11-01-2012, 08:40 PM
Since, as I explained, LBJ had formulated his plan when he accepted the VP nomination, HOW CAN ANY OF THESE OTHER PARTIES HAVE FORMED OPPOSITION TO A PRESIDENT WHO HAD NOT YET BEEN ELECTED? And remember what Jack Ruby had to say about it. Moreover, I was demonstrating that Charles' attack had nothing to do with me, because the position he was attacking was not the position I have been defending.
You and Charels are welcome to make up any positions you want, but you are not entitled to make up positions and falsely attribute them to me! This is typical of the hopelessly shallow and inadequate reasoning of Albert Doyle, who has also been running around like a chicken with its head cut off, crying "They are wrong! They are wrong!", about Doorway Man. Consider our argument, which I spell out again as premises and conclusions:
(1) Lovelady was wearing either a checkered shirt or a striped shirt.
(2) Doorway Man was obviously not wearing a striped shirt.
(3) Doorway Man was less-obviously not wearing the checkered
shirt either, because its features are not the same as Doorway Man's.
(4) Therefore, Doorway Man is not wearing Lovelady's shirt.
(5) The very features that show that Doorway Man's shirt is not one
of Lovelady's (checkered or striped) shirts show that they are the
same features found on the VERY DISTINCTIVE shirt Oswald was
wearing.
(6) The face of the man to the right/front was obfuscated as was
his shirt. There must have been good reasons to go take the pains
and run the risks of changing the Altgens photo.
(7) Given the shirt evidence, by far the most--and even the only--
plausible explanation for these defects in the photograph is that
(a) the moved the face onto Oswald's figure and (b) obfuscated
both the face and the shirt so the game would not be given away.
Unless Albert Doyle can cope with this argument, he has no basis for claiming that it is WE who are unwilling to admit we are wrong when both logic and the evidence are on our side. Like Charles, he can make up any position he likes, but just as Charles is not entitled to falsely attribute one of his fantasies to me, you are not entitled to falsely claim to have defeated an argument that is sound. You cannot prove a sound argument wrong. Q.E.D.
You and Charels are welcome to make up any positions you want, but you are not entitled to make up positions and falsely attribute them to me! This is typical of the hopelessly shallow and inadequate reasoning of Albert Doyle, who has also been running around like a chicken with its head cut off, crying "They are wrong! They are wrong!", about Doorway Man. Consider our argument, which I spell out again as premises and conclusions:
(1) Lovelady was wearing either a checkered shirt or a striped shirt.
(2) Doorway Man was obviously not wearing a striped shirt.
(3) Doorway Man was less-obviously not wearing the checkered
shirt either, because its features are not the same as Doorway Man's.
(4) Therefore, Doorway Man is not wearing Lovelady's shirt.
(5) The very features that show that Doorway Man's shirt is not one
of Lovelady's (checkered or striped) shirts show that they are the
same features found on the VERY DISTINCTIVE shirt Oswald was
wearing.
(6) The face of the man to the right/front was obfuscated as was
his shirt. There must have been good reasons to go take the pains
and run the risks of changing the Altgens photo.
(7) Given the shirt evidence, by far the most--and even the only--
plausible explanation for these defects in the photograph is that
(a) the moved the face onto Oswald's figure and (b) obfuscated
both the face and the shirt so the game would not be given away.
Unless Albert Doyle can cope with this argument, he has no basis for claiming that it is WE who are unwilling to admit we are wrong when both logic and the evidence are on our side. Like Charles, he can make up any position he likes, but just as Charles is not entitled to falsely attribute one of his fantasies to me, you are not entitled to falsely claim to have defeated an argument that is sound. You cannot prove a sound argument wrong. Q.E.D.
Albert Doyle Wrote:Responses to this are probably on borrowed time as far as site rules tolerance, however it should be pointed-out that nothing Dr Fetzer said in defense of his "mastermind" theory necessarily precludes others being the masterminds and using Johnson as a facilitator. It is actually the pattern of these real masterminds to create plausible deniability by setting-up a false sponsor or mastermind. As I've repeated in numerous places the flaw in this theory is the assumption that those greater sponsors and facilitators, including CIA, did not have serious pre-existing awareness and participation in this far beyond and existing long before Johnson and his personal interests. The tail wagging the dog aspect of this should be obvious. Johnson did not influence Hoover on getting sex dirt on JFK. A more subtle understanding of the true sponsors would be able to trace their hand in this and greater masterminding control.