=2728

Hank

[John Corbett]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by John Corbett

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by John Corbett

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

It isn't necessary to show evidence that Oswald acted alone. It is only
necessary to show evidence he acted and we have ample evidence of that.
Those postulating others took part have the burden of providing evidence
of such conspirators. In absence of such evidence, there is absolutely no
reason to believe there were any.

It's necessary when you state that you have the evidence, as Utah did.
When you do that, you bear the burden of proving what you said. And it's
necessary even when you only claim that Oswald acted alone. The simple
fact is, that you bear the burden of proving what you claim - no excuses.

My position is that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and there is no
evidence of any conspirators. It is not necessary for me to prove there
were no conspirators. That would be proving a negative. It suffices to so
there is no evidence of such conspirators.
I believe your position is that God does not exist. Can you prove God does
not exist?

Post by ***@gmail.com
I claim Oswald couldn't have acted alone and I prove it, beyond any
possible doubt.

Then why do so many doubt you.

I commend you for the honesty that Jay Utah lacks. Unlike you, he
repeatedly claimed that there WAS evidence that Oswald acted alone. When
challenged to describe his evidence, he offered nothing but phony excuses.
As for gods, of course I can't prove that none exist, but in my case,
there REALLY IS NO EVIDENCE that they do.

Likewise, I can't prove JFK conspirators don't exist but there really is no
evidence that they do.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Your pretense that there is no evidence for conspiracy, evades the
statements of the people who actually heard the shots, the analysis of Dr.
Alvarez, and the obvious startle reactions of the passengers who rode with
President Kennedy.

Their statements are not evidence of a conspiracy and your analysis of
their statements is not evidence.

Post by ***@gmail.com
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno

You can pretty much count on that unless I am having trouble sleeping in
which case I might take a gander. Shouldn't take more than a couple
minutes before I am snoozing. Your videos are an effective drug free
remedy for insomnia.

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by John Corbett

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by John Corbett

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

It isn't necessary to show evidence that Oswald acted alone. It is only
necessary to show evidence he acted and we have ample evidence of that.
Those postulating others took part have the burden of providing evidence
of such conspirators. In absence of such evidence, there is absolutely no
reason to believe there were any.

It's necessary when you state that you have the evidence, as Utah did.
When you do that, you bear the burden of proving what you said. And it's
necessary even when you only claim that Oswald acted alone. The simple
fact is, that you bear the burden of proving what you claim - no excuses.

My position is that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and there is no
evidence of any conspirators. It is not necessary for me to prove there
were no conspirators. That would be proving a negative. It suffices to so
there is no evidence of such conspirators.
I believe your position is that God does not exist. Can you prove God does
not exist?

Post by ***@gmail.com
I claim Oswald couldn't have acted alone and I prove it, beyond any
possible doubt.

Then why do so many doubt you.

I commend you for the honesty that Jay Utah lacks. Unlike you, he
repeatedly claimed that there WAS evidence that Oswald acted alone.

Produce this. Did he say evidence Oswald acted alone, or did he say there
was a lack of evidence for a specific conspiracy, and then invite you to
lay out your hobby points in a way that better explains the event? The
concept of proving a negative was explained to you. You didn't get it
then, you apparently don't get it now.

When

Post by ***@gmail.com
challenged to describe his evidence, he offered nothing but phony excuses.

No, he simply didn't debate you the way you've generally been debated all
of these years. You were educated as to what types of arguments work at a
group such as ISF (make a POSITIVE case for what you believe without
shifting the burden to your opponents), and it was explained to you why
conspiracists do so poorly there. You then proceeded to shift the burden
of proof and follow the conspiracy hobbyist playbook perfectly.

Post by ***@gmail.com
As for gods, of course I can't prove that none exist, but in my case,
there REALLY IS NO EVIDENCE that they do.
Your pretense that there is no evidence for conspiracy, evades the
statements of the people who actually heard the shots, the analysis of Dr.
Alvarez, and the obvious startle reactions of the passengers who rode with

As Jay would say, this is a fringe reset. The flaws in your arguments were
pointed out, the steps you needed to take to fix your arguments were
offered. Politely. How many times are you going to try and get the same
set of eyeballs on your videos? The same people here today are the same
people that were here twenty years ago, give or take. Face it: not only
does nobody buy what you're peddling, but you can't even fully describe
what it is you're peddling.

Post by ***@gmail.com
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno

Too bad you didn't pay attention to what you were politely told at
ISF--sometimes with tremendous patience and forbearance--because you
missed an opportunity to learn something.

Do you still believe a shot was fired from the sewer?

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by John Corbett

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

It isn't necessary to show evidence that Oswald acted alone. It is only
necessary to show evidence he acted and we have ample evidence of that.
Those postulating others took part have the burden of providing evidence
of such conspirators. In absence of such evidence, there is absolutely no
reason to believe there were any.

It's necessary when you state that you have the evidence, as Utah did.
When you do that, you bear the burden of proving what you said. And it's
necessary even when you only claim that Oswald acted alone. The simple
fact is, that you bear the burden of proving what you claim - no excuses.
I claim Oswald couldn't have acted alone and I prove it, beyond any
possible doubt.

Please quote Jay Windley saying he had the evidence to prove Oswald shot
Kennedy alone.

For those who don't know, "JayUtah" on the skeptics international forum is
Jay Windley (which he has mentioned a few times online, so I'm not
revealing some secret). He runs the website devoted to debunking Moon
Conspiracy theorists at Clavius.org. He has experience dealing with
conspiracy theorists like Bob.

Here's his bio:
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

I was totally amused reading Bob's back and forth with Jay. The best way
to describe that matchup was that Bob brought some spitballs to a gun
fight.

Jay kept pointing out the issues with Bob's theory, and Bob just kept
repeating the same arguments. He didn't understand much of what Jay wrote.
It just all went over poor Bob's head.

It got to the point where Bob was denying the veracity of logical fallacies
like "Burden of Proof", like he did here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10745475&postcount=2351
== QUOTE ==

The "burden of proof" that Jay was referring to was never a forum rule. It
has no legitimacy, whatsoever.

It amounts to a handful of nutters fabricating phony "rules" which allow
them to evade the fact that they could never prove Oswald acted alone.

It is pathetic that they would sink to that level, but understandable I
suppose, considering how helpless they are to defend their theory.

== UNQUOTE ==

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by John Corbett

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

It isn't necessary to show evidence that Oswald acted alone. It is only
necessary to show evidence he acted and we have ample evidence of that.
Those postulating others took part have the burden of providing evidence
of such conspirators. In absence of such evidence, there is absolutely no
reason to believe there were any.

