Jump to content
The Education Forum

Faulty "if/then" Logic


Recommended Posts

There is an abundance of faulty "if/then" logic posted from time to time on this forum. Examples:

If Oswald shot at General Walker, then he's guilty of the Kennedy assassination.

If Oswald shot JFK, then he's also guilty of killing Tippit's.

If Oswald shot Tippit's, than he's guilty of the JFK murder.

There is PLENTY of sound logic in some "if/then" statements.

If security at the DPD had been adequate, Oswald wouldn't have been murdered in the basement.

Faulty logic also includes:

If you don't buy the Warren Commission conclusions, then you're a ___________ (fill in the blank) -did-it conspiracy theorist.

Few people here actually go to the lengths that James Gordon did in investigating Connally's wounds. "Tangential strike" on the rib; who else here has gone so far as to attempt to model exactly what that meant, using 3d human torso software?  

We all too often fall for faulty logic because we don't take the time to research on more than just a surface level. When someone DOES take the time and make the effort, often we fail to consider their work because we seem to be "married" to our own pet theories.

Unlike the Warren Commission, how many of us honestly start with the evidence, rather than starting with a conclusion and working backwards?

Just something to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

Unlike the Warren Commission, how many of us honestly start with the evidence, rather than starting with a conclusion and working backwards?

Just something to think about.

So what kind of post is this really, Mark? I just read Gordon's thread about Connally's wounds and several people pointed out to him that his 3D model wasn't even anatomically correct.

None of us, including you, are seasoned detectives nor police investigators, Mark, but we all try in our own way to get to some kind of truth in the Kennedy case. Then you have the charlatans and fakers passing off ridiculous "theories" like the Oswald clone - and even his Mom's clone - found in Europe 14 years after 11/22/63; the stealing of the body to alter the wounds (why they needed to be altered the charlatans won't even say why); and the Z film as well as the Nix, Muchmore, and Towner films are all faked (why they needed to be faked the charlatans won't even say why).

You may want to check out a show on YouTube called Forensic Files.  These are actual murder cases solved by actual seasoned detectives and police investigators. And believe me when I say these detectives come up with all manner of methods to solve the case, including your so-called faulty logic of "if/then."

So this is something for you to think about as well. Or put another way, isn't this thread just preaching to the choir?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

There is an abundance of faulty "if/then" logic posted from time to time on this forum. Examples:

If Oswald shot at General Walker, then he's guilty of the Kennedy assassination.

If Oswald shot JFK, then he's also guilty of killing Tippit's.

If Oswald shot Tippit's, than he's guilty of the JFK murder.

There is PLENTY of sound logic in some "if/then" statements.

If security at the DPD had been adequate, Oswald wouldn't have been murdered in the basement.

Faulty logic also includes:

If you don't buy the Warren Commission conclusions, then you're a ___________ (fill in the blank) -did-it conspiracy theorist.

Few people here actually go to the lengths that James Gordon did in investigating Connally's wounds. "Tangential strike" on the rib; who else here has gone so far as to attempt to model exactly what that meant, using 3d human torso software?  

We all too often fall for faulty logic because we don't take the time to research on more than just a surface level. When someone DOES take the time and make the effort, often we fail to consider their work because we seem to be "married" to our own pet theories.

Unlike the Warren Commission, how many of us honestly start with the evidence, rather than starting with a conclusion and working backwards?

Just something to think about.

 

35 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

So what kind of post is this really, Mark? I.....

.............

So this is something for you to think about as well. Or put another way, isn't this thread just preaching to the choir?

Hi Mark, 

Apparentlly this is too much for a particular member to get his head around and since I have seen the same fallacies I wanted to chime in about a particular one, the non sequitur.

non se·qui·tur
ˌnän ˈsekwədər/
noun
  1. a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
     
    Your first three examples are examples are non sequiturs, and it is painful to see Wallton's inability to understand what you are saying.

    If Oswald shot at General Walker, then he's guilty of the Kennedy assassination.

    If Oswald shot JFK, then he's also guilty of killing Tippit's.

    If Oswald shot Tippit's, than he's guilty of the JFK murder.

     

     

    And, of course, Walton felt the need to shuffle through his same old,  tired  hit list, it never fails.

Edited by Michael Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

There is an abundance of faulty "if/then" logic posted from time to time on this forum. Examples:

If Oswald shot at General Walker, then he's guilty of the Kennedy assassination.

