Jump to content
The Education Forum

Paul Baker

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Paul Baker

  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 conversati
  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
  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 appre
  16. Jim, I'm not sure if you're aware, or if I've mentioned this before, but I've already read all of that, and understand it. Nevertheless (one last time), NAA/CBLA cannot be described as junk science, simply because you (and others) don't understand it. Furthermore, you know nothing about the scientific process. That is patently obvious. The key phrase is highlighted below. "Although it has since been abandoned because the results of the technique have been wrongly interpreted in legal cases and have led to wrongful convictions." What was this thread supposed to about again? Before Jim
  17. I've read all of that stuff, and more besides. That it is has been discredited is due to the interpretation of the results it provides, and has nothing to do with its inherent credibility. NAA is real. It is being used. It works. Jim DiEugenio, as usual, discards it as 'junk science', primarily because he doesn't understand it, just like he discards anything that doesn't fit in with his warped world view. Yes, this is why I tend to avoid this forum these days. I'm cognitively impaired, am I? People like you worry me.
  18. Hello Jim, I really can't abide your ranting, raving tone. You've demonstrated time and time again that you cannot be reasoned or argued with, even in the face of the bleeding obvious. Black Op Radio, John McAdams? Case closed. You're not qualified to describe NAA and CBLA as 'junk science', because it isn't. I don't care that the FBI won't use it in court. It is a viable, proven analytical technique, and just because you - and others - are incapable of interpreting its results doesn't make it invalid. Stick to what you know, not what you think you know, Jim. And please, please,
  19. A fantasist then? And that term 'junk science' ... again.
  20. And you, Jim, are one of the most respected conspiracy theorists there is.
  21. I'm referring to the initial investigation that established the salient facts, which were later corroborated by The Warren Commission. That Lee Harvey Oswald shot the President, and that he acted alone. Regarding Oswald's location at the time of the shooting, he was seen at the window with a gun. That same gun he took into work that very morning. The same gun that was ballistically linked to the crime. Etc.
  22. In my opinion, the term 'conspiracy theorist' has become generally associated with the kind of individual that indulges in wild speculation and pure fantasy. Someone that is possibly unhinged. The kind of individual that is prone to rant, rave and attempt to shut down anyone that points out the often rather obvious and gaping holes in their outlandish ideas, whilst blindly agreeing with others that tow the basic conspiracy line, even when their ideas are incompatible. The kind of individual that tends to veer away from considered, scientific thinking and rationale. I think this is the general
  23. Yes, apologies for making the assumption that you were avoiding the question. But this specific subject is something that is widely used to shore up many ideas of a conspiracy, time and time again. The fact remains that, if you do the simple maths, you'll come up with a number that in no way accounts for any level of violent movement of the target when a small, high velocity projectile hits it, and this isn't even accounting for the penetrative power of the bullet, which is - after all - what they are generally designed to do. They're meant to penetrate and cause damage: not bounce off of thin
  24. Jim doesn't exactly hold back in terms of throwing insults about, in my opinion. I can't see how you can read many of his comments any other way.
  25. This is what I objected to. That someone still refers to this action as proof of the direction of a shot. I did a calculation a while back that showed that a bullet would impart a maximum velocity of 1m/s, and that's a theoretical maximum. People only fly in the direction of a bullet in films. It amazes me that anyone can still use the apparent movement of JFK in response to being shot as proof of shot direction, when it means very little at all.
  • Create New...