It's necessary when you state that you have the evidence, as Utah did.

You still don't know where to find the Warren Report and the Warren
Commission volumes of evidence?

Hilarious!

Post by ***@gmail.com
When you do that, you bear the burden of proving what you said. And it's
necessary even when you only claim that Oswald acted alone. The simple
fact is, that you bear the burden of proving what you claim - no excuses.

Jay said he saw no compelling evidence of a conspiracy and hoped you would
bring something new to the table. Your arguments were weighed and found
wanting.

Post by ***@gmail.com
I claim Oswald couldn't have acted alone and I prove it, beyond any
possible doubt.

Your argument is unproven. It is based on the assumption of a shot at
about Z285, but that is your assumption, and it is not established.

Hank

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by John Corbett

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

It isn't necessary to show evidence that Oswald acted alone. It is only
necessary to show evidence he acted and we have ample evidence of that.
Those postulating others took part have the burden of providing evidence
of such conspirators. In absence of such evidence, there is absolutely no
reason to believe there were any.

It's necessary when you state that you have the evidence, as Utah did.
When you do that, you bear the burden of proving what you said. And it's
necessary even when you only claim that Oswald acted alone. The simple
fact is, that you bear the burden of proving what you claim - no excuses.
I claim Oswald couldn't have acted alone and I prove it, beyond any
possible doubt.

In your mind.

[Bud]

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

Utah wasn`t making the argument that Oswald acted alone.

Post by ***@gmail.com
And I am not "presumably aware of the body of evidence which proves it",
any more than I am aware of the body of evidence that proves witches and
ghosts exist :-)

You find the information unpersuasive. That doesn`t make it go away.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Utah never believed that either, neither does anyone in this forum. If
they did, they would be telling us all about it. Of course, you have good
excuses. It's hard to prove a negative. But that doesn't alter the fact
that Utah deliberately lied and never once, told the forum about his
mythical evidence. Whenever I challenged him to present it, he repeated
his pathetic argument that he doesn't have to present any evidence, even
after pretending that he has it:-)

You kept trying to get him to play the game he kept telling you he
wasn`t going to play. You start a new post to ignore what I quote Utah
saying in the other...

"In something like 20 years of listening to JFK conspiracy theories, I
have yet to see a single conspiracy theorist who has the slightest
interest in solving the crime. Instead they're obsessed with recruiting
some palookah to accept the burden to affirm the conventional narrative,
so that all their irrelevant, speculative nit-pickings have something to
bounce off of."

Post by ***@gmail.com
I do want to thank Bud though. I have told you all what kind of a person
this character is, but Bud has done a great job of proving it.
Bob Harris

[[e-mail]]

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

Utah wasn`t making the argument that Oswald acted alone.

Post by ***@gmail.com
And I am not "presumably aware of the body of evidence which proves it",
any more than I am aware of the body of evidence that proves witches and
ghosts exist :-)

You find the information unpersuasive. That doesn`t make it go away.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Utah never believed that either, neither does anyone in this forum. If
they did, they would be telling us all about it. Of course, you have good
excuses. It's hard to prove a negative. But that doesn't alter the fact
that Utah deliberately lied and never once, told the forum about his
mythical evidence. Whenever I challenged him to present it, he repeated
his pathetic argument that he doesn't have to present any evidence, even
after pretending that he has it:-)

You kept trying to get him to play the game he kept telling you he
wasn`t going to play.

Oh, you mean the "game" of being honest and providing the evidence you
claim you have:-) Or did you mean the "game" of supporting your own
theory?

Post by Bud
You start a new post to ignore what I quote Utah
saying in the other...

I don't think I even noticed it Bud.

Post by Bud
"In something like 20 years of listening to JFK conspiracy theories, I
have yet to see a single conspiracy theorist who has the slightest
interest in solving the crime.

Bud, you just proved this clown to be a chronic liar. Do you really
believe ANYTHING he says? I have never known a conspiracy advocate who
didn't want to solve this thing, or imagined that he already did. I doubt
that Utah has either. Nevertheless, what does that have to do with his
burden of supporting his own claims, as well as his own theory?

Post by Bud
Instead they're obsessed with recruiting
some palookah to accept the burden to affirm the conventional narrative,
so that all their irrelevant, speculative nit-pickings have something to
bounce off of."

So, none of these people you are forever attacking even have a theory?
I've never met one who didn't:-)

You should go back to when Posner was your hero. He's a lot smarter than
this clown.

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
I do want to thank Bud though. I have told you all what kind of a person
this character is, but Bud has done a great job of proving it.

It's interesting that you don't deny Utah's dishonesty. Nor do you claim
that I have EVER denied my own responsibility to prove what I claim.

I'll give you credit again, Bud. You are a LOT more honest than your hero.

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
Bob Harris

[Bud]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

Utah wasn`t making the argument that Oswald acted alone.

Post by ***@gmail.com
And I am not "presumably aware of the body of evidence which proves it",
any more than I am aware of the body of evidence that proves witches and
ghosts exist :-)

You find the information unpersuasive. That doesn`t make it go away.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Utah never believed that either, neither does anyone in this forum. If
they did, they would be telling us all about it. Of course, you have good
excuses. It's hard to prove a negative. But that doesn't alter the fact
that Utah deliberately lied and never once, told the forum about his
mythical evidence. Whenever I challenged him to present it, he repeated
his pathetic argument that he doesn't have to present any evidence, even
after pretending that he has it:-)

You kept trying to get him to play the game he kept telling you he
wasn`t going to play.

Oh, you mean the "game" of being honest and providing the evidence you
claim you have:-) Or did you mean the "game" of supporting your own
theory?

It was never a competition of competing ideas. You claimed to have a
better explanation for what occurred and they examined it, finding your
methodology and reasoning seriously flawed.

Utah said...

"There is no "our" case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory."

Just because you ignore what he said doesn`t mean he didn`t say it.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Bud
You start a new post to ignore what I quote Utah
saying in the other...

I don't think I even noticed it Bud.
"There is no "our" case. There is the conventional narrative and the

evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Bud
"In something like 20 years of listening to JFK conspiracy theories, I
have yet to see a single conspiracy theorist who has the slightest
interest in solving the crime.

Bud, you just proved this clown to be a chronic liar. Do you really
believe ANYTHING he says? I have never known a conspiracy advocate who
didn't want to solve this thing, or imagined that he already did.

I see the same things he sees, people trying to create cracks to try to
squeeze an elephant through. That isn`t solving the crime.

