Discussion:
Hank's question
(too old to reply)
reharr...@gmail.com
2020-09-30 13:25:19 UTC
Permalink
"Where's the evidence for multiple shooters?"


http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html

Loading Image...


http://jfkhistory.com/Articles.html
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Youtube.html
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-10-01 03:00:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
"Where's the evidence for multiple shooters?"
http://youtu.be/7GH5pGQy6yI
http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html
http://youtu.be/0cHg4qeh2_M
http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
http://youtu.be/Ql6VqZDiC6s
http://youtu.be/aAqqWwG_bbE
http://jfkhistory.com/Articles.html
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Youtube.html
And that's the logical fallacy of a Gish Gallop.

Giddy-up!

Hank
reharr...@gmail.com
2020-10-01 23:25:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by ***@gmail.com
"Where's the evidence for multiple shooters?"
http://youtu.be/7GH5pGQy6yI
http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html
http://youtu.be/0cHg4qeh2_M
http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
http://youtu.be/Ql6VqZDiC6s
http://youtu.be/aAqqWwG_bbE
http://jfkhistory.com/Articles.html
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Youtube.html
And that's the logical fallacy of a Gish Gallop.
Giddy-up!
Hank
So, you ask for evidence and I present evidence, none of which you can
even try to refute.
And that's a fallacy??
Evidence is ALL that matters here, my friend.
You were right to request it.
You were wrong to run from it.
Jason Burke
2020-10-02 03:45:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by ***@gmail.com
"Where's the evidence for multiple shooters?"
http://youtu.be/7GH5pGQy6yI
http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html
http://youtu.be/0cHg4qeh2_M
http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
http://youtu.be/Ql6VqZDiC6s
http://youtu.be/aAqqWwG_bbE
http://jfkhistory.com/Articles.html
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Youtube.html
And that's the logical fallacy of a Gish Gallop.
Giddy-up!
Hank
So, you ask for evidence and I present evidence, none of which you can
even try to refute.
And that's a fallacy??
Evidence is ALL that matters here, my friend.
You were right to request it.
You were wrong to run from it.
You gots nuffin, pal.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-10-02 20:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by ***@gmail.com
"Where's the evidence for multiple shooters?"
http://youtu.be/7GH5pGQy6yI
http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html
http://youtu.be/0cHg4qeh2_M
http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
http://youtu.be/Ql6VqZDiC6s
http://youtu.be/aAqqWwG_bbE
http://jfkhistory.com/Articles.html
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Youtube.html
And that's the logical fallacy of a Gish Gallop.
Giddy-up!
Hank
So, you ask for evidence and I present evidence, none of which you can
even try to refute.
You presented no evidence. There is nothing to refute. I see a series of internet links, nothing else.
You can eliminate all the argumentum youtubem right off the bat.
Post by ***@gmail.com
And that's a fallacy??
Yes, It's called a GISH GALLOP. Do you need a link to a definition?
Post by ***@gmail.com
Evidence is ALL that matters here, my friend.
Too bad you didn't cite any.
Post by ***@gmail.com
You were right to request it.
Thank you.
Post by ***@gmail.com
You were wrong to run from it.
Run from what, exactly?

Here's my rebuttal:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/contents.htm
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/contents.htm

