Jump to content
The Education Forum

Paul Baker

Members
  • Content Count

    355
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paul Baker

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. With a little bit of imagination, you can see almost anything in this picture. I've highlighted Hitler. Plain as day. He's saluting The Pope, I think.
  2. When you've stopped lolling, could you explain to me why you consider the fact that 'most people believe there was a conspiracy' is relevant? It doesn't add any weight at all to the largely vacuous arguments posited by many conspiracy theorists. Indeed, if you ask one of these people whether or not there was a conspiracy, the conversation would typically go like this: 'Do you think there was a conspiracy to kill JFK?' 'Of course there was.' 'Why do you think that?' 'Well, it's obvious isn't it?' 'Why is it obvious?' 'It just is.' I've had many such conversations (that die fairly quickly). Anytime anything big happens, it's impossible for there to be a simple, straightforward answer. Most people's initial reaction to the news of JFK's death was in all likelihood to jump to the 'obvious' conclusion that the crime was an organised conspiracy. It's instinctive, right? 'They're going to kill us all!' The JFK assassination is only an obvious conspiracy to the uninformed.
  3. Now let's see a graph of 'The proportion of Americans who know enough about the JFK assassination to form a considered opinion'. The number of Americans who think there was a conspiracy is completely, utterly irrelevant.
  4. Is motive and mental state required to prove that Oswald did it? I would have thought that it was sufficient that it was his gun, the same one he snuck into the TSBD that morning, that he was seen shooting at the President from the sixth floor of the TSBD, that he ran off in the wake of the assassination (that was the full extent of his escape plan, if indeed he had one. I'm not sure he expected he would escape), that he murdered a policeman shortly afterwards, etc ... etc ... etc ... etc ... etc ... etc ... ... It's all in the report.
  5. Why is that relevant? Even my mum thinks there was a conspiracy. I wonder what Donald Trump thinks.
  6. The dictabelt 'evidence' has been thoroughly debunked. It came in at the eleventh hour of the HSCA proceedings, and was tenuous to say the least, and was the only justification for the 'probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy' outcome. (Note: 'probably'). Credible? Far from it. In any case, no other actual physical evidence or reliable witness testimony supports the notion of another shooter.
  7. This amazes you? Considering that: There is no credible, physical evidence that connects any suspect other than Lee Harvey Oswald to the assassination of JFK. There is not a single viable, coherent explanation for the assassination other than that given by the Warren Commission.
  8. I certainly can't compete with your level of scientific reasoning, Jim. I just hope I don't get so desperate that I resort to logical fallacy in an attempt to claw back at least some semblence of credibility.
  9. How refreshing. Of course, if a conspiracy theory stumbles over LHO (the actual man and his actual life), a duplicate can be spawned out of thin air, with his own duplicate rifle (because there were also two of those). Magic!
  10. It's the most effective way of maintaining bias.
  11. Nothing new was required to prove what amounts to an open-and-shut case. All of the salient facts were established many years before, in the aftermath of the assassination.
  12. That is not a reasonable comparison. I lack motivation when it comes to leading the blinkered into the land of the bleeding obvious. NAA, CBLA? Let it go Jim. It's junk science anyway! Stay well within your comfort zone, in a world where gun shops don't sell individual bullets, there were no shots from the sixth floor, etc.
  13. Is this part of your systematic, step-by-step demolition of Vincent Bugliosi's fraudulent defense of the Warren Commission? Typical DiEugenio fare. When are you going to get your own wiki page, Jim? I'd love to make a contribution. I'll write the section on the debate you had with John McAdams.
  14. I've read it. It is far from a systematic, step-by-step demolition. Mostly nit-picking and fallacious argument as far as I recall, whilst largely ignoring the pertinent evidence. Typical DiEugenio fare. Reading it makes you itch. Distil off the flimflam and you're left with nothing. He gets obsessed about Oswald not being able to post a mail order within a certain timeframe (as I recall). I remember the time that Jim reasoned on here that Oswald couldn't have done it because he only had four bullets, and gun shops don't sell bullets in that quantity. Jeez, it wouldn't take much of an attorney to undermine that particular argument, would it?
  15. For starters, sure. Their combined contribution to a sensible, coherent and cohesive explanation for the events of 22 November 1963 that differs from 'The Bleeding Obvious' theory (as tend to call it) amounts to nothing. Absolutely nothing. Paradoxically, these people garner a great deal of respect in the conspiracy community. How come? 🤔 Vincent Bugliosi, as far as I can tell, and certainly with respect to the JFK assassination, allowed the facts to lead to an inescapable conclusion, much as the Warren Commission did. If you watch The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald, you can really appreciate this rather straightforward and common-sense technique. Gerry Spence, bereft of facts and hard physical evidence to support his stance, had no choice but to resort to conjecture, supposition and a warping of basic physical law to attempt to sway the jury. There, in a nutshell, is the difference between a 'lone nutter' and a conspiracy theorist.
×
×
  • Create New...