Post by ***@gmail.com
I doubt
that Utah has either. Nevertheless, what does that have to do with his
burden of supporting his own claims, as well as his own theory?

The idea that Oswald killed Kennedy and the support for that idea has
been on the table for over five decades.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Bud
Instead they're obsessed with recruiting
some palookah to accept the burden to affirm the conventional narrative,
so that all their irrelevant, speculative nit-pickings have something to
bounce off of."

So, none of these people you are forever attacking even have a theory?
I've never met one who didn't:-)

You went there advocating your theory. It doen`t matter whether they
think leprechauns killed JFK, it doesn`t make your theory any stronger.

Post by ***@gmail.com
You should go back to when Posner was your hero. He's a lot smarter than
this clown.

What Utah did was point out the flaws in your reasoning, methodology,
approaches, thinking, ect. He did that because that is where the problems
with your ideas lie.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
I do want to thank Bud though. I have told you all what kind of a person
this character is, but Bud has done a great job of proving it.

It's interesting that you don't deny Utah's dishonesty.

It is more interesting that you think you`ve shown it.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Nor do you claim
that I have EVER denied my own responsibility to prove what I claim.

You presented your ideas to the Skeptics Forum and they were torn to
shreds. Not that you would notice.

Post by ***@gmail.com
I'll give you credit again, Bud. You are a LOT more honest than your hero.

It was never our honesty that was in question.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
Bob Harris

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

Utah wasn`t making the argument that Oswald acted alone.

Post by ***@gmail.com
And I am not "presumably aware of the body of evidence which proves it",
any more than I am aware of the body of evidence that proves witches and
ghosts exist :-)

You find the information unpersuasive. That doesn`t make it go away.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Utah never believed that either, neither does anyone in this forum. If
they did, they would be telling us all about it. Of course, you have good
excuses. It's hard to prove a negative. But that doesn't alter the fact
that Utah deliberately lied and never once, told the forum about his
mythical evidence. Whenever I challenged him to present it, he repeated
his pathetic argument that he doesn't have to present any evidence, even
after pretending that he has it:-)

You kept trying to get him to play the game he kept telling you he
wasn`t going to play.

Oh, you mean the "game" of being honest and providing the evidence you
claim you have:-) Or did you mean the "game" of supporting your own
theory?

No, the game of him standing in for the Warren Commission while you shot
arrows at it.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Bud
You start a new post to ignore what I quote Utah
saying in the other...

I don't think I even noticed it Bud.

Funny, you quoted him and responded.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Bud
"In something like 20 years of listening to JFK conspiracy theories, I
have yet to see a single conspiracy theorist who has the slightest
interest in solving the crime.

Bud, you just proved this clown to be a chronic liar.

ad hominem. It's still one of several logical fallacies you invariably
commit.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Do you really
believe ANYTHING he says? I have never known a conspiracy advocate who
didn't want to solve this thing, or imagined that he already did.

Did you ever meet Mark Lane? He had no interest in solving the
assassination. He was an ambulance chaser in the worst way - he chased the
President's hearst.

Post by ***@gmail.com
I doubt
that Utah has either. Nevertheless, what does that have to do with his
burden of supporting his own claims, as well as his own theory?

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/contents.htm

Let us know when you're up to speed and don't need to be spoon-fed the
evidence.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Bud
Instead they're obsessed with recruiting
some palookah to accept the burden to affirm the conventional narrative,
so that all their irrelevant, speculative nit-pickings have something to
bounce off of."

So, none of these people you are forever attacking even have a theory?
I've never met one who didn't:-)

Most are hesitant to voice it and get detailed about it. Their problem is
the evidence doesn't support any conspiracy theory.

Post by ***@gmail.com
You should go back to when Posner was your hero. He's a lot smarter than
this clown.

Ad hominem.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
I do want to thank Bud though. I have told you all what kind of a person
this character is, but Bud has done a great job of proving it.

It's interesting that you don't deny Utah's dishonesty. Nor do you claim
that I have EVER denied my own responsibility to prove what I claim.

You haven't proven anything about the Kennedy assassination here or on the
International Skeptics site, except to your own satistaction.

Post by ***@gmail.com
I'll give you credit again, Bud. You are a LOT more honest than your hero.

Ad hominem. You really need to work on attacking the argument, not the
arguer, Bob.

Hank

[BT George]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

Utah wasn`t making the argument that Oswald acted alone.

Post by ***@gmail.com
And I am not "presumably aware of the body of evidence which proves it",
any more than I am aware of the body of evidence that proves witches and
ghosts exist :-)

You find the information unpersuasive. That doesn`t make it go away.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Utah never believed that either, neither does anyone in this forum. If
they did, they would be telling us all about it. Of course, you have good
excuses. It's hard to prove a negative. But that doesn't alter the fact
that Utah deliberately lied and never once, told the forum about his
mythical evidence. Whenever I challenged him to present it, he repeated
his pathetic argument that he doesn't have to present any evidence, even
after pretending that he has it:-)

You kept trying to get him to play the game he kept telling you he
wasn`t going to play.

Oh, you mean the "game" of being honest and providing the evidence you
claim you have:-) Or did you mean the "game" of supporting your own
theory?

Post by Bud
You start a new post to ignore what I quote Utah
saying in the other...

I don't think I even noticed it Bud.

Post by Bud
"In something like 20 years of listening to JFK conspiracy theories, I
have yet to see a single conspiracy theorist who has the slightest
interest in solving the crime.

Bud, you just proved this clown to be a chronic liar. Do you really
believe ANYTHING he says? I have never known a conspiracy advocate who
didn't want to solve this thing, or imagined that he already did. I doubt
that Utah has either. Nevertheless, what does that have to do with his
burden of supporting his own claims, as well as his own theory?

Post by Bud
Instead they're obsessed with recruiting
some palookah to accept the burden to affirm the conventional narrative,
so that all their irrelevant, speculative nit-pickings have something to
bounce off of."

So, none of these people you are forever attacking even have a theory?
I've never met one who didn't:-)
You should go back to when Posner was your hero. He's a lot smarter than
this clown.

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
I do want to thank Bud though. I have told you all what kind of a person
this character is, but Bud has done a great job of proving it.

It's interesting that you don't deny Utah's dishonesty. Nor do you claim
that I have EVER denied my own responsibility to prove what I claim.
I'll give you credit again, Bud. You are a LOT more honest than your hero.

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
Bob Harris

Strangely I defended Harris over here on the supposed "burden of proof"
resting solely with him. It never does. But then neither does it follow
that one has to on demand prove the theory of gravity again de novo.
It's simply a question of how much burden is *reasonable* in the
situation. If one disputes what is now considered by the *vast* majority
of reasonable people to be obvious, if not self-evident, then that burden
is very, very small indeed---if one even deems a "debate" on the subject
above simple derision. (I.e., the no burden position.) OTOH, if the
matter is still considered controversial by a significant number of
otherwise sane individuals, then the burden grows even if you think it
should not be controversial at all. ...But even when that is the case, if
a well established written body of evidence for your position exists that
is widely available to anyone with Internet access, then it's incredibly
silly to do as Bob and many CTs do, and insist that you must regurgitate
it all on demand.

I agree with the ISF people on virtually everything they said about Bob
and his arguments. The only point I think they missed was when they
seemed to assert that the LN scenario enjoys a kind of "default
position"---which I agree with him is simply a form of deck-stacking in
debate---that in order to unseat, one has to have an fully adequate
counter argument that explains all the major data points. But that's only
so *if* you claim to be asserting a comprehensive counter-theory. To be
sure, one of the LN conclusion's strengths is that it does exactly that,
and any competing theory that lacks it will not be able to assert itself
*fully* in its place. But Bob's (very incorrect) contention is that he
has "absolute proof" at Z285 that another shot occurred that renders the
sole assassin position untenable, thus even if everything else he believed
or asserted were (just as) wrong, if Z285 is correct, then whatever the
full truth looked like, it could *not* be Oswald acting alone.

So *his* burden of proof, is showing in a credible and persuasive manner
that there was such a "shot". Others are free to ignore what he
presents---which is economy since it's ultimately a huuuge wast of time--
but once you decide to engage in *debate* you now have your own burden to
carry. Namely, that Bob's theory is *full* of it, and thus is in no way a
threat to the overall LN conclusion. ...This they did in *spades*!

[John Corbett]

Post by BT George

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

Utah wasn`t making the argument that Oswald acted alone.

Post by ***@gmail.com
And I am not "presumably aware of the body of evidence which proves it",
any more than I am aware of the body of evidence that proves witches and
ghosts exist :-)

You find the information unpersuasive. That doesn`t make it go away.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Utah never believed that either, neither does anyone in this forum. If
they did, they would be telling us all about it. Of course, you have good
excuses. It's hard to prove a negative. But that doesn't alter the fact
that Utah deliberately lied and never once, told the forum about his
mythical evidence. Whenever I challenged him to present it, he repeated
his pathetic argument that he doesn't have to present any evidence, even
after pretending that he has it:-)

You kept trying to get him to play the game he kept telling you he
wasn`t going to play.

Oh, you mean the "game" of being honest and providing the evidence you
claim you have:-) Or did you mean the "game" of supporting your own
theory?

Post by Bud
You start a new post to ignore what I quote Utah
saying in the other...

I don't think I even noticed it Bud.

Post by Bud
"In something like 20 years of listening to JFK conspiracy theories, I
have yet to see a single conspiracy theorist who has the slightest
interest in solving the crime.

Bud, you just proved this clown to be a chronic liar. Do you really
believe ANYTHING he says? I have never known a conspiracy advocate who
didn't want to solve this thing, or imagined that he already did. I doubt
that Utah has either. Nevertheless, what does that have to do with his
burden of supporting his own claims, as well as his own theory?

Post by Bud
Instead they're obsessed with recruiting
some palookah to accept the burden to affirm the conventional narrative,
so that all their irrelevant, speculative nit-pickings have something to
bounce off of."

So, none of these people you are forever attacking even have a theory?
I've never met one who didn't:-)
You should go back to when Posner was your hero. He's a lot smarter than
this clown.

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
I do want to thank Bud though. I have told you all what kind of a person
this character is, but Bud has done a great job of proving it.

It's interesting that you don't deny Utah's dishonesty. Nor do you claim
that I have EVER denied my own responsibility to prove what I claim.
I'll give you credit again, Bud. You are a LOT more honest than your hero.

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
Bob Harris

Strangely I defended Harris over here on the supposed "burden of proof"
resting solely with him. It never does. But then neither does it follow
that one has to on demand prove the theory of gravity again de novo.
It's simply a question of how much burden is *reasonable* in the
situation. If one disputes what is now considered by the *vast* majority
of reasonable people to be obvious, if not self-evident, then that burden
is very, very small indeed---if one even deems a "debate" on the subject
above simple derision. (I.e., the no burden position.) OTOH, if the
matter is still considered controversial by a significant number of
otherwise sane individuals, then the burden grows even if you think it
should not be controversial at all. ...But even when that is the case, if
a well established written body of evidence for your position exists that
is widely available to anyone with Internet access, then it's incredibly
silly to do as Bob and many CTs do, and insist that you must regurgitate
it all on demand.
I agree with the ISF people on virtually everything they said about Bob
and his arguments. The only point I think they missed was when they
seemed to assert that the LN scenario enjoys a kind of "default
position"---which I agree with him is simply a form of deck-stacking in
debate---that in order to unseat, one has to have an fully adequate
counter argument that explains all the major data points. But that's only
so *if* you claim to be asserting a comprehensive counter-theory. To be
sure, one of the LN conclusion's strengths is that it does exactly that,
and any competing theory that lacks it will not be able to assert itself
*fully* in its place. But Bob's (very incorrect) contention is that he
has "absolute proof" at Z285 that another shot occurred that renders the
sole assassin position untenable, thus even if everything else he believed
or asserted were (just as) wrong, if Z285 is correct, then whatever the
full truth looked like, it could *not* be Oswald acting alone.
So *his* burden of proof, is showing in a credible and persuasive manner
that there was such a "shot". Others are free to ignore what he
presents---which is economy since it's ultimately a huuuge wast of time--
but once you decide to engage in *debate* you now have your own burden to
carry. Namely, that Bob's theory is *full* of it, and thus is in no way a
threat to the overall LN conclusion. ...This they did in *spades*!

The case for the LN scenario was made by the WC 56 years ago. They
provided all the evidence that is needed to establish that Oswald was the
assassin. There is no burden on those who believe he was the sole assassin
because that would require us to prove a negative. I can't prove there
were no co-conspirators any more than I can prove there aren't herds of
unicorns roaming around the planet Venus under all those thick clouds. I
can only point out that there is no evidence for either co-conspirators or
unicorns.

[BT George]

Post by John Corbett

Post by BT George

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

Utah wasn`t making the argument that Oswald acted alone.

Post by ***@gmail.com
And I am not "presumably aware of the body of evidence which proves it",
any more than I am aware of the body of evidence that proves witches and
ghosts exist :-)

You find the information unpersuasive. That doesn`t make it go away.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Utah never believed that either, neither does anyone in this forum. If
they did, they would be telling us all about it. Of course, you have good
excuses. It's hard to prove a negative. But that doesn't alter the fact
that Utah deliberately lied and never once, told the forum about his
mythical evidence. Whenever I challenged him to present it, he repeated
his pathetic argument that he doesn't have to present any evidence, even
after pretending that he has it:-)

You kept trying to get him to play the game he kept telling you he
wasn`t going to play.

Oh, you mean the "game" of being honest and providing the evidence you
claim you have:-) Or did you mean the "game" of supporting your own
theory?

Post by Bud
You start a new post to ignore what I quote Utah
saying in the other...

I don't think I even noticed it Bud.

Post by Bud
"In something like 20 years of listening to JFK conspiracy theories, I
have yet to see a single conspiracy theorist who has the slightest
interest in solving the crime.

Bud, you just proved this clown to be a chronic liar. Do you really
believe ANYTHING he says? I have never known a conspiracy advocate who
didn't want to solve this thing, or imagined that he already did. I doubt
that Utah has either. Nevertheless, what does that have to do with his
burden of supporting his own claims, as well as his own theory?

Post by Bud
Instead they're obsessed with recruiting
some palookah to accept the burden to affirm the conventional narrative,
so that all their irrelevant, speculative nit-pickings have something to
bounce off of."

So, none of these people you are forever attacking even have a theory?
I've never met one who didn't:-)
You should go back to when Posner was your hero. He's a lot smarter than
this clown.

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
I do want to thank Bud though. I have told you all what kind of a person
this character is, but Bud has done a great job of proving it.

It's interesting that you don't deny Utah's dishonesty. Nor do you claim
that I have EVER denied my own responsibility to prove what I claim.
I'll give you credit again, Bud. You are a LOT more honest than your hero.

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
Bob Harris

Strangely I defended Harris over here on the supposed "burden of proof"
resting solely with him. It never does. But then neither does it follow
that one has to on demand prove the theory of gravity again de novo.
It's simply a question of how much burden is *reasonable* in the
situation. If one disputes what is now considered by the *vast* majority
of reasonable people to be obvious, if not self-evident, then that burden
is very, very small indeed---if one even deems a "debate" on the subject
above simple derision. (I.e., the no burden position.) OTOH, if the
matter is still considered controversial by a significant number of
otherwise sane individuals, then the burden grows even if you think it
should not be controversial at all. ...But even when that is the case, if
a well established written body of evidence for your position exists that
is widely available to anyone with Internet access, then it's incredibly
silly to do as Bob and many CTs do, and insist that you must regurgitate
it all on demand.
I agree with the ISF people on virtually everything they said about Bob
and his arguments. The only point I think they missed was when they
seemed to assert that the LN scenario enjoys a kind of "default
position"---which I agree with him is simply a form of deck-stacking in
debate---that in order to unseat, one has to have an fully adequate
counter argument that explains all the major data points. But that's only
so *if* you claim to be asserting a comprehensive counter-theory. To be
sure, one of the LN conclusion's strengths is that it does exactly that,
and any competing theory that lacks it will not be able to assert itself
*fully* in its place. But Bob's (very incorrect) contention is that he
has "absolute proof" at Z285 that another shot occurred that renders the
sole assassin position untenable, thus even if everything else he believed
or asserted were (just as) wrong, if Z285 is correct, then whatever the
full truth looked like, it could *not* be Oswald acting alone.
So *his* burden of proof, is showing in a credible and persuasive manner
that there was such a "shot". Others are free to ignore what he
presents---which is economy since it's ultimately a huuuge wast of time--
but once you decide to engage in *debate* you now have your own burden to
carry. Namely, that Bob's theory is *full* of it, and thus is in no way a
threat to the overall LN conclusion. ...This they did in *spades*!

The case for the LN scenario was made by the WC 56 years ago. They
provided all the evidence that is needed to establish that Oswald was the
assassin. There is no burden on those who believe he was the sole assassin
because that would require us to prove a negative. I can't prove there
were no co-conspirators any more than I can prove there aren't herds of
unicorns roaming around the planet Venus under all those thick clouds. I
can only point out that there is no evidence for either co-conspirators or
unicorns.

Yes but my point is more limited. Though Bob indeed has demanded proof
*of* the LN theory--which I pointed out to him there is only proof *for*
(positive/negative) the LN theory--- the point he was primarily trying to
sell at the ISF is that the "shot" at Z285 existed and thereby invalidated
at minimum any scenario that held he was the only shooter. So at the
point he was complaining about burdens of proof he was only referring to
having a contra proof that *if* true rendered the basic premise of Oz
alone invalid, even if he was still as guilty as sin and landed the only
blows that struck that day. (Ala the HSCA.) So his only burden of proof
to that point was to demonstrate *that* claim to be true or persuasively
likely. It does not follow that he also had a burden to holistically
solve the whole case as some of those at ISF seemed to suggest. (Though
it would certainly be helpful and seemingly doable if one *really* is onto
something.) So there is a burden of rebuttle if one *chooses* to engage
in a debate on *that* point.

But as I also said in my previous post (see first paragraph) I do agree
that one has little to no burden whatsoever to engage in a debate if they
believe the point someone is asserting is impossible ridiculously
unlikely, or downright silly. In such a case, it's simply enough to laugh
and move on. ...Still less does one have to keep debating endlessly when
they have to *their own* satisfaction established that the one making the
assertion hasn't carried their burden of proof. Of course, Bob has
absolutely never (chosen) to understand that last point, hence his endless
repetition of a theory that was long ago shown to be clearly wanting.

[Bud]

Post by BT George

Post by John Corbett

Post by BT George

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

Utah wasn`t making the argument that Oswald acted alone.

Post by ***@gmail.com
And I am not "presumably aware of the body of evidence which proves it",
any more than I am aware of the body of evidence that proves witches and
ghosts exist :-)

You find the information unpersuasive. That doesn`t make it go away.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Utah never believed that either, neither does anyone in this forum. If
they did, they would be telling us all about it. Of course, you have good
excuses. It's hard to prove a negative. But that doesn't alter the fact
that Utah deliberately lied and never once, told the forum about his
mythical evidence. Whenever I challenged him to present it, he repeated
his pathetic argument that he doesn't have to present any evidence, even
after pretending that he has it:-)

You kept trying to get him to play the game he kept telling you he
wasn`t going to play.

Oh, you mean the "game" of being honest and providing the evidence you
claim you have:-) Or did you mean the "game" of supporting your own
theory?

Post by Bud
You start a new post to ignore what I quote Utah
saying in the other...

I don't think I even noticed it Bud.

Post by Bud
"In something like 20 years of listening to JFK conspiracy theories, I
have yet to see a single conspiracy theorist who has the slightest
interest in solving the crime.

Bud, you just proved this clown to be a chronic liar. Do you really
believe ANYTHING he says? I have never known a conspiracy advocate who
didn't want to solve this thing, or imagined that he already did. I doubt
that Utah has either. Nevertheless, what does that have to do with his
burden of supporting his own claims, as well as his own theory?

Post by Bud
Instead they're obsessed with recruiting
some palookah to accept the burden to affirm the conventional narrative,
so that all their irrelevant, speculative nit-pickings have something to
bounce off of."

So, none of these people you are forever attacking even have a theory?
I've never met one who didn't:-)
You should go back to when Posner was your hero. He's a lot smarter than
this clown.

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
I do want to thank Bud though. I have told you all what kind of a person
this character is, but Bud has done a great job of proving it.

It's interesting that you don't deny Utah's dishonesty. Nor do you claim
that I have EVER denied my own responsibility to prove what I claim.
I'll give you credit again, Bud. You are a LOT more honest than your hero.

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
Bob Harris

Strangely I defended Harris over here on the supposed "burden of proof"
resting solely with him. It never does. But then neither does it follow
that one has to on demand prove the theory of gravity again de novo.
It's simply a question of how much burden is *reasonable* in the
situation. If one disputes what is now considered by the *vast* majority
of reasonable people to be obvious, if not self-evident, then that burden
is very, very small indeed---if one even deems a "debate" on the subject
above simple derision. (I.e., the no burden position.) OTOH, if the
matter is still considered controversial by a significant number of
otherwise sane individuals, then the burden grows even if you think it
should not be controversial at all. ...But even when that is the case, if
a well established written body of evidence for your position exists that
is widely available to anyone with Internet access, then it's incredibly
silly to do as Bob and many CTs do, and insist that you must regurgitate
it all on demand.
I agree with the ISF people on virtually everything they said about Bob
and his arguments. The only point I think they missed was when they
seemed to assert that the LN scenario enjoys a kind of "default
position"---which I agree with him is simply a form of deck-stacking in
debate---that in order to unseat, one has to have an fully adequate
counter argument that explains all the major data points. But that's only
so *if* you claim to be asserting a comprehensive counter-theory. To be
sure, one of the LN conclusion's strengths is that it does exactly that,
and any competing theory that lacks it will not be able to assert itself
*fully* in its place. But Bob's (very incorrect) contention is that he
has "absolute proof" at Z285 that another shot occurred that renders the
sole assassin position untenable, thus even if everything else he believed
or asserted were (just as) wrong, if Z285 is correct, then whatever the
full truth looked like, it could *not* be Oswald acting alone.
So *his* burden of proof, is showing in a credible and persuasive manner
that there was such a "shot". Others are free to ignore what he
presents---which is economy since it's ultimately a huuuge wast of time--
but once you decide to engage in *debate* you now have your own burden to
carry. Namely, that Bob's theory is *full* of it, and thus is in no way a
threat to the overall LN conclusion. ...This they did in *spades*!

The case for the LN scenario was made by the WC 56 years ago. They
provided all the evidence that is needed to establish that Oswald was the
assassin. There is no burden on those who believe he was the sole assassin
because that would require us to prove a negative. I can't prove there
were no co-conspirators any more than I can prove there aren't herds of
unicorns roaming around the planet Venus under all those thick clouds. I
can only point out that there is no evidence for either co-conspirators or
unicorns.

Yes but my point is more limited. Though Bob indeed has demanded proof
*of* the LN theory--which I pointed out to him there is only proof *for*
(positive/negative) the LN theory--- the point he was primarily trying to
sell at the ISF is that the "shot" at Z285 existed and thereby invalidated
at minimum any scenario that held he was the only shooter. So at the
point he was complaining about burdens of proof he was only referring to
having a contra proof that *if* true rendered the basic premise of Oz
alone invalid, even if he was still as guilty as sin and landed the only
blows that struck that day. (Ala the HSCA.) So his only burden of proof
to that point was to demonstrate *that* claim to be true or persuasively
likely. It does not follow that he also had a burden to holistically
solve the whole case as some of those at ISF seemed to suggest. (Though
it would certainly be helpful and seemingly doable if one *really* is onto
something.) So there is a burden of rebuttle if one *chooses* to engage
in a debate on *that* point.
But as I also said in my previous post (see first paragraph) I do agree
that one has little to no burden whatsoever to engage in a debate if they
believe the point someone is asserting is impossible ridiculously
unlikely, or downright silly. In such a case, it's simply enough to laugh
and move on. ...Still less does one have to keep debating endlessly when
they have to *their own* satisfaction established that the one making the
assertion hasn't carried their burden of proof. Of course, Bob has
absolutely never (chosen) to understand that last point, hence his endless
repetition of a theory that was long ago shown to be clearly wanting.

Ben postjacked an excerpt from you which turned into a give and take
between him and I...

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/PsrWS8pF5Cw/SFKo-On8CgAJ

In that discussion I said this...

"What actually occurred is that Brock was speaking generally about
specific discussions between Harris and Jay Utah on the Skeptic Forum.
Brock`s take on the whole thing was in error because he didn`t take into
account the context of the discussions, where they took place and what the
purpose of those discussions were at that place. It wasn`t a horse race
between contending horses running around the same track, it was Harris
representing his horse as the best example of horse flesh that ever lived,
and the people there pointing out it`s missing legs, eyes, tail, ect."

The forum these discussions took place on the Skeptic`s website is
dedicated to the examination of conspiracies and conspiracy theories, so
it doesn`t matter much what the people questioning Harris about his ideas
believe, they can even believe there was a conspiracy and still question
Harris`s ideas. They had no burden in their discussions with Harris of
supporting the lone nut position.

[John Corbett]

Post by BT George

Post by John Corbett

Post by BT George

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

Utah wasn`t making the argument that Oswald acted alone.

Post by ***@gmail.com
And I am not "presumably aware of the body of evidence which proves it",
any more than I am aware of the body of evidence that proves witches and
ghosts exist :-)

You find the information unpersuasive. That doesn`t make it go away.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Utah never believed that either, neither does anyone in this forum. If
they did, they would be telling us all about it. Of course, you have good
excuses. It's hard to prove a negative. But that doesn't alter the fact
that Utah deliberately lied and never once, told the forum about his
mythical evidence. Whenever I challenged him to present it, he repeated
his pathetic argument that he doesn't have to present any evidence, even
after pretending that he has it:-)

You kept trying to get him to play the game he kept telling you he
wasn`t going to play.

