Post by 19efpppPost by BT GeorgePost by 19efpppPost by 19efpppPost by BT GeorgePost by 19efpppPost by BT GeorgePost by 19efpppThree days after Ruby shot Oswald, Rear Admiral Rufus Taylor, Director of
the Office of Naval Intelligence, wrote that he was interested in what
seemed to be a look of recognition on Oswald's face when he spotted Ruby,
just before he was shot.
https://postimg.cc/645b1d9P
Litwin's next book ought to take apart the dear Rear Admiral's reputation.
But wait a minute. He's the same guy who decided that Nosenko was not a
double agent after all. Nutters want him to be right about that, don't
they? Well never mind then. Maybe the hobbyists should just leave Taylor
to the historians.
Well since I doubt Fred intends to say a word about the Rear Admiral, are
you suggesting he has taken apart the reputation of some who don't deserve
it? ...Like say Mr. upstanding citizen Mr. Jim Garrison? (The latter of
which made the task *very* easy.) Or is it some other CT hero you had in
mind?
What I was suggesting is that Rear Admiral Rufus Taylor, ONI big cheese,
noticed that Oswald seemed to recognize Jack Ruby. Any reference to Nutter
hobbyist heroes was purely incidental, so naturally that is where you
focus your attention.
Or what he noticed was a man in fedora suddenly lunging his direction
holding a firearm. *Anyone* might have a look of apparent "recognition"
that something bad was taking shape.
But that's not the way it happened. The look of recognition preceded the
lunging, as I and the Rear Admiral have noticed, even if deluded Nutters
have not. Oswald had enough time to look away again and keep walking
before Jack made his move. The ONI chief and I noticed this.
I guess I am missing the magic moment. Is there another set of video
footage than this?
http://youtu.be/r6PcVCqg3tg
If not, where in here do you see the look of "recognition"?
Your linked video is edited from different camera shots. The Rear Admiral
and I, and the rest of the world, have seen unedited versions which you
seem not to know about.
...And so you will simply post that video to display my ignorance of these
"unedited" versions?
You really need me to show you the video of Oswald getting shot?
A link to Oswald getting shot does not establish Oswald recognized Ruby, and we both know it. Your claim of such recognition is entirely subjective.
Post by 19efpppThe video
that EVERYBODY has seen for 56 years now?
Do I hear 57? 57 years now? 57? Anyone? Oswald's shooting happened on
11/24/1963. It was 57 years on 11/24/2020, and we're nearly a month past
that and counting.
Post by 19efpppIf I hold your hand and blow
your nose, I know that my only reward will be to get covered in snot, so I
decline.
And there's the LOGICAL FALLACY known as Shifting the Burden of Proof.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm#:~:text=Shifting%20the%20burden%20of%20proof%2C%20a%20special%20case%20of%20argumentum,is%20true%20unless%20proven%20otherwise.
SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
== QUOTE ==
The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or
proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum
ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the
person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of
the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven
otherwise.
The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence.
And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect
knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would
require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond
(omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not
exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent.
Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The
claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable. As logician
Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to prove a universal negative
is a self- defeating proposition. These claims are "worldwide existential
negatives." They are only a small class of all possible negatives. They
cannot be established by direct observation because no single human
observer can cover the whole earth at one time in order to declare by
personal authority that any “X” doesn't exist.
== UNQUOTE ==
It is your claim that Oswald recognized Ruby before he was shot. It is
therefore your obligation to provide such proof as may exist of that
assertion. Since Oswald died without making such declaration, the best you
can do is assert that there "appears to be, according to me" that Oswald
recognized Ruby. That falls far shot of any proof, and is a wholly
subjective inference you are making.
Others, in the absence of objective evidence of Oswald's thought process,
may make entirely different determinations, that are equally subjective
and equally valid.
Since you are arguing for something subjective and without verifiable
proof, of course you cannot prove it, so of course you decline to provide
such proof, with the argument that you don't need to walk people to the
proof, hold their hand, and wipe their nose.
You don't need to do any of that to provide the link to the supposed
proof, but you decline posting said link because you don't have any
objective proof of your subjective claim.
And you never will.
Hank
