David Lifton on the Paines (2017)

[Denis Morissette]

25 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Oh, OK, gotcha. I forgot the thread was about Lifton. Did Michael tell Lifton why he thought Fritz had slapped him?

Maybe Michael told Lifton, but Lifton did not tell us. It's on audio tape. Someone at NARA was assigned yesterday to assist me on getting the audio.

Edited December 30, 2022 by Denis Morissette

[Guest]

On 12/30/2022 at 4:19 PM, John Cotter said:

Theargumentum ad consequentiam fallacy is the only plausible explanation for you and your fellow lone nut theorists rejecting the clearcut evidence of US government agencies being involved in the JFKA conspiracy.

I don’t have to know what people are thinking when their actions speak for themselves.

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[John Cotter]

27 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Oh, dear. The "only plausible explanation." I "don't have to know what people are thinking." And you're serious. I rest my case. (Actually, if you're going make an argumentum ad consequentiam attack, you do sort of have to know what I'm thinking.)

Oh dear, do you not understand how inductive reasoning or logical inferences work?

"you do sort of have to know…”? Which is it, Lance?

[Guest]

On 12/30/2022 at 4:55 PM, John Cotter said:

Oh dear, do you not understand how inductive reasoning or logical inferences work?

"you do sort of have to know…”? Which is it, Lance?

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[John Cotter]

10 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

You say all Lone Nutters hold their positions as a result of the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy. Because we'd be "appalled" if "US government agencies" orchestrated the assassination (the "undesirable consequences") we avoid these consequences by adopting the Lone Nut position - or so you say. You're unwarrantedly assuming we'd be appalled if US government agencies were involved, something you can't know. You insist you logically infer this from the very fact we hold the Lone Nut position in the face of clear evidence US agencies actually were involved, which is circular reasoning to the nth degree. Never mind that I tell you I wouldn't be the least bit appalled; I'd find it fascinating. Never mind that many devout conspuracy theorists hold to conspiracy theories that don't involve US government agencies at all - the Mafia, right-wing oil interests, the Israelis or Castro, for example. So your inference is, in fact, not logical. Perhaps I'd be appalled to learn the Mafia orchestrated the assassination but wouldn't really care if US government agencies did. Or perhaps, which happens to be the reality, I wouldn't be appalled by anything but just try to follow the evidence where it leads. To validly mount an argumentum ad consequentiam attack, you would in fact have to know that I hold the Lone Nut position because I fear US government agencies orchestrated the assassination and would be appalled if they did - something you can't know or reasonably infer from the mere fact I hold the Lone Nut position.

You seem to be hopelessly confused, but we'll let it go since I know from long experience that discussions such as this go nowhere.

In deference to Brandolini’s law, I’m not going to waste my and everyone else’s time rebutting seriatim every point in your latest screed, Lance – if for no other reason than I’ve already rebutted your argument, such as it is.

I’ll just deal with this sentence:

“You insist you logically infer this from the very fact we hold the Lone Nut position in the face of clear evidence US agencies actually were involved, which is circular reasoning to the nth degree.”

It’s not circular reasoning at all. You don’t seem to know what circular reasoning is. What other explanation is there for holding the lone nut position in the face of such evidence?

None of the verbiage in this latest screed of yours addresses this point.

Edited December 31, 2022 by John Cotter

[Guest]

On 12/30/2022 at 7:08 PM, John Cotter said:

In deference to Brandolini’s law, I’m not going to waste my and everyone else’s time rebutting seriatim every point in your latest screed, Lance – if for no other reason than I’ve already rebutted your argument, such as it is.

I’ll just deal with this sentence:

“You insist you logically infer this from the very fact we hold the Lone Nut position in the face of clear evidence US agencies actually were involved, which is circular reasoning to the nth degree.”

It’s not circular reasoning at all. You don’t seem to know what circular reasoning is. What other explanation is there for holding the lone nut position in the face of such evidence?

None of the verbiage in this latest screed of yours addresses this point.