Oh, you mean the "game" of being honest and providing the evidence you
claim you have:-) Or did you mean the "game" of supporting your own
theory?

Post by Bud
You start a new post to ignore what I quote Utah
saying in the other...

I don't think I even noticed it Bud.

Post by Bud
"In something like 20 years of listening to JFK conspiracy theories, I
have yet to see a single conspiracy theorist who has the slightest
interest in solving the crime.

Bud, you just proved this clown to be a chronic liar. Do you really
believe ANYTHING he says? I have never known a conspiracy advocate who
didn't want to solve this thing, or imagined that he already did. I doubt
that Utah has either. Nevertheless, what does that have to do with his
burden of supporting his own claims, as well as his own theory?

Post by Bud
Instead they're obsessed with recruiting
some palookah to accept the burden to affirm the conventional narrative,
so that all their irrelevant, speculative nit-pickings have something to
bounce off of."

So, none of these people you are forever attacking even have a theory?
I've never met one who didn't:-)
You should go back to when Posner was your hero. He's a lot smarter than
this clown.

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
I do want to thank Bud though. I have told you all what kind of a person
this character is, but Bud has done a great job of proving it.

It's interesting that you don't deny Utah's dishonesty. Nor do you claim
that I have EVER denied my own responsibility to prove what I claim.
I'll give you credit again, Bud. You are a LOT more honest than your hero.

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
Bob Harris

Strangely I defended Harris over here on the supposed "burden of proof"
resting solely with him. It never does. But then neither does it follow
that one has to on demand prove the theory of gravity again de novo.
It's simply a question of how much burden is *reasonable* in the
situation. If one disputes what is now considered by the *vast* majority
of reasonable people to be obvious, if not self-evident, then that burden
is very, very small indeed---if one even deems a "debate" on the subject
above simple derision. (I.e., the no burden position.) OTOH, if the
matter is still considered controversial by a significant number of
otherwise sane individuals, then the burden grows even if you think it
should not be controversial at all. ...But even when that is the case, if
a well established written body of evidence for your position exists that
is widely available to anyone with Internet access, then it's incredibly
silly to do as Bob and many CTs do, and insist that you must regurgitate
it all on demand.
I agree with the ISF people on virtually everything they said about Bob
and his arguments. The only point I think they missed was when they
seemed to assert that the LN scenario enjoys a kind of "default
position"---which I agree with him is simply a form of deck-stacking in
debate---that in order to unseat, one has to have an fully adequate
counter argument that explains all the major data points. But that's only
so *if* you claim to be asserting a comprehensive counter-theory. To be
sure, one of the LN conclusion's strengths is that it does exactly that,
and any competing theory that lacks it will not be able to assert itself
*fully* in its place. But Bob's (very incorrect) contention is that he
has "absolute proof" at Z285 that another shot occurred that renders the
sole assassin position untenable, thus even if everything else he believed
or asserted were (just as) wrong, if Z285 is correct, then whatever the
full truth looked like, it could *not* be Oswald acting alone.
So *his* burden of proof, is showing in a credible and persuasive manner
that there was such a "shot". Others are free to ignore what he
presents---which is economy since it's ultimately a huuuge wast of time--
but once you decide to engage in *debate* you now have your own burden to
carry. Namely, that Bob's theory is *full* of it, and thus is in no way a
threat to the overall LN conclusion. ...This they did in *spades*!

The case for the LN scenario was made by the WC 56 years ago. They
provided all the evidence that is needed to establish that Oswald was the
assassin. There is no burden on those who believe he was the sole assassin
because that would require us to prove a negative. I can't prove there
were no co-conspirators any more than I can prove there aren't herds of
unicorns roaming around the planet Venus under all those thick clouds. I
can only point out that there is no evidence for either co-conspirators or
unicorns.

Yes but my point is more limited. Though Bob indeed has demanded proof
*of* the LN theory--which I pointed out to him there is only proof *for*
(positive/negative) the LN theory--- the point he was primarily trying to
sell at the ISF is that the "shot" at Z285 existed and thereby invalidated
at minimum any scenario that held he was the only shooter. So at the
point he was complaining about burdens of proof he was only referring to
having a contra proof that *if* true rendered the basic premise of Oz
alone invalid, even if he was still as guilty as sin and landed the only
blows that struck that day. (Ala the HSCA.) So his only burden of proof
to that point was to demonstrate *that* claim to be true or persuasively
likely. It does not follow that he also had a burden to holistically
solve the whole case as some of those at ISF seemed to suggest. (Though
it would certainly be helpful and seemingly doable if one *really* is onto
something.) So there is a burden of rebuttle if one *chooses* to engage
in a debate on *that* point.
But as I also said in my previous post (see first paragraph) I do agree
that one has little to no burden whatsoever to engage in a debate if they
believe the point someone is asserting is impossible ridiculously
unlikely, or downright silly. In such a case, it's simply enough to laugh
and move on. ...Still less does one have to keep debating endlessly when
they have to *their own* satisfaction established that the one making the
assertion hasn't carried their burden of proof. Of course, Bob has
absolutely never (chosen) to understand that last point, hence his endless
repetition of a theory that was long ago shown to be clearly wanting.

Rebuttal is not needed when no case has been made. I've sat on juries in
two civil cases where the trial judge dismissed the case after the
plaintiffs had finished presenting it. It wasn't necessary for the
defendants to do anything. I think we are justified in dismissing Bob's
case for lack of evidence.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

Utah wasn`t making the argument that Oswald acted alone.

Post by ***@gmail.com
And I am not "presumably aware of the body of evidence which proves it",
any more than I am aware of the body of evidence that proves witches and
ghosts exist :-)

You find the information unpersuasive. That doesn`t make it go away.

No, it's worse than that. Bob is saying he doesn't know what's in the
Warren Report, nor the Warren Commission volumes of evidence. He's saying
he's not even aware of that body of evidence that establishes that Oswald
fired all the shots. It's like he's pretending it doesn't exist.

His real goal of course, is to try to get someone to stand in for the
Warren Commission, argue their points, and then he can rebut them (in his
own mind) thereby vanquishing the mighty dragon once and for all.