If Oswald shot JFK, then he's also guilty of killing Tippit's.

If Oswald shot Tippit's, than he's guilty of the JFK murder.

There is PLENTY of sound logic in some "if/then" statements.

If security at the DPD had been adequate, Oswald wouldn't have been murdered in the basement.

Faulty logic also includes:

If you don't buy the Warren Commission conclusions, then you're a ___________ (fill in the blank) -did-it conspiracy theorist.

Few people here actually go to the lengths that James Gordon did in investigating Connally's wounds. "Tangential strike" on the rib; who else here has gone so far as to attempt to model exactly what that meant, using 3d human torso software?  

We all too often fall for faulty logic because we don't take the time to research on more than just a surface level. When someone DOES take the time and make the effort, often we fail to consider their work because we seem to be "married" to our own pet theories.

Unlike the Warren Commission, how many of us honestly start with the evidence, rather than starting with a conclusion and working backwards?

Just something to think about.

I absolutely agree with you. Thanks for saying it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm not mistaken, Mark Knight recently encouraged Andrej Stancek's anatomically incorrect Prayer Man 3D cartoon. The one where Stancek, who's trying to fit an over-size crooked leg into a so-called round hole of proof to "prove" that Oswald could be Prayer Man. I believe Knight said something along the lines of, "Good job, Andrej."

So what are we to make of this?

KNIGHT'S POST HERE:

Now members, we have to be careful about using faulty IF/THEN logic.

KNIGHT'S ENCOURAGEMENT:

Good job, Andrej. IF the over-sized crooked leg on your cartoon works, THEN Prayer Man is LHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Walton, you are intentionally misquoting me.

I have NEVER SAID that Prayer Man is without question LHO.

You just proved my point about faulty logic. "IF I disagree with you, THEN I believe Prayer Man is LHO" is a blatant example of faulty logic.

Thanks for your example of faulty logic. I would be hard pressed to come up with a better example so quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

Mr. Walton, you are intentionally misquoting me.

I have NEVER SAID that Prayer Man is without question LHO.

You just proved my point about faulty logic. "IF I disagree with you, THEN I believe Prayer Man is LHO" is a blatant example of faulty logic.

Thanks for your example of faulty logic. I would be hard pressed to come up with a better example so quickly.

Mark, Michael Walton seems to have started to be clear about when he is NOT trying to stir the pot. That is awfully nice of him..

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Is there any possibility - at all - that .......

 

This is actually a serious question and not a xxxx stirring question. .......

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

ou just proved my point about faulty logic. "IF I disagree with you, THEN I believe Prayer Man is LHO" is a blatant example of faulty logic.

The problem here, Mark, is that when others post perfectly logical rebuttals to the fantasy theories on this forum, they're either ignored, buried by others with garbage just for the sake of burying them, or both.

I've helped you prove nothing, Mark. This forum is slowly going downhill because of the "kinder and gentler" approach it has taken.  "Kinder and gentler" as in - agree with our crazy theories or you're banned to two posts a week...or forever.

People with solid theories based on reason and the available record are abandoning it in droves.  It's becoming a vast echo chamber of the same old people with ridiculous theories and the same old associated hangers on and groupies who stay around burying dissent while offering up "atta boys" to the same old members.

You know, sort of like a clique. But if that's your vision of a "forum, then so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course you failed to address your intentional misquote. As if it never happened.

NOTHING you have cited entitles you to intentionally misquote people with impunity.

NOTHING.

False statements and faulty logic do not strengthen your arguments. Last time I checked, David Von Pein is still posting here. So your "vast echo chamber" claim is demonstrably false as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

The problem here, Mark, is that when others post perfectly logical rebuttals to the fantasy theories on this forum, they're either ignored, buried by others with garbage just for the sake of burying them, or both.

I've helped you prove nothing, Mark. This forum is slowly going downhill because of the "kinder and gentler" approach it has taken.  "Kinder and gentler" as in - agree with our crazy theories or you're banned to two posts a week...or forever.

People with solid theories based on reason and the available record are abandoning it in droves.  It's becoming a vast echo chamber of the same old people with ridiculous theories and the same old associated hangers on and groupies who stay around burying dissent while offering up "atta boys" to the same old members.

You know, sort of like a clique. But if that's your vision of a "forum, then so be it. (Bolds mine.)

I want to know where you get this idea from.  If you are talking about a recent moderation, you might ask the person why. It was not due to any theory.

 

And who are those who have left the forum in droves? I hadn't noticed.

We have had some loopy theories presented here, and we don't moderate for that. Case in point. A few years ago, someone questioned if Zapruder was made of rubber.  The person who wrote that was not moderated for it. so it has nothing to do with the beliefs one has. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Kathy Beckett said:

I want to know where you get this idea from.  If you are talking about a recent moderation, you might ask the person why. It was not due to any theory.

 

And who are those who have left the forum in droves? I hadn't noticed.

We have had some loopy theories presented here, and we don't moderate for that. Case in point. A few years ago, someone questioned if Zapruder was made of rubber.  The person who wrote that was not moderated for it. so it has nothing to do with the beliefs one has. 

 

 

Kathy,

 

If I am here, again, then I must be very grateful for having not been permanently banned for my "excessive bumping" (or even my politically-incorrect-on-this-forum posts), even though I do remember (apparently sacrosanct) James DiEugenio's calling for the moderators to do an "intervention" on me a few months ago, and David "Sneaky" Jacobs' (without directly naming me, of course) insinuating shortly thereafter on the same "KGB and the Assassination of JFK" thread that I obviously take psychiatric "meds," or some such thing.

If James DiEugenio doesn't call the shots around here, it must be a miracle.

 

--  TG

 

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Kathy,

 

If I am here, again, then I must be very grateful for having not been permanently banned for my "excessive bumping" (or even my politically-incorrect-on-this-forum posts), even though I do remember (apparently sacrosanct) James DiEugenio's calling for the moderators to do an "intervention" on me a few months ago, and David "Sneaky" Jacobs' insinuating shortly thereafter on the same "KGB and the Assassination of JFK" thread that I obviously take psychiatric "meds," or some such thing.

If James DiEugenio doesn't call the shots around here, it must be a miracle.

 

--  TG

 

Moderating is a tough job. Been there. We have a good forum. Best I've seen. Jeep forums are pretty friendly and respectful too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Kathy,

 

If I am here, again, then I must be very grateful for having not been permanently banned for my "excessive bumping" (or even my politically-incorrect-on-this-forum posts), even though I do remember (apparently sacrosanct) James DiEugenio's calling for the moderators to do an "intervention" on me a few months ago, and David "Sneaky" Jacobs' (without directly naming me, of course) insinuating shortly thereafter on the same "KGB and the Assassination of JFK" thread that I obviously take psychiatric "meds," or some such thing.

If James DiEugenio doesn't call the shots around here, it must be a miracle.

 

--  TG

 

It was explained to you about the excessive bumping.  Whether or not James Di asked for an intervention , it didn't result in moderation ( I don't even remember this..   If David "Jacobs" " insinuated that you " obviously take psych drugs", why didn't you report the post instead on bringing it up later?

James Di does not call the shots here, ROFL.  Why would he?   What is that supposed to mean?

It appears that you are looking outside of what we told to find a reason for  being moderated.   I thought you understood why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kathy Beckett said:

It was explained to you about the excessive bumping.  Whether or not James Di asked for an intervention , it didn't result in moderation ( I don't even remember this..   If David "Jacobs" " insinuated that you " obviously take psych drugs", why didn't you report the post instead on bringing it up later?

James Di does not call the shots here, ROFL.  Why would he?   What is that supposed to mean?

It appears that you are looking outside of what we told to find a reason for  being moderated.   I thought you understood why.

 

Kathy,

 

I'm sure my politically-incorrect-on-this-forum posts had nothing to do with it.

I fully deserved to be denied posting, editing, and PM-ing rights for a week or so for my egregious and excessive bumping.

The reason I'm even posting on this thread is to not only support Michael Walton on it, but to let him know that I wasn't "banned," but "moderated," and not for political reasons, but allegedly for "excessive bumping."

I just wish the moderators would pay as close attention to the (Forum-proscribed) insults hurled at me (and the all-too-often very short and very inane "covering" posts posted to hide my longish, informative and well-thought-out posts) by the likes of DiEugenio, Marverde, Clark, and Jacobs, et al., as they evidently do to my horrendous "bumping" behavior.

 

--  TG

 

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...