John Corbett
2020-10-01 03:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
"Where's the evidence for multiple shooters?"
http://youtu.be/7GH5pGQy6yI
http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html
http://youtu.be/0cHg4qeh2_M
http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
http://youtu.be/Ql6VqZDiC6s
http://youtu.be/aAqqWwG_bbE
http://jfkhistory.com/Articles.html
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Youtube.html
So Bob is asked to cite evidence to support his claims and instead simple
provides links to source documents and expects the other person to find
the evidence to support Bob's claim. I see this tactic used over and over
again, not just in this group but in others I participate in as well. In
another group, I asked someone who had made outrageous claims about future
climate change to cite evidence for those claims. His response was to post
the IPCC home page which does nothing but provide links to the lengthy
reports it has published. When I ask him to provide specific cites he
responds, "Read the damn reports.". I'm supposed to go hunting for the
supporting evidence for his claims. If he didn't live in Australia I might
think he was related to Marsh. If I am asked to back up a claim I make, I
will quote the pertinent paragraph using copy and paste to ensure I quote
it accurately and also provide a link to the source document in case
someone desires further context. Simply linking to source documents is not
citing evidence. It would be like if I was asked to provide supporting
evidence for my claims and I responded by saying, "Go visit the Library of
Congress. You'll find your answer there.".
reharr...@gmail.com
2020-10-01 23:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by ***@gmail.com
"Where's the evidence for multiple shooters?"
http://youtu.be/7GH5pGQy6yI
http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html
http://youtu.be/0cHg4qeh2_M
http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
http://youtu.be/Ql6VqZDiC6s
http://youtu.be/aAqqWwG_bbE
http://jfkhistory.com/Articles.html
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Youtube.html
So Bob is asked to cite evidence to support his claims and instead simple
provides links to source documents and expects the other person to find
the evidence to support Bob's claim. I see this tactic used over and over
again, not just in this group but in others I participate in as well. In
another group, I asked someone who had made outrageous claims about future
climate change to cite evidence for those claims. His response was to post
the IPCC home page which does nothing but provide links to the lengthy
reports it has published. When I ask him to provide specific cites he
responds, "Read the damn reports.". I'm supposed to go hunting for the
supporting evidence for his claims. If he didn't live in Australia I might
think he was related to Marsh. If I am asked to back up a claim I make, I
will quote the pertinent paragraph using copy and paste to ensure I quote
it accurately and also provide a link to the source document in case
someone desires further context. Simply linking to source documents is not
citing evidence. It would be like if I was asked to provide supporting
evidence for my claims and I responded by saying, "Go visit the Library of
Congress. You'll find your answer there.".
I wonder if you realize how ludicrous your statement appears to anyone who
has examined even a few of those links:-) Trust me John, they're all brief
and well within even your attention span.
John Corbett
2020-10-02 13:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by John Corbett
Post by ***@gmail.com
"Where's the evidence for multiple shooters?"
http://youtu.be/7GH5pGQy6yI
http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html
http://youtu.be/0cHg4qeh2_M
http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
http://youtu.be/Ql6VqZDiC6s
http://youtu.be/aAqqWwG_bbE
http://jfkhistory.com/Articles.html
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Youtube.html
So Bob is asked to cite evidence to support his claims and instead simple
provides links to source documents and expects the other person to find
the evidence to support Bob's claim. I see this tactic used over and over
again, not just in this group but in others I participate in as well. In
another group, I asked someone who had made outrageous claims about future
climate change to cite evidence for those claims. His response was to post
the IPCC home page which does nothing but provide links to the lengthy
reports it has published. When I ask him to provide specific cites he
responds, "Read the damn reports.". I'm supposed to go hunting for the
supporting evidence for his claims. If he didn't live in Australia I might
think he was related to Marsh. If I am asked to back up a claim I make, I
will quote the pertinent paragraph using copy and paste to ensure I quote
it accurately and also provide a link to the source document in case
someone desires further context. Simply linking to source documents is not
citing evidence. It would be like if I was asked to provide supporting
evidence for my claims and I responded by saying, "Go visit the Library of
Congress. You'll find your answer there.".
I wonder if you realize how ludicrous your statement appears to anyone who
has examined even a few of those links:-) Trust me John, they're all brief
and well within even your attention span.
When somebody dumps a shitload of source documents into a discussion I'm
not going to waste my time going through them to find the supporting
evidence for that person's claims. If they have something that backs up
what they say, it is their responsibility to quote the specific passage.
I'll be damned if I'm going to go through those documents to find the
support for somebody else's argument. Copy and paste allows one to clip as
much supporting evidence as is necessary to make a point. Don't expect
somebody else to do your job for you.
Loading...