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
Utah never believed that either, neither does anyone in this forum. If
they did, they would be telling us all about it. Of course, you have good
excuses. It's hard to prove a negative. But that doesn't alter the fact
that Utah deliberately lied and never once, told the forum about his
mythical evidence. Whenever I challenged him to present it, he repeated
his pathetic argument that he doesn't have to present any evidence, even
after pretending that he has it:-)

You kept trying to get him to play the game he kept telling you he
wasn`t going to play. You start a new post to ignore what I quote Utah
saying in the other...
"In something like 20 years of listening to JFK conspiracy theories, I
have yet to see a single conspiracy theorist who has the slightest
interest in solving the crime. Instead they're obsessed with recruiting
some palookah to accept the burden to affirm the conventional narrative,
so that all their irrelevant, speculative nit-pickings have something to
bounce off of."

Yeah, that's exactly what Bob's trying to do. And Bob hates that Jay
predicted he would do it.
But Bob went ahead and did that anyway. He made little traction, even going
so far as to try to dictate what rules we had to abide by if we wanted to
debate him:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10743890&postcount=2168
== QUOTE ==

I will be gone for a few hours. If anyone wants to debate me, just send a
PM and let me know when you will be on this evening. Please post something
in the open forum however, that you agree to the level playing field rules
(see below).

My rules for a level playing field.

I WILL DEBATE NO ONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE TO THEM.

1. I will debate one person at a time, until he or I decide he is done.

2. I will debate no one whose posts are about Robert Harris and are in any
way derogatory. Nor will I post anything that is derogatory about them.

3. I may presume that I am right just as my adversaries may presume that
they are right.

4. I will debate anyone whose theory is different than mine-conspiracy or
lone nut, with each of us bearing the burden of proving their own
belief.

These rules may be subject to change as I deem necessary.

I will begin debating with the first person who agrees to these rules.

== UNQUOTE ==

Of course, as Jay pointed out, if we didn't agree to those silly rules he
tried to dictate, that didn't prevent us from pointing out the flaws in his
arguments, it just prevented Bob from responding as he said he wouldn't
debate anyone who didn't agree:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10743965&postcount=2176

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by ***@gmail.com
Recently Bud cited Jay Utah in his efforts to prove that was I evading the
burden of proof,

On the International Skeptics forum, you denied that burden of proof even
existed. You claimed it was something with no legitimacy invented by lone
nutters to evade proving Oswald acted alone:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10745475&postcount=2351
== QUOTE ==
The "burden of proof" that Jay was referring to was never a forum rule. It
has no legitimacy, whatsoever.

It amounts to a handful of nutters fabricating phony "rules" which allow
them to evade the fact that they could never prove Oswald acted alone.

It is pathetic that they would sink to that level, but understandable I
suppose, considering how helpless they are to defend their theory.
== UNQUOTE ==

Do you now understand it is your burden to prove multiple shooters, and
prove a conspiracy if you advocate for that?

Post by ***@gmail.com
"There is no 'our' case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory. "
I was a bit shocked that Bud would cite Utah in one of his many deliberate
lies. Of course, there is NO evidence supporting the theory that Oswald
acted alone.

You've never heard of the Warren Report? You alleged in 2015 when you
first joined the International Skeptics forum that you were well informed
on this case. The Warren Report is the conventional narrative Jay is
referring to.

If you're not familiar with it, you can find it online here:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/contents.htm
Please read it and get back to us when you're not asking us to repeat
everything therein.

Jay warned you not to try the standard dodges utilized by conspiracy
theorists here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10737645&postcount=1670

But you insisted on doing exactly what he told you wouldn't work.

Post by ***@gmail.com
And I am not "presumably aware of the body of evidence which proves it",
any more than I am aware of the body of evidence that proves witches and
ghosts exist :-)

Shame on you, then. If you're not aware of the conventional narrative,
what exactly are you arguing against? Why are you even arguing for a
conspiracy? What you're doing is attempting to recruit someone to stand in
for the conventional narrative, to defend that, while you sling barbs at
it, pointing out the alleged flaws. Then, having dismissed the
conventional narrative using one artificially high standard, you will
attempt to substitute your own theory to displace the conventional
narrative. Jay explained all this to you.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Utah never believed that either, neither does anyone in this forum. If
they did, they would be telling us all about it.

There is no reason to repeat everything found below for your benefit:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/contents.htm
Please read it and get back to us when you're not asking us to repeat
everything therein.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Of course, you have good
excuses. It's hard to prove a negative.

Jay pointed out you're asking your opponents to prove a negative (disprove
the existence of a conspiracy) here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10745120&postcount=2328

You probably didn't understand very much of it.

But he said this, in part:
== QUOTE ==

You asked what people believed. You were given expressions of belief,
which you seem to have mischaracterized as concluded assertions. Belief is
mutable. But it doesn't change with every wind of doctrine. Based as it is
upon a long-standing consilience of proof for one particular outcome, it
possesses some degree of inertia. But a finite degree, because in contrast
to the consilience is the ever-present acknowledgement that it is a null
hypothesis in the philosophical sense, and an argument from silence in the
empirical sense.

The responsibility to overcome that inertia rests with any person who
suggests a direction in which the belief should move. And it's his
responsibility to provide enough evidentiary force to overcome that
inertia. Questioning why there is any inertia at all, or complaining that
unseating a belief is too hard, simply doesn't rise to the level of
critical attention. Nor do efforts that sidestep the application of sheer
evidentiary force. No rhetorical legerdemain or emotional conjuring has
any effect upon that inertia. You were warned about those smoke and
mirrors when you first arrived, yet proceeded to wave the wand anyway.

If you cannot muster sufficient affirmative force, belief slides back into
its erstwhile detent. And this is proper. When one has examined the
picture of evidence as it presently stands, and upon that evidence arrives
at a belief regarding it, he does not need to repeat that exercise anew
every time his belief is tickled by some vaunted alternative. If it is
insubstantial, his previous exercise reasserts itself.

== UNQUOTE ==

It's your burden to prove a conspiracy, and multiple shooters. Nobody
needs to disprove it. The evidence that Oswald fired shots is available at
the link provided. Do you need it again?

Post by ***@gmail.com
But that doesn't alter the fact
that Utah deliberately lied and never once, told the forum about his
mythical evidence.

I pointed out where you could find it numerous times. You ignored the point.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/contents.htm
Please read it and get back to us when you're not asking us to repeat
everything therein.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Whenever I challenged him to present it, he repeated
his pathetic argument that he doesn't have to present any evidence, even
after pretending that he has it:-)

The evidence is here:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/contents.htm

If you're not familiar with it, why are you posting?

Post by ***@gmail.com
I do want to thank Bud though. I have told you all what kind of a person
this character is, but Bud has done a great job of proving it.

And there's more of the ad hominem we always knew would surface eventually.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Bob Harris