+- Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com)
+-- Forum: Main JFK Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-Main-JFK-Forums)
+--- Forum: JFK Conspiracy Main Forum (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-JFK-Conspiracy-Main-Forum)
+--- Thread: Logical Fallacies & Believers (/Thread-Logical-Fallacies-Believers)
Logical Fallacies & Believers - Ben Holmes - 08-29-2016
Quote:What other bullets did or did not do has nothing to do with CE399. It's actions and condition is unrelated to any other bullets. It is entirely possible that it could inflict the wounds that it did and remain in the condition that it is in because that is what it did. Just as Oswald's marksmanship as tested by the Marines is unrelated. On that day, in that place, he was a good enough marksman to make the shot. The proof that he could do it is that HE DID, and the conspiracy nitwits cannot name another shooter, afte 50 years and over 10000 posts on this forum, alone.
This is, of course, the fundamental logical fallacy known as 'Begging The Question'. It is assumed that CE399 did what the Warren Commission said it did - therefore any evidence that contradicts that (which is basically all the ballistics testing done for the Warren Commission) is meaningless.
But this is simply assuming what you need to demonstrate.
Ditto with Oswald's marksmanship... it was incredibly poorer than the three marksmen used to attempt to duplicate their scenario by the Warren Commission - yet they couldn't do the job, despite their many advantages (quite dishonest advantages given to them by the Warren Commission)
RE: Logical Fallacies & Believers - Patrick C - 08-31-2016
(08-29-2016, 05:42 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Ditto with Oswald's marksmanship... it was incredibly poorer than the three marksmen used to attempt to duplicate their scenario by the Warren Commission - yet they couldn't do the job, despite their many advantages (quite dishonest advantages given to them by the Warren Commission)
You are obviously talking about three shots in less than 6 seconds which for the nth time is almost certainly NOT what happened on 22 Nov.
Oswald got off TWO shots in 5.2 seconds approx and they both hit at approx 65 and 88 yards. This is NOT remarkable shooting and easily within the capabilities of expert marksmen such as those using Oswald's actual MC.
You are kidding yourself yet again.
AND....you have no idead if he used the scope which if he did not, means that the misalignment of the scope is irrelevant!
RE: Logical Fallacies & Believers - Ben Holmes - 08-31-2016
(08-31-2016, 11:42 AM)Patrick C Wrote:(08-29-2016, 05:42 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Ditto with Oswald's marksmanship... it was incredibly poorer than the three marksmen used to attempt to duplicate their scenario by the Warren Commission - yet they couldn't do the job, despite their many advantages (quite dishonest advantages given to them by the Warren Commission)
You are obviously talking about three shots in less than 6 seconds which for the nth time is almost certainly NOT what happened on 22 Nov.
Oswald got off TWO shots in 5.2 seconds approx and they both hit at approx 65 and 88 yards. This is NOT remarkable shooting and easily within the capabilities of expert marksmen such as those using Oswald's actual MC.
You are kidding yourself yet again.
AND....you have no idead if he used the scope which if he did not, means that the misalignment of the scope is irrelevant!
Cherry picking again...
You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to defend a two shot scenario when it conflicts with the Warren Commission... for example, you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to tell everyone which two shells went to the FBI on 11/22/63... you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to admit that critics have been right for decades on CE543.
This appears to be quite hypocritical, wouldn't you say?
Now, back to the topic you avoided...
Here it is again:
Quote:What other bullets did or did not do has nothing to do with CE399. It's actions and condition is unrelated to any other bullets. It is entirely possible that it could inflict the wounds that it did and remain in the condition that it is in because that is what it did. Just as Oswald's marksmanship as tested by the Marines is unrelated. On that day, in that place, he was a good enough marksman to make the shot. The proof that he could do it is that HE DID, and the conspiracy nitwits cannot name another shooter, afte 50 years and over 10000 posts on this forum, alone.
Now tell us Patrick... is this 'Begging the Question' or not?
RE: Logical Fallacies & Believers - Patrick C - 08-31-2016
You are avoiding the challenge - typically I might add. That is that Oswald fired his two shots that struck approx 5.2 seconds apart with no shot between them. That is an ENTIRELY different feat....and unremarkable, possible and highly likely the sceanrio that was the reality on thatt day. You avoid it like a snake in the gras slithering away.......and you keep calling me a coward. What a JOKE you are.
Keep deluding yourself and living in LaLa Land Ben. Glad I am not back in the habit of as you say "debating you" ......you don't know the meanining of the word.
Enjoy your day dreams.....
RE: Logical Fallacies & Believers - Ben Holmes - 09-01-2016
(08-31-2016, 11:02 PM)Patrick C Wrote: You are avoiding the challenge - typically I might add. That is that Oswald fired his two shots that struck approx 5.2 seconds apart with no shot between them. That is an ENTIRELY different feat....and unremarkable, possible and highly likely the sceanrio that was the reality on thatt day. You avoid it like a snake in the gras slithering away.......and you keep calling me a coward. What a JOKE you are.
Keep deluding yourself and living in LaLa Land Ben. Glad I am not back in the habit of as you say "debating you" ......you don't know the meanining of the word.
Enjoy your day dreams.....
Yep... remember I predicted it!!!
You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to defend a two shot scenario when it conflicts with the Warren Commission... for example, you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to tell everyone which two shells went to the FBI on 11/22/63... you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to admit that critics have been right for decades on CE543.
And you did as I said you would...