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[John Cotter]

42 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I will give you credit for this: You are the first person I've encountered who attempts to integrate some of the rules and terminology of real logic into conspiracy logic. It's a hoot. Completely upside-down, but a hoot. Real logic is, alas, antithetical to conspiracy logic.

"John is guilty of the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy because his disdain for US government agencies will not allow him to admit the obvious truth, acknowledged by all professional historians, that Oswald acted alone. There can be no other explanation. I don't need to know anything about John. His commission of the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy is obvious from the mere fact he asserts US government agencies orchestrated the assassination."

Like that? I didn't think so. See about eight fallacies in that paragraph? I didn't think so.

Tell Brandolini that Thomas Bayes and Lance say hi.

All of which would be fine and dandy were it not for the clearcut evidence of the JFKA conspiracy which Lance and his fellow travellers studiously ignore or misrepresent. Two obvious examples which I’ve previously discussed are the elaborate sheep-dipping of Oswald and the grassy knoll activity.

Edited December 31, 2022 by John Cotter

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

All of which would be fine and dandy were it not for the clearcut evidence of the JFKA conspiracy...

Which, of course, is only "clearcut evidence" to conspiracy theorists. In other words, it's all subjective "evidence". It certainly was anything BUT "clearcut evidence" of a conspiracy to the Warren Commission or to the HSCA.

Every last bit of the "evidence" that John C. claims is "clearcut evidence" of a JFKA conspiracy can be explained in non-conspiratorial ways. A multi-player "conspiracy" need not be required at all.

Take the alleged "sheep-dipping of Oswald", for example. Conspiracy theorists insist that virtually everything Lee Oswald did in the weeks and months (maybe years?) leading up to 11/22/63 was part of some well-orchestrated "dipping" process to get Oswald to take the fall for JFK's murder. But when probing deeper into each of the "dipping" episodes, we find that the CTers' claims hold no water at all.

The best example of this being the "Ruth Paine Planted LHO In The TSBD" nonsense. All reasonable individuals know beyond any doubt, however, that Ruth Hyde Paine did not (and could not) have "planted" Oswald in that building in mid-October '63 for the express purpose of trying to frame him for the upcoming murder of the President.

 

[Guest]

On 12/31/2022 at 7:44 AM, David Von Pein said:

Which, of course, is only "clearcut evidence" to conspiracy theorists. In other words, it's all subjective "evidence". It certainly was anything BUT "clearcut evidence" of a conspiracy to the Warren Commission or to the HSCA.

Every last bit of the "evidence" that John C. claims is "clearcut evidence" of a JFKA conspiracy can be explained in non-conspiratorial ways. A multi-player "conspiracy" need not be required at all.

Take the alleged "sheep-dipping of Oswald", for example. Conspiracy theorists insist that virtually everything Lee Oswald did in the weeks and months (maybe years?) leading up to 11/22/63 was part of some well-orchestrated "dipping" process to get Oswald to take the fall for JFK's murder. But when probing deeper into each of the "dipping" episodes, we find that the CTers' claims hold no water at all.

The best example of this being the "Ruth Paine Planted LHO In The TSBD" nonsense. All reasonable individuals know beyond any doubt, however, that Ruth Hyde Paine did not (and could not) have "planted" Oswald in that building in mid-October '63 for the express purpose of trying to frame him for the upcoming murder of the President.

 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[John Cotter]

David and Lance,

I have neither the time nor inclination to debate you further on issues that have been debated by us and others on previous occasions too numerous to mention.

Happy New Year to both of you.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

Happy New Year to both of you.

Thank you, John. And a happy 2023 to you also.

 

[John Cotter]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Thank you, John. And a happy 2023 to you also.

 

Thank you, David.

[Guest]

On 1/1/2023 at 10:34 AM, John Cotter said:

David and Lance,

I have neither the time nor inclination to debate you further on issues that have been debated by us and others on previous occasions too numerous to mention.

Happy New Year to both of you.

Bye

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette