Occam's Razor and Law of Parsimony

[claviger]

Definition of Occam's razor. : a scientific and philosophical rule that
entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted
as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to
the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be
sought first in terms of known quantities.

Or the Least Complicated solution is usually the Best solution.

Occam's razor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor


Heuristic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic


Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony) Occam's razor,
also known as the law of parsimony (thriftiness),
is a problem-solving principle attributed to philosopher William of Ockam.
... In other applications that use logic the theory of Occam's razor
is used as a means of keeping explanations as simple as possible.

The Law of Parsimony
Principle (or Law) of Parsimony
the scientific principle that things are usually connected or behave
in the simplest or most economical way, especially with reference
to alternative evolutionary pathways.
late Middle English: from Latin parsimonia, parcimonia,
from parcere ‘be sparing.’


law of parsimony
noun Philosophy.
a principle according to which an explanation of a thing or event is made
with the fewest possible assumptions.
Origin of law of parsimony
First recorded in 1830–40


Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony) definition | Psychology Glossary ...
https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term...%28Law+Of+Parsimony%29
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony)


Occam's razor, also known as the law of parsimony (thriftiness), is a
problem-solving principle attributed to philosopher William of Ockam. In
science this principle is used a heuristic (or discovery) tool that guides
scientists for the development of scientific models. In other applications
that use logic the theory of Occam's razor is used as a means of keeping
explanations as simple as possible. Essentially, the simplest explanation
for something is typically the most likely. While not considered an
irrefutable means of deriving logic or scientific results it does stress
the importance of simplifying explanations.

For example, we know that when an object is dropped it will hit the
ground. This can be proved by dropping multiple types of objects from
different heights. When thinking about what causes this what is more
likely: that there is an energy or force that pulls things to the ground
or that invisible gnomes leap and pull the objects to the ground where
they attach them with invisible string? Obviously the first explanation is
more simple and using Occam's razor it would be the most probable
explanation.

https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Occam%27s+Razor+%28Law+Of+Parsimony%29


What is the law of parsimony? - Times of India
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com › News › What is the law of parsimony?
What is the law of parsimony?

This principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make
as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference
in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The
principle is often expressed in Latin as the Lex Parsimoniae (law of
parsimony or law of succinctness). This is often paraphrased as: All
things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one. Or
alternatively: We should not assert that for which we do not have some
proof. In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other
respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces
the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.

- Ashish Singh


What is Occam's Razor?
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
... which should be more correctly called the law of parsimony, or the rule
of simplicity.


The Clinician's Law of Parsimony - Edge.org
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25415

The Law of Parsimony, also known as Occam's razor, does not warrant a funeral
but it does have some problems in its description of reality. This law
states that ...


The Principle of Parsimony and Some... (PDF Download Available)
https://www.researchgate.net/.../266883461_The_Principle_of_Parsimony_and_Some...

Feb 17, 2018 - A modern principle of parsimony may be stated as follows:
Where we .... act according to the rule underlain by the mental assumption
according ...

[BOZ]

Post by claviger
Definition of Occam's razor. : a scientific and philosophical rule that
entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted
as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to
the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be
sought first in terms of known quantities.
Or the Least Complicated solution is usually the Best solution.
Occam's razor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Heuristic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony) Occam's razor,
also known as the law of parsimony (thriftiness),
is a problem-solving principle attributed to philosopher William of Ockam.
... In other applications that use logic the theory of Occam's razor
is used as a means of keeping explanations as simple as possible.
The Law of Parsimony
Principle (or Law) of Parsimony
the scientific principle that things are usually connected or behave
in the simplest or most economical way, especially with reference
to alternative evolutionary pathways.
late Middle English: from Latin parsimonia, parcimonia,
from parcere ‘be sparing.’
law of parsimony
noun Philosophy.
a principle according to which an explanation of a thing or event is made
with the fewest possible assumptions.
Origin of law of parsimony
First recorded in 1830–40
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony) definition | Psychology Glossary ...
https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term...%28Law+Of+Parsimony%29
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony)
Occam's razor, also known as the law of parsimony (thriftiness), is a
problem-solving principle attributed to philosopher William of Ockam. In
science this principle is used a heuristic (or discovery) tool that guides
scientists for the development of scientific models. In other applications
that use logic the theory of Occam's razor is used as a means of keeping
explanations as simple as possible. Essentially, the simplest explanation
for something is typically the most likely. While not considered an
irrefutable means of deriving logic or scientific results it does stress
the importance of simplifying explanations.
For example, we know that when an object is dropped it will hit the
ground. This can be proved by dropping multiple types of objects from
different heights. When thinking about what causes this what is more
likely: that there is an energy or force that pulls things to the ground
or that invisible gnomes leap and pull the objects to the ground where
they attach them with invisible string? Obviously the first explanation is
more simple and using Occam's razor it would be the most probable
explanation.
https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Occam%27s+Razor+%28Law+Of+Parsimony%29
What is the law of parsimony? - Times of India
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com › News › What is the law of parsimony?
What is the law of parsimony?
This principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make
as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference
in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The
principle is often expressed in Latin as the Lex Parsimoniae (law of
parsimony or law of succinctness). This is often paraphrased as: All
things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one. Or
alternatively: We should not assert that for which we do not have some
proof. In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other
respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces
the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.
- Ashish Singh
What is Occam's Razor?
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
... which should be more correctly called the law of parsimony, or the rule
of simplicity.
The Clinician's Law of Parsimony - Edge.org
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25415
The Law of Parsimony, also known as Occam's razor, does not warrant a funeral
but it does have some problems in its description of reality. This law
states that ...
The Principle of Parsimony and Some... (PDF Download Available)
https://www.researchgate.net/.../266883461_The_Principle_of_Parsimony_and_Some...
Where we .... act according to the rule underlain by the mental assumption
according ...

For example, if an individual makes supernatural claims that leprechauns
were responsible for breaking a vase, the simpler explanation would be
that he is mistaken, but ongoing ad hoc justifications (e.g. "... and
that's not me on the film; they tampered with that, too") successfully
prevent outright falsification. This endless supply of elaborate competing
explanations, called saving hypotheses, cannot be ruled out—except
by using Occam's razor

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by BOZ

Post by claviger
Definition of Occam's razor. : a scientific and philosophical rule that
entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted
as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to
the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be
sought first in terms of known quantities.
Or the Least Complicated solution is usually the Best solution.
Occam's razor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Heuristic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony) Occam's razor,
also known as the law of parsimony (thriftiness),
is a problem-solving principle attributed to philosopher William of Ockam.
... In other applications that use logic the theory of Occam's razor
is used as a means of keeping explanations as simple as possible.
The Law of Parsimony
Principle (or Law) of Parsimony
the scientific principle that things are usually connected or behave
in the simplest or most economical way, especially with reference
to alternative evolutionary pathways.
late Middle English: from Latin parsimonia, parcimonia,
from parcere ‘be sparing.’
law of parsimony
noun Philosophy.
a principle according to which an explanation of a thing or event is made
with the fewest possible assumptions.
Origin of law of parsimony
First recorded in 1830–40
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony) definition | Psychology Glossary ...
https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term...%28Law+Of+Parsimony%29
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony)
Occam's razor, also known as the law of parsimony (thriftiness), is a
problem-solving principle attributed to philosopher William of Ockam. In
science this principle is used a heuristic (or discovery) tool that guides
scientists for the development of scientific models. In other applications
that use logic the theory of Occam's razor is used as a means of keeping
explanations as simple as possible. Essentially, the simplest explanation
for something is typically the most likely. While not considered an
irrefutable means of deriving logic or scientific results it does stress
the importance of simplifying explanations.
For example, we know that when an object is dropped it will hit the
ground. This can be proved by dropping multiple types of objects from
different heights. When thinking about what causes this what is more
likely: that there is an energy or force that pulls things to the ground
or that invisible gnomes leap and pull the objects to the ground where
they attach them with invisible string? Obviously the first explanation is
more simple and using Occam's razor it would be the most probable
explanation.
https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Occam%27s+Razor+%28Law+Of+Parsimony%29
What is the law of parsimony? - Times of India
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com › News › What is the law of parsimony?
What is the law of parsimony?
This principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make
as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference
in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The
principle is often expressed in Latin as the Lex Parsimoniae (law of
parsimony or law of succinctness). This is often paraphrased as: All
things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one. Or
alternatively: We should not assert that for which we do not have some
proof. In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other
respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces
the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.
- Ashish Singh
What is Occam's Razor?
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
... which should be more correctly called the law of parsimony, or the rule
of simplicity.
The Clinician's Law of Parsimony - Edge.org
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25415
The Law of Parsimony, also known as Occam's razor, does not warrant a funeral
but it does have some problems in its description of reality. This law
states that ...
The Principle of Parsimony and Some... (PDF Download Available)
https://www.researchgate.net/.../266883461_The_Principle_of_Parsimony_and_Some...
Where we .... act according to the rule underlain by the mental assumption
according ...

For example, if an individual makes supernatural claims that leprechauns
were responsible for breaking a vase, the simpler explanation would be
that he is mistaken, but ongoing ad hoc justifications (e.g. "... and

Maybe you just never saw that movie.

Post by BOZ
that's not me on the film; they tampered with that, too") successfully
prevent outright falsification. This endless supply of elaborate competing
explanations, called saving hypotheses, cannot be ruled out—except
by using Occam's razor

[mainframetech]

Post by claviger
Definition of Occam's razor. : a scientific and philosophical rule that
entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted
as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to
the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be
sought first in terms of known quantities.
Or the Least Complicated solution is usually the Best solution.

While your quote of Google's definition of Occam's Razor seems correct,
but it was in error. It is NOT a RULE, it's a guideline. Note that the
sentence right after uses the term "usually the Best...".

Post by claviger
Occam's razor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Heuristic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony) Occam's razor,
also known as the law of parsimony (thriftiness),
is a problem-solving principle attributed to philosopher William of Ockam.
... In other applications that use logic the theory of Occam's razor
is used as a means of keeping explanations as simple as possible.

Again, it is NOT a "principle", it's a guideline. A suggestion on how
to proceed.

Post by claviger
The Law of Parsimony
Principle (or Law) of Parsimony
the scientific principle that things are usually connected or behave
in the simplest or most economical way, especially with reference
to alternative evolutionary pathways.
late Middle English: from Latin parsimonia, parcimonia,
from parcere ‘be sparing.’

Note: "usually connected".

Post by claviger
law of parsimony
noun Philosophy.
a principle according to which an explanation of a thing or event is made
with the fewest possible assumptions.
Origin of law of parsimony
First recorded in 1830–40
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony) definition | Psychology Glossary ...
https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term...%28Law+Of+Parsimony%29
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony)
Occam's razor, also known as the law of parsimony (thriftiness), is a
problem-solving principle attributed to philosopher William of Ockam. In
science this principle is used a heuristic (or discovery) tool that guides
scientists for the development of scientific models. In other applications
that use logic the theory of Occam's razor is used as a means of keeping
explanations as simple as possible. Essentially, the simplest explanation
for something is typically the most likely. While not considered an
irrefutable means of deriving logic or scientific results it does stress
the importance of simplifying explanations.
For example, we know that when an object is dropped it will hit the
ground. This can be proved by dropping multiple types of objects from
different heights. When thinking about what causes this what is more
likely: that there is an energy or force that pulls things to the ground
or that invisible gnomes leap and pull the objects to the ground where
they attach them with invisible string? Obviously the first explanation is
more simple and using Occam's razor it would be the most probable
explanation.
https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Occam%27s+Razor+%28Law+Of+Parsimony%29
What is the law of parsimony? - Times of India
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com › News › What is the law of parsimony?
What is the law of parsimony?
This principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make
as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference
in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The
principle is often expressed in Latin as the Lex Parsimoniae (law of
parsimony or law of succinctness). This is often paraphrased as: All
things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one. Or
alternatively: We should not assert that for which we do not have some
proof. In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other
respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces
the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.
- Ashish Singh
What is Occam's Razor?
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
... which should be more correctly called the law of parsimony, or the rule
of simplicity.
The Clinician's Law of Parsimony - Edge.org
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25415
The Law of Parsimony, also known as Occam's razor, does not warrant a funeral
but it does have some problems in its description of reality. This law
states that ...
The Principle of Parsimony and Some... (PDF Download Available)
https://www.researchgate.net/.../266883461_The_Principle_of_Parsimony_and_Some...
Where we .... act according to the rule underlain by the mental assumption
according ...

A load of baloney that leads folks into error. remember, Occam's
Razor is a GUIDELINE, NOT a RULE or a PRINCIPLE.

Chris

[claviger]

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Definition of Occam's razor. : a scientific and philosophical rule that
entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted
as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to
the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be
sought first in terms of known quantities.
Or the Least Complicated solution is usually the Best solution.

While your quote of Google's definition of Occam's Razor seems correct,
but it was in error. It is NOT a RULE, it's a guideline. Note that the
sentence right after uses the term "usually the Best...".

You have an innate talent for being wrong.

rule -
A usual, customary, or generalized course of action
or behavior.
A generalized statement that describes what is true
in most or all cases.

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Occam's razor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Heuristic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony) Occam's razor,
also known as the law of parsimony (thriftiness),
is a problem-solving principle attributed to philosopher William of Ockam.
... In other applications that use logic the theory of Occam's razor
is used as a means of keeping explanations as simple as possible.

Again, it is NOT a "principle", it's a guideline. A suggestion on how
to proceed.

principle -
1. A basic truth, law, or assumption..
2. a. A rule or standard.
3. A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action.
4. A basic or essential quality or element determining
intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior.
5. A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural
phenomena or mechanical processes.

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
The Law of Parsimony
Principle (or Law) of Parsimony
the scientific principle that things are usually connected or behave
in the simplest or most economical way, especially with reference
to alternative evolutionary pathways.
late Middle English: from Latin parsimonia, parcimonia,
from parcere ‘be sparing.’

Note: "usually connected".

Which means more often than not.

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
What is the law of parsimony? - Times of India
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com › News › What is the law of parsimony?
What is the law of parsimony?
This principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make
as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference
in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The
principle is often expressed in Latin as the Lex Parsimoniae (law of
parsimony or law of succinctness). This is often paraphrased as: All
things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one. Or
alternatively: We should not assert that for which we do not have some
proof. In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other
respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces
the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.
- Ashish Singh
What is Occam's Razor?
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
... which should be more correctly called the law of parsimony, or the rule
of simplicity.
The Clinician's Law of Parsimony - Edge.org
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25415
The Law of Parsimony, also known as Occam's razor, does not warrant a funeral
but it does have some problems in its description of reality. This law
states that ...
The Principle of Parsimony and Some... (PDF Download Available)
https://www.researchgate.net/.../266883461_The_Principle_of_Parsimony_and_Some...
Where we .... act according to the rule underlain by the mental assumption
according ...

A load of baloney that leads folks into error. remember, Occam's
Razor is a GUIDELINE, NOT a RULE or a PRINCIPLE.
Chris

guideline -
A principle put forward to set standards or determine
a course of action.
A statement or other indication of policy or procedure
by which to determine a course of action.


So obviously you flunked Dictionary in school.

[mainframetech]

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Definition of Occam's razor. : a scientific and philosophical rule that
entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted
as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to
the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be
sought first in terms of known quantities.
Or the Least Complicated solution is usually the Best solution.

While your quote of Google's definition of Occam's Razor seems correct,
but it was in error. It is NOT a RULE, it's a guideline. Note that the
sentence right after uses the term "usually the Best...".

You have an innate talent for being wrong.
rule -
A usual, customary, or generalized course of action
or behavior.
A generalized statement that describes what is true
in most or all cases.

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Occam's razor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Heuristic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony) Occam's razor,
also known as the law of parsimony (thriftiness),
is a problem-solving principle attributed to philosopher William of Ockam.
... In other applications that use logic the theory of Occam's razor
is used as a means of keeping explanations as simple as possible.

Again, it is NOT a "principle", it's a guideline. A suggestion on how
to proceed.

principle -
1. A basic truth, law, or assumption..
2. a. A rule or standard.
3. A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action.
4. A basic or essential quality or element determining
intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior.
5. A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural
phenomena or mechanical processes.

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
The Law of Parsimony
Principle (or Law) of Parsimony
the scientific principle that things are usually connected or behave
in the simplest or most economical way, especially with reference
to alternative evolutionary pathways.
late Middle English: from Latin parsimonia, parcimonia,
from parcere ‘be sparing.’

Note: "usually connected".

Which means more often than not.

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
What is the law of parsimony? - Times of India
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com › News › What is the law of parsimony?
What is the law of parsimony?
This principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make
as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference
in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The
principle is often expressed in Latin as the Lex Parsimoniae (law of
parsimony or law of succinctness). This is often paraphrased as: All
things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one. Or
alternatively: We should not assert that for which we do not have some
proof. In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other
respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces
the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.
- Ashish Singh
What is Occam's Razor?
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
... which should be more correctly called the law of parsimony, or the rule
of simplicity.
The Clinician's Law of Parsimony - Edge.org
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25415
The Law of Parsimony, also known as Occam's razor, does not warrant a funeral
but it does have some problems in its description of reality. This law
states that ...
The Principle of Parsimony and Some... (PDF Download Available)
https://www.researchgate.net/.../266883461_The_Principle_of_Parsimony_and_Some...
Where we .... act according to the rule underlain by the mental assumption
according ...

A load of baloney that leads folks into error. remember, Occam's
Razor is a GUIDELINE, NOT a RULE or a PRINCIPLE.
Chris

guideline -
A principle put forward to set standards or determine
a course of action.
A statement or other indication of policy or procedure
by which to determine a course of action.
So obviously you flunked Dictionary in school.

I made it clear what the difference is between a rule and a guideline.
My point was that Occam's Razor cannot be used as it was the only way to
go about solving something. It is a suggestion only, not a hard and fast
rule. You can hunt up all the definitions you want and it won't change my
intent.

Chris

[claviger]

Post by mainframetech
I made it clear what the difference is between a rule and a guideline.

Dictionaries made it clear you are confused.

Post by mainframetech
My point was that Occam's Razor cannot be used as
it was the only way to go about solving something.

Not the only way, only the most effective way.

Post by mainframetech
It is a suggestion only, not a hard and fast rule.

Not a hard rule at all, a useful method to activate the process.

Post by mainframetech
You can hunt up all the definitions you want and it won't
change my intent.
Chris

Truer words were never spoken. No amount of Logic, Evidence,
or The Scientific Method can change your intent.

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Definition of Occam's razor. : a scientific and philosophical rule that
entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted
as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to
the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be
sought first in terms of known quantities.
Or the Least Complicated solution is usually the Best solution.

While your quote of Google's definition of Occam's Razor seems correct,
but it was in error. It is NOT a RULE, it's a guideline. Note that the
sentence right after uses the term "usually the Best...".

Post by claviger
Occam's razor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Heuristic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony) Occam's razor,
also known as the law of parsimony (thriftiness),
is a problem-solving principle attributed to philosopher William of Ockam.
... In other applications that use logic the theory of Occam's razor
is used as a means of keeping explanations as simple as possible.

Again, it is NOT a "principle", it's a guideline. A suggestion on how
to proceed.

Post by claviger
The Law of Parsimony
Principle (or Law) of Parsimony
the scientific principle that things are usually connected or behave
in the simplest or most economical way, especially with reference
to alternative evolutionary pathways.
late Middle English: from Latin parsimonia, parcimonia,
from parcere ‘be sparing.’

Note: "usually connected".

Post by claviger
law of parsimony
noun Philosophy.
a principle according to which an explanation of a thing or event is made
with the fewest possible assumptions.
Origin of law of parsimony
First recorded in 1830–40
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony) definition | Psychology Glossary ...
https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term...%28Law+Of+Parsimony%29
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony)
Occam's razor, also known as the law of parsimony (thriftiness), is a
problem-solving principle attributed to philosopher William of Ockam. In
science this principle is used a heuristic (or discovery) tool that guides
scientists for the development of scientific models. In other applications
that use logic the theory of Occam's razor is used as a means of keeping
explanations as simple as possible. Essentially, the simplest explanation
for something is typically the most likely. While not considered an
irrefutable means of deriving logic or scientific results it does stress
the importance of simplifying explanations.
For example, we know that when an object is dropped it will hit the
ground. This can be proved by dropping multiple types of objects from
different heights. When thinking about what causes this what is more
likely: that there is an energy or force that pulls things to the ground
or that invisible gnomes leap and pull the objects to the ground where
they attach them with invisible string? Obviously the first explanation is
more simple and using Occam's razor it would be the most probable
explanation.
https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Occam%27s+Razor+%28Law+Of+Parsimony%29
What is the law of parsimony? - Times of India
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com › News › What is the law of parsimony?
What is the law of parsimony?
This principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make
as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference
in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The
principle is often expressed in Latin as the Lex Parsimoniae (law of
parsimony or law of succinctness). This is often paraphrased as: All
things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one. Or
alternatively: We should not assert that for which we do not have some
proof. In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other
respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces
the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.
- Ashish Singh
What is Occam's Razor?
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
... which should be more correctly called the law of parsimony, or the rule
of simplicity.
The Clinician's Law of Parsimony - Edge.org
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25415
The Law of Parsimony, also known as Occam's razor, does not warrant a funeral
but it does have some problems in its description of reality. This law
states that ...
The Principle of Parsimony and Some... (PDF Download Available)
https://www.researchgate.net/.../266883461_The_Principle_of_Parsimony_and_Some...
Where we .... act according to the rule underlain by the mental assumption
according ...

A load of baloney that leads folks into error. remember, Occam's
Razor is a GUIDELINE, NOT a RULE or a PRINCIPLE.
Chris

Distinction without a Difference Fallacy. One of Mainframetech's
favorites.

[mainframetech]

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Definition of Occam's razor. : a scientific and philosophical rule that
entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted
as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to
the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be
sought first in terms of known quantities.
Or the Least Complicated solution is usually the Best solution.

While your quote of Google's definition of Occam's Razor seems correct,
but it was in error. It is NOT a RULE, it's a guideline. Note that the
sentence right after uses the term "usually the Best...".

Post by claviger
Occam's razor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Heuristic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony) Occam's razor,
also known as the law of parsimony (thriftiness),
is a problem-solving principle attributed to philosopher William of Ockam.
... In other applications that use logic the theory of Occam's razor
is used as a means of keeping explanations as simple as possible.

Again, it is NOT a "principle", it's a guideline. A suggestion on how
to proceed.

Post by claviger
The Law of Parsimony
Principle (or Law) of Parsimony
the scientific principle that things are usually connected or behave
in the simplest or most economical way, especially with reference
to alternative evolutionary pathways.
late Middle English: from Latin parsimonia, parcimonia,
from parcere ‘be sparing.’

Note: "usually connected".

Post by claviger
law of parsimony
noun Philosophy.
a principle according to which an explanation of a thing or event is made
with the fewest possible assumptions.
Origin of law of parsimony
First recorded in 1830–40
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony) definition | Psychology Glossary ...
https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term...%28Law+Of+Parsimony%29
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony)
Occam's razor, also known as the law of parsimony (thriftiness), is a
problem-solving principle attributed to philosopher William of Ockam. In
science this principle is used a heuristic (or discovery) tool that guides
scientists for the development of scientific models. In other applications
that use logic the theory of Occam's razor is used as a means of keeping
explanations as simple as possible. Essentially, the simplest explanation
for something is typically the most likely. While not considered an
irrefutable means of deriving logic or scientific results it does stress
the importance of simplifying explanations.
For example, we know that when an object is dropped it will hit the
ground. This can be proved by dropping multiple types of objects from
different heights. When thinking about what causes this what is more
likely: that there is an energy or force that pulls things to the ground
or that invisible gnomes leap and pull the objects to the ground where
they attach them with invisible string? Obviously the first explanation is
more simple and using Occam's razor it would be the most probable
explanation.
https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Occam%27s+Razor+%28Law+Of+Parsimony%29
What is the law of parsimony? - Times of India
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com › News › What is the law of parsimony?
What is the law of parsimony?
This principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make
as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference
in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The
principle is often expressed in Latin as the Lex Parsimoniae (law of
parsimony or law of succinctness). This is often paraphrased as: All
things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one. Or
alternatively: We should not assert that for which we do not have some
proof. In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other
respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces
the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.
- Ashish Singh
What is Occam's Razor?
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
... which should be more correctly called the law of parsimony, or the rule
of simplicity.
The Clinician's Law of Parsimony - Edge.org
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25415
The Law of Parsimony, also known as Occam's razor, does not warrant a funeral
but it does have some problems in its description of reality. This law
states that ...
The Principle of Parsimony and Some... (PDF Download Available)
https://www.researchgate.net/.../266883461_The_Principle_of_Parsimony_and_Some...
Where we .... act according to the rule underlain by the mental assumption
according ...

A load of baloney that leads folks into error. remember, Occam's
Razor is a GUIDELINE, NOT a RULE or a PRINCIPLE.
Chris

Distinction without a Difference Fallacy. One of Mainframetech's
favorites.

Surprised you can't find a difference. Let me help you to understand
my view of them.

Guideline is a method to proceed with, but not a hard and fast
procedure that MUST be followed. It is an aid to the detective.

Rule is a method to proceed with and MUST be followed.

Principle is a basic truth that is believed to be so.

I hope this helps you out of your quandary and allows you to see the
differences.

Chris

[Bud]

Post by mainframetech

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Definition of Occam's razor. : a scientific and philosophical rule that
entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted
as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to
the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be
sought first in terms of known quantities.
Or the Least Complicated solution is usually the Best solution.

While your quote of Google's definition of Occam's Razor seems correct,
but it was in error. It is NOT a RULE, it's a guideline. Note that the
sentence right after uses the term "usually the Best...".

Post by claviger
Occam's razor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Heuristic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony) Occam's razor,
also known as the law of parsimony (thriftiness),
is a problem-solving principle attributed to philosopher William of Ockam.
... In other applications that use logic the theory of Occam's razor
is used as a means of keeping explanations as simple as possible.

Again, it is NOT a "principle", it's a guideline. A suggestion on how
to proceed.

Post by claviger
The Law of Parsimony
Principle (or Law) of Parsimony
the scientific principle that things are usually connected or behave
in the simplest or most economical way, especially with reference
to alternative evolutionary pathways.
late Middle English: from Latin parsimonia, parcimonia,
from parcere ‘be sparing.’

Note: "usually connected".

Post by claviger
law of parsimony
noun Philosophy.
a principle according to which an explanation of a thing or event is made
with the fewest possible assumptions.
Origin of law of parsimony
First recorded in 1830–40
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony) definition | Psychology Glossary ...
https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term...%28Law+Of+Parsimony%29
Occam's Razor (Law Of Parsimony)
Occam's razor, also known as the law of parsimony (thriftiness), is a
problem-solving principle attributed to philosopher William of Ockam. In
science this principle is used a heuristic (or discovery) tool that guides
scientists for the development of scientific models. In other applications
that use logic the theory of Occam's razor is used as a means of keeping
explanations as simple as possible. Essentially, the simplest explanation
for something is typically the most likely. While not considered an
irrefutable means of deriving logic or scientific results it does stress
the importance of simplifying explanations.
For example, we know that when an object is dropped it will hit the
ground. This can be proved by dropping multiple types of objects from
different heights. When thinking about what causes this what is more
likely: that there is an energy or force that pulls things to the ground
or that invisible gnomes leap and pull the objects to the ground where
they attach them with invisible string? Obviously the first explanation is
more simple and using Occam's razor it would be the most probable
explanation.
https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Occam%27s+Razor+%28Law+Of+Parsimony%29
What is the law of parsimony? - Times of India
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com › News › What is the law of parsimony?
What is the law of parsimony?
This principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make
as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference
in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The
principle is often expressed in Latin as the Lex Parsimoniae (law of
parsimony or law of succinctness). This is often paraphrased as: All
things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one. Or
alternatively: We should not assert that for which we do not have some
proof. In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other
respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces
the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.
- Ashish Singh
What is Occam's Razor?
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
... which should be more correctly called the law of parsimony, or the rule
of simplicity.
The Clinician's Law of Parsimony - Edge.org
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25415
The Law of Parsimony, also known as Occam's razor, does not warrant a funeral
but it does have some problems in its description of reality. This law
states that ...
The Principle of Parsimony and Some... (PDF Download Available)
https://www.researchgate.net/.../266883461_The_Principle_of_Parsimony_and_Some...
Where we .... act according to the rule underlain by the mental assumption
according ...

A load of baloney that leads folks into error. remember, Occam's
Razor is a GUIDELINE, NOT a RULE or a PRINCIPLE.
Chris

Distinction without a Difference Fallacy. One of Mainframetech's
favorites.

Surprised you can't find a difference. Let me help you to understand
my view of them.
Guideline is a method to proceed with, but not a hard and fast
procedure that MUST be followed. It is an aid to the detective.
Rule is a method to proceed with and MUST be followed.
Principle is a basic truth that is believed to be so.

"Occam's razor (also Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor; Latin: lex
parsimoniae "law of parsimony") is the problem-solving principle ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Post by mainframetech
I hope this helps you out of your quandary and allows you to see the
differences.
Chris

[deke]

I think I know where all this is going although nobody has said it yet.
Occam's Razor

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by deke
I think I know where all this is going although nobody has said it yet.
Occam's Razor

Occam,'s Razor is a crutch for weak minds.
The Earth must be flat because it looks flat and that it is the easiest
explanation.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh

Post by deke
I think I know where all this is going although nobody has said it yet.
Occam's Razor

Occam,'s Razor is a crutch for weak minds.
The Earth must be flat because it looks flat and that it is the easiest
explanation.


You never fail to amaze, Anthony. Just when I thought you could not
possibly post anything more idiotic than what you have already
regurgitated on this group, you continue to surprise me.

[deke]

Post by Anthony Marsh
Occam,'s Razor is a crutch for weak minds.
The Earth must be flat because it looks flat and that it is the easiest
explanation.

Until you watch a ship's mast disappear over the horizon and then the
easiest explanation is that the earth's surface is curved. I agree that
Occam's Razor has limited use; it works only when you have all or most of
the facts. If you don't have all the facts or choose to ignore some of
them, Occam's razor will probably lead you to an erroneous conclusion. In
the case of the JFK assassination, the TOTALITY of facts and evidence show
conspiracy to be the easiest explanation.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by deke

Post by Anthony Marsh
Occam,'s Razor is a crutch for weak minds.
The Earth must be flat because it looks flat and that it is the easiest
explanation.

Until you watch a ship's mast disappear over the horizon and then the
easiest explanation is that the earth's surface is curved. I agree that
Occam's Razor has limited use; it works only when you have all or most of
the facts. If you don't have all the facts or choose to ignore some of
them, Occam's razor will probably lead you to an erroneous conclusion. In
the case of the JFK assassination, the TOTALITY of facts and evidence show
conspiracy to be the easiest explanation.

Silly. They could have done that when they Thought the Earth was flat.
Like you they would invent a lame excuse like the ship just got too far
away to see the mast. When you watch ships sail away do you see that
moment when you can not see the bottom half of the ship but you can see
the top half clearly?

[deke]

I think I know where all this is all going although nobody has said it
yet. Occam's Razor implies that a lone gunman is the simplest explanation
for the assassination. This is simply not true. It's not just a matter of
whether there was a lone gunman or not - many other things have to be
taken into consideration, such as the gunman's lack of marksmanship
skills, the inferior weapon he supposedly used, his lack of a reasonable
motive, evidence pointing to other shooters involved, etc, etc. When all
that is considered, the lone gunman theory is NOT the simplest
explanation.

[Jason Burke]

Post by deke
I think I know where all this is all going although nobody has said it
yet. Occam's Razor implies that a lone gunman is the simplest explanation
for the assassination. This is simply not true. It's not just a matter of
whether there was a lone gunman or not - many other things have to be
taken into consideration, such as the gunman's lack of marksmanship
skills, the inferior weapon he supposedly used, his lack of a reasonable
motive, evidence pointing to other shooters involved, etc, etc. When all
that is considered, the lone gunman theory is NOT the simplest
explanation.

Sooo, when is the CT crowd going to come up with a tenable theory? Y'all
have had over half a century and still nuffin.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Jason Burke

Post by deke
I think I know where all this is all going although nobody has said it
yet. Occam's Razor implies that a lone gunman is the simplest explanation
for the assassination. This is simply not true. It's not just a matter of
whether there was a lone gunman or not - many other things have to be
taken into consideration, such as the gunman's lack of marksmanship
skills, the inferior weapon he supposedly used, his lack of a reasonable
motive, evidence pointing to other shooters involved, etc, etc. When all
that is considered, the lone gunman theory is NOT the simplest
explanation.

Sooo, when is the CT crowd going to come up with a tenable theory? Y'all
have had over half a century and still nuffin.

Did you sleep through 1978?

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -
Did you sleep through 1978?



Ah, but the strawberries. That's where I had them. Anthony "Captain Queeg"
Marsh.

[bigdog]

Post by OHLeeRedux
Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -
Did you sleep through 1978?
Ah, but the strawberries. That's where I had them. Anthony "Captain Queeg"
Marsh.

At least Queeg had a grasp of geometric logic.

[Bud]

Post by deke
I think I know where all this is all going although nobody has said it
yet. Occam's Razor implies that a lone gunman is the simplest explanation
for the assassination. This is simply not true. It's not just a matter of
whether there was a lone gunman or not - many other things have to be
taken into consideration, such as the gunman's lack of marksmanship
skills, the inferior weapon he supposedly used, his lack of a reasonable
motive, evidence pointing to other shooters involved, etc, etc. When all
that is considered, the lone gunman theory is NOT the simplest
explanation.

You misunderstand Occam`s Razor. The idea that Kennedy was shot by one
person is simpler than him being shot by multiple gunmen ("Entities are
not to be multiplied without necessity"). What that means to this case is
if Oswald, shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD can satisfy what is
known then a more complex explanation is unlikely to be better.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Bud

Post by deke
I think I know where all this is all going although nobody has said it
yet. Occam's Razor implies that a lone gunman is the simplest explanation
for the assassination. This is simply not true. It's not just a matter of
whether there was a lone gunman or not - many other things have to be
taken into consideration, such as the gunman's lack of marksmanship
skills, the inferior weapon he supposedly used, his lack of a reasonable
motive, evidence pointing to other shooters involved, etc, etc. When all
that is considered, the lone gunman theory is NOT the simplest
explanation.

You misunderstand Occam`s Razor. The idea that Kennedy was shot by one
person is simpler than him being shot by multiple gunmen ("Entities are
not to be multiplied without necessity"). What that means to this case is
if Oswald, shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD can satisfy what is
known then a more complex explanation is unlikely to be better.

That's childish thinking and unrealistic.
Again, explain how Oswald can shoot JFK in the forehead from the
sniper's nest.

[bpete1969]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Bud

Post by deke
I think I know where all this is all going although nobody has said it
yet. Occam's Razor implies that a lone gunman is the simplest explanation
for the assassination. This is simply not true. It's not just a matter of
whether there was a lone gunman or not - many other things have to be
taken into consideration, such as the gunman's lack of marksmanship
skills, the inferior weapon he supposedly used, his lack of a reasonable
motive, evidence pointing to other shooters involved, etc, etc. When all
that is considered, the lone gunman theory is NOT the simplest
explanation.

You misunderstand Occam`s Razor. The idea that Kennedy was shot by one
person is simpler than him being shot by multiple gunmen ("Entities are
not to be multiplied without necessity"). What that means to this case is
if Oswald, shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD can satisfy what is
known then a more complex explanation is unlikely to be better.

That's childish thinking and unrealistic.
Again, explain how Oswald can shoot JFK in the forehead from the
sniper's nest.

Ricochet off the trim above the windshield.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bpete1969

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Bud

Post by deke
I think I know where all this is all going although nobody has said it
yet. Occam's Razor implies that a lone gunman is the simplest explanation
for the assassination. This is simply not true. It's not just a matter of
whether there was a lone gunman or not - many other things have to be
taken into consideration, such as the gunman's lack of marksmanship
skills, the inferior weapon he supposedly used, his lack of a reasonable
motive, evidence pointing to other shooters involved, etc, etc. When all
that is considered, the lone gunman theory is NOT the simplest
explanation.

You misunderstand Occam`s Razor. The idea that Kennedy was shot by one
person is simpler than him being shot by multiple gunmen ("Entities are
not to be multiplied without necessity"). What that means to this case is
if Oswald, shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD can satisfy what is
known then a more complex explanation is unlikely to be better.

That's childish thinking and unrealistic.
Again, explain how Oswald can shoot JFK in the forehead from the
sniper's nest.

Ricochet off the trim above the windshield.

Hey, no fair stealing. That was my joke theory that I made up for you.

[mainframetech]

Post by bpete1969

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Bud

Post by deke
I think I know where all this is all going although nobody has said it
yet. Occam's Razor implies that a lone gunman is the simplest explanation
for the assassination. This is simply not true. It's not just a matter of
whether there was a lone gunman or not - many other things have to be
taken into consideration, such as the gunman's lack of marksmanship
skills, the inferior weapon he supposedly used, his lack of a reasonable
motive, evidence pointing to other shooters involved, etc, etc. When all
that is considered, the lone gunman theory is NOT the simplest
explanation.

You misunderstand Occam`s Razor. The idea that Kennedy was shot by one
person is simpler than him being shot by multiple gunmen ("Entities are
not to be multiplied without necessity"). What that means to this case is
if Oswald, shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD can satisfy what is
known then a more complex explanation is unlikely to be better.

That's childish thinking and unrealistic.
Again, explain how Oswald can shoot JFK in the forehead from the
sniper's nest.

Ricochet off the trim above the windshield.

Looking at the place where the bullet slammed into the chrome bar over
the windshield, I'd say the bullet might still be there in the dent, at
least in part. It might not ricochet, but the parts might fall straight
down to the front seat.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Post by Bud

Post by deke
I think I know where all this is all going although nobody has said it
yet. Occam's Razor implies that a lone gunman is the simplest explanation
for the assassination. This is simply not true. It's not just a matter of
whether there was a lone gunman or not - many other things have to be
taken into consideration, such as the gunman's lack of marksmanship
skills, the inferior weapon he supposedly used, his lack of a reasonable
motive, evidence pointing to other shooters involved, etc, etc. When all
that is considered, the lone gunman theory is NOT the simplest
explanation.

You misunderstand Occam`s Razor. The idea that Kennedy was shot by one
person is simpler than him being shot by multiple gunmen ("Entities are
not to be multiplied without necessity"). What that means to this case is
if Oswald, shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD can satisfy what is
known then a more complex explanation is unlikely to be better.

The problem with the RFK killing is that there were those that thought
there were evidence of 14 bullets, and Sirhan's gun didn't carry that
many. As well his state of mind. Somewhere someone got the info that he
was affected by CIA messing with his sanity.

It's been a while but I seem to remember there were quite a number of
oddities about the killing.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by Bud

Post by deke
I think I know where all this is all going although nobody has said it
yet. Occam's Razor implies that a lone gunman is the simplest explanation
for the assassination. This is simply not true. It's not just a matter of
whether there was a lone gunman or not - many other things have to be
taken into consideration, such as the gunman's lack of marksmanship
skills, the inferior weapon he supposedly used, his lack of a reasonable
motive, evidence pointing to other shooters involved, etc, etc. When all
that is considered, the lone gunman theory is NOT the simplest
explanation.

You misunderstand Occam`s Razor. The idea that Kennedy was shot by one
person is simpler than him being shot by multiple gunmen ("Entities are
not to be multiplied without necessity"). What that means to this case is
if Oswald, shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD can satisfy what is
known then a more complex explanation is unlikely to be better.

The problem with the RFK killing is that there were those that thought
there were evidence of 14 bullets, and Sirhan's gun didn't carry that
many.

What people think is not always in line with reality. If 9 bullets had
been recovered or bullets that were fired from a different gun had been
recovered, there would be compelling evidence of a second gunman. No such
evidence exists.

Post by mainframetech
As well his state of mind. Somewhere someone got the info that he
was affected by CIA messing with his sanity.

How so?

Post by mainframetech
It's been a while but I seem to remember there were quite a number of
oddities about the killing.

It's always odd when a public official gets assassinated. Fortunately it
is not a normal occurrence.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Bud

Post by deke
I think I know where all this is all going although nobody has said it
yet. Occam's Razor implies that a lone gunman is the simplest explanation
for the assassination. This is simply not true. It's not just a matter of
whether there was a lone gunman or not - many other things have to be
taken into consideration, such as the gunman's lack of marksmanship
skills, the inferior weapon he supposedly used, his lack of a reasonable
motive, evidence pointing to other shooters involved, etc, etc. When all
that is considered, the lone gunman theory is NOT the simplest
explanation.

You misunderstand Occam`s Razor. The idea that Kennedy was shot by one
person is simpler than him being shot by multiple gunmen ("Entities are
not to be multiplied without necessity"). What that means to this case is
if Oswald, shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD can satisfy what is
known then a more complex explanation is unlikely to be better.

The problem with the RFK killing is that there were those that thought
there were evidence of 14 bullets, and Sirhan's gun didn't carry that
many.

What people think is not always in line with reality. If 9 bullets had
been recovered or bullets that were fired from a different gun had been
recovered, there would be compelling evidence of a second gunman. No such
evidence exists.

WRONG! It's amazing what you don't know, but are willing to state absolutely is the case. Here's some evidence showing your knowledge is limited:

"Using modern technology to limit ambient noise and slow down the tape, Van Praag counted 13 shot “impulses,” or wave forms resembling gunshots, and possibly more drowned out by screams."

From:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/06/06/the-bobby-kennedy-assassination-tape-were-13-shots-fired-or-only-8/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2360ca90cf76

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
As well his state of mind. Somewhere someone got the info that he
was affected by CIA messing with his sanity.

How so?

Post by mainframetech
It's been a while but I seem to remember there were quite a number of
oddities about the killing.

It's always odd when a public official gets assassinated. Fortunately it
is not a normal occurrence.

Isn't it wonderful to be the one and only guru?

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Bud

Post by deke
I think I know where all this is all going although nobody has said it
yet. Occam's Razor implies that a lone gunman is the simplest explanation
for the assassination. This is simply not true. It's not just a matter of
whether there was a lone gunman or not - many other things have to be
taken into consideration, such as the gunman's lack of marksmanship
skills, the inferior weapon he supposedly used, his lack of a reasonable
motive, evidence pointing to other shooters involved, etc, etc. When all
that is considered, the lone gunman theory is NOT the simplest
explanation.

You misunderstand Occam`s Razor. The idea that Kennedy was shot by one
person is simpler than him being shot by multiple gunmen ("Entities are
not to be multiplied without necessity"). What that means to this case is
if Oswald, shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD can satisfy what is
known then a more complex explanation is unlikely to be better.

The problem with the RFK killing is that there were those that thought
there were evidence of 14 bullets, and Sirhan's gun didn't carry that
many.

What people think is not always in line with reality. If 9 bullets had
been recovered or bullets that were fired from a different gun had been
recovered, there would be compelling evidence of a second gunman. No such
evidence exists.

"Using modern technology to limit ambient noise and slow down the tape, Van Praag counted 13 shot “impulses,” or wave forms resembling gunshots, and possibly more drowned out by screams."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/06/06/the-bobby-kennedy-assassination-tape-were-13-shots-fired-or-only-8/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2360ca90cf76

Oh, goody. More junk science. Explain how an audio engineer is qualified
to do forensic audio analysis. What training did he have to identify the
impulses as gunshots?

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
As well his state of mind. Somewhere someone got the info that he
was affected by CIA messing with his sanity.

How so?

Post by mainframetech
It's been a while but I seem to remember there were quite a number of
oddities about the killing.

It's always odd when a public official gets assassinated. Fortunately it
is not a normal occurrence.

Isn't it wonderful to be the one and only guru?

It's not so wonderful.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Bud

Post by deke
I think I know where all this is all going although nobody has said it
yet. Occam's Razor implies that a lone gunman is the simplest explanation
for the assassination. This is simply not true. It's not just a matter of
whether there was a lone gunman or not - many other things have to be
taken into consideration, such as the gunman's lack of marksmanship
skills, the inferior weapon he supposedly used, his lack of a reasonable
motive, evidence pointing to other shooters involved, etc, etc. When all
that is considered, the lone gunman theory is NOT the simplest
explanation.

You misunderstand Occam`s Razor. The idea that Kennedy was shot by one
person is simpler than him being shot by multiple gunmen ("Entities are
not to be multiplied without necessity"). What that means to this case is
if Oswald, shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD can satisfy what is
known then a more complex explanation is unlikely to be better.

The problem with the RFK killing is that there were those that thought
there were evidence of 14 bullets, and Sirhan's gun didn't carry that
many.

What people think is not always in line with reality. If 9 bullets had
been recovered or bullets that were fired from a different gun had been
recovered, there would be compelling evidence of a second gunman. No such
evidence exists.

"Using modern technology to limit ambient noise and slow down the tape, Van Praag counted 13 shot “impulses,” or wave forms resembling gunshots, and possibly more drowned out by screams."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/06/06/the-bobby-kennedy-assassination-tape-were-13-shots-fired-or-only-8/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2360ca90cf76

Oh, goody. More junk science. Explain how an audio engineer is qualified
to do forensic audio analysis. What training did he have to identify the
impulses as gunshots?

As usual you praise science when the finding suits your wacky WCR
theories, but not when it shows something else. The many shots
corroborates my list of multiple shots striking in Dealey Plaza. As well
as other statements.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
As well his state of mind. Somewhere someone got the info that he
was affected by CIA messing with his sanity.

How so?

Post by mainframetech
It's been a while but I seem to remember there were quite a number of
oddities about the killing.

It's always odd when a public official gets assassinated. Fortunately it
is not a normal occurrence.

Isn't it wonderful to be the one and only guru?

It's not so wonderful.

I guess you don't like the position because you keep getting
corrected.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Bud

Post by deke
I think I know where all this is all going although nobody has said it
yet. Occam's Razor implies that a lone gunman is the simplest explanation
for the assassination. This is simply not true. It's not just a matter of
whether there was a lone gunman or not - many other things have to be
taken into consideration, such as the gunman's lack of marksmanship
skills, the inferior weapon he supposedly used, his lack of a reasonable
motive, evidence pointing to other shooters involved, etc, etc. When all
that is considered, the lone gunman theory is NOT the simplest
explanation.

You misunderstand Occam`s Razor. The idea that Kennedy was shot by one
person is simpler than him being shot by multiple gunmen ("Entities are
not to be multiplied without necessity"). What that means to this case is
if Oswald, shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD can satisfy what is
known then a more complex explanation is unlikely to be better.

The problem with the RFK killing is that there were those that thought
there were evidence of 14 bullets, and Sirhan's gun didn't carry that
many.

What people think is not always in line with reality. If 9 bullets had
been recovered or bullets that were fired from a different gun had been
recovered, there would be compelling evidence of a second gunman. No such
evidence exists.

"Using modern technology to limit ambient noise and slow down the tape, Van Praag counted 13 shot “impulses,” or wave forms resembling gunshots, and possibly more drowned out by screams."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/06/06/the-bobby-kennedy-assassination-tape-were-13-shots-fired-or-only-8/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2360ca90cf76

Oh, goody. More junk science. Explain how an audio engineer is qualified
to do forensic audio analysis. What training did he have to identify the
impulses as gunshots?

As usual you praise science when the finding suits your wacky WCR
theories, but not when it shows something else.

It never shows something else. Every scientific experiment conducted
affirms the findings of the WC.

Post by mainframetech
The many shots
corroborates my list of multiple shots striking in Dealey Plaza. As well
as other statements.

So you use imaginary shots to support your goofy theories. Great approach.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
As well his state of mind. Somewhere someone got the info that he
was affected by CIA messing with his sanity.

How so?

Post by mainframetech
It's been a while but I seem to remember there were quite a number of
oddities about the killing.

It's always odd when a public official gets assassinated. Fortunately it
is not a normal occurrence.

Isn't it wonderful to be the one and only guru?

It's not so wonderful.

I guess you don't like the position because you keep getting
corrected.

Not by you.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Bud

Post by deke
I think I know where all this is all going although nobody has said it
yet. Occam's Razor implies that a lone gunman is the simplest explanation
for the assassination. This is simply not true. It's not just a matter of
whether there was a lone gunman or not - many other things have to be
taken into consideration, such as the gunman's lack of marksmanship
skills, the inferior weapon he supposedly used, his lack of a reasonable
motive, evidence pointing to other shooters involved, etc, etc. When all
that is considered, the lone gunman theory is NOT the simplest
explanation.

You misunderstand Occam`s Razor. The idea that Kennedy was shot by one
person is simpler than him being shot by multiple gunmen ("Entities are
not to be multiplied without necessity"). What that means to this case is
if Oswald, shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD can satisfy what is
known then a more complex explanation is unlikely to be better.

The problem with the RFK killing is that there were those that thought
there were evidence of 14 bullets, and Sirhan's gun didn't carry that
many.

What people think is not always in line with reality. If 9 bullets had
been recovered or bullets that were fired from a different gun had been
recovered, there would be compelling evidence of a second gunman. No such
evidence exists.

"Using modern technology to limit ambient noise and slow down the tape, Van Praag counted 13 shot “impulses,” or wave forms resembling gunshots, and possibly more drowned out by screams."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/06/06/the-bobby-kennedy-assassination-tape-were-13-shots-fired-or-only-8/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2360ca90cf76

Oh, goody. More junk science. Explain how an audio engineer is qualified
to do forensic audio analysis. What training did he have to identify the
impulses as gunshots?

As usual you praise science when the finding suits your wacky WCR
theories, but not when it shows something else.

It never shows something else. Every scientific experiment conducted
affirms the findings of the WC.

WRONG! For example, the testing of the MC rifle by Robert Frazier
showed that it could not be aimed properly. Yet the WCR has Oswald as a
superior shot and that it was easy to shoot JFK moving obliquely from the
window. Oswald hadn't had any practice for years since he came back from
Russia and the inability to aim the rifle made it impossible to hit the
target as the first thing he ever aimed at without knowing about the
inability of the rifle to aim properly.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
The many shots
corroborates my list of multiple shots striking in Dealey Plaza. As well
as other statements.

So you use imaginary shots to support your goofy theories. Great approach.

The word "Imaginary" in hopes that it will invalidate solid evidence.
Forget it. As to "Goofy", it's just another word intended to try and
lower the strength of the evidence without having to use real proof.
When proof is lacking, try ridicule.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
As well his state of mind. Somewhere someone got the info that he
was affected by CIA messing with his sanity.

How so?

Post by mainframetech
It's been a while but I seem to remember there were quite a number of
oddities about the killing.

It's always odd when a public official gets assassinated. Fortunately it
is not a normal occurrence.

Isn't it wonderful to be the one and only guru?

It's not so wonderful.

I guess you don't like the position because you keep getting
corrected.

Not by you.

Of course by me. Rarely do others bother. But I'm conscientious and
don't want any of your false info to get out.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Bud

Post by deke
I think I know where all this is all going although nobody has said it
yet. Occam's Razor implies that a lone gunman is the simplest explanation
for the assassination. This is simply not true. It's not just a matter of
whether there was a lone gunman or not - many other things have to be
taken into consideration, such as the gunman's lack of marksmanship
skills, the inferior weapon he supposedly used, his lack of a reasonable
motive, evidence pointing to other shooters involved, etc, etc. When all
that is considered, the lone gunman theory is NOT the simplest
explanation.

You misunderstand Occam`s Razor. The idea that Kennedy was shot by one
person is simpler than him being shot by multiple gunmen ("Entities are
not to be multiplied without necessity"). What that means to this case is
if Oswald, shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD can satisfy what is
known then a more complex explanation is unlikely to be better.

The problem with the RFK killing is that there were those that thought
there were evidence of 14 bullets, and Sirhan's gun didn't carry that
many.

What people think is not always in line with reality. If 9 bullets had
been recovered or bullets that were fired from a different gun had been
recovered, there would be compelling evidence of a second gunman. No such
evidence exists.

"Using modern technology to limit ambient noise and slow down the tape, Van Praag counted 13 shot “impulses,” or wave forms resembling gunshots, and possibly more drowned out by screams."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/06/06/the-bobby-kennedy-assassination-tape-were-13-shots-fired-or-only-8/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2360ca90cf76

Oh, goody. More junk science. Explain how an audio engineer is qualified
to do forensic audio analysis. What training did he have to identify the
impulses as gunshots?

As usual you praise science when the finding suits your wacky WCR
theories, but not when it shows something else.

It never shows something else. Every scientific experiment conducted
affirms the findings of the WC.

WRONG! For example, the testing of the MC rifle by Robert Frazier
showed that it could not be aimed properly.

As it was received, it fired a few inches high and to the right and we
don't have any way of knowing if that was the condition it was in when
Oswald fired it at JFK or if it became misaligned when Oswald dropped it
behind the boxes. What we do know through ballistic matching is it was the
only rifle in the world that could have fired the only two bullets
recovered from the shooting, so whatever condition it was in, it got the
job done.

Post by mainframetech
Yet the WCR has Oswald as a
superior shot and that it was easy to shoot JFK moving obliquely from the
window.

That is not what the WCR said and the shooting didn't require a superior
shot. Testimony indicated that by USMC standards Oswald was an average
marksman which would mean as compared to the general public, he was well
above average.

Post by mainframetech
Oswald hadn't had any practice for years since he came back from
Russia

We have no idea how much or how little Oswald practiced. We do know that
on 11/22/63 he only had 4 Carcano bullets left and they were sold in boxes
of 20.

Post by mainframetech
and the inability to aim the rifle made it impossible to hit the
target as the first thing he ever aimed at without knowing about the
inability of the rifle to aim properly.

The ballistic matching shows that is an untrue statement.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
The many shots
corroborates my list of multiple shots striking in Dealey Plaza. As well
as other statements.

So you use imaginary shots to support your goofy theories. Great approach.

The word "Imaginary" in hopes that it will invalidate solid evidence.

You think what you imagine is solid evidence.

Post by mainframetech
Forget it. As to "Goofy", it's just another word intended to try and
lower the strength of the evidence without having to use real proof.
When proof is lacking, try ridicule.

Your proof is lacking so I do resort to ridicule.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Bud

Post by deke
I think I know where all this is all going although nobody has said it
yet. Occam's Razor implies that a lone gunman is the simplest explanation
for the assassination. This is simply not true. It's not just a matter of
whether there was a lone gunman or not - many other things have to be
taken into consideration, such as the gunman's lack of marksmanship
skills, the inferior weapon he supposedly used, his lack of a reasonable
motive, evidence pointing to other shooters involved, etc, etc. When all
that is considered, the lone gunman theory is NOT the simplest
explanation.

You misunderstand Occam`s Razor. The idea that Kennedy was shot by one
person is simpler than him being shot by multiple gunmen ("Entities are
not to be multiplied without necessity"). What that means to this case is
if Oswald, shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD can satisfy what is
known then a more complex explanation is unlikely to be better.

The problem with the RFK killing is that there were those that thought
there were evidence of 14 bullets, and Sirhan's gun didn't carry that
many.

What people think is not always in line with reality. If 9 bullets had
been recovered or bullets that were fired from a different gun had been
recovered, there would be compelling evidence of a second gunman. No such
evidence exists.

"Using modern technology to limit ambient noise and slow down the tape, Van Praag counted 13 shot “impulses,” or wave forms resembling gunshots, and possibly more drowned out by screams."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/06/06/the-bobby-kennedy-assassination-tape-were-13-shots-fired-or-only-8/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2360ca90cf76

Oh, goody. More junk science. Explain how an audio engineer is qualified
to do forensic audio analysis. What training did he have to identify the
impulses as gunshots?

As usual you praise science when the finding suits your wacky WCR
theories, but not when it shows something else.

It never shows something else. Every scientific experiment conducted
affirms the findings of the WC.

WRONG! For example, the testing of the MC rifle by Robert Frazier
showed that it could not be aimed properly.

As it was received, it fired a few inches high and to the right and we
don't have any way of knowing if that was the condition it was in when
Oswald fired it at JFK or if it became misaligned when Oswald dropped it
behind the boxes. What we do know through ballistic matching is it was the
only rifle in the world that could have fired the only two bullets
recovered from the shooting, so whatever condition it was in, it got the
job done.

WRONG! It's hard to figure what problem you have with memory.
We've had this discussion many times. And here you are repeating it once
again.

1. If a person was going to go shoot the POTUS, (whom LHO liked, and
thought was a 'great leader') that person would practice with their
rifle.

2. The rifle in question had the kind of problem where the scope was
mounted incorrectly and could only be fixed by shimming up one of the 2
supports on the scope. There was a third support, but the Klein's
gunsmith didn't bother to put a screw in for that one.

3. Since the fix for the scope was the shimming up of the support, that
was the problem all along, and would have been a problem from the
beginning through any shooting that might have been done with the
rifle, such as practice.

4. If LHO had practiced with the rifle he would have found the scope
error and had it fixed, but that wasn't done. Therefore he did not
practice with the rifle.

5. If he didn't practice with the rifle, it probably means he didn't take
a shot at JFK.

Now onward to your usual complaint. Yes, the MC rifle was the only
weapon that could have fired the 2 bullets recovered in the murder.
However, where those 2 bullets were recovered state clearly that they
never hit or hurt anyone. Following that statement with "it got the job
done". It is unfortunate foolishness. There was absolutely no
information in the preceding sentences that could be construed as evidence
that the bullets in question killed or even hurt anyone!

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Yet the WCR has Oswald as a
superior shot and that it was easy to shoot JFK moving obliquely from the
window.

That is not what the WCR said and the shooting didn't require a superior
shot. Testimony indicated that by USMC standards Oswald was an average
marksman which would mean as compared to the general public, he was well
above average.

How quickly you forgot the statement someone made here that the DIs
were the ones that marked the scores that passed trainees, and that none
of them wanted their companies to lose people from lack of training, so
they 'helped' the scores where necessary. Oswald was known as a bad shot
to his buddies. He frequently got 'Maggie's Drawers' (missed the whole
target).

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Oswald hadn't had any practice for years since he came back from
Russia

We have no idea how much or how little Oswald practiced. We do know that
on 11/22/63 he only had 4 Carcano bullets left and they were sold in boxes
of 20.

No, we don't know that. His practice was not done, and that has been
proven above. as to having 4 bullets left from a box of bullets, you
can't even prove he had a box of bullets, much less that there was 4 left.
The FBI were unable to find anyplace where he might have bought
ammunition.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
and the inability to aim the rifle made it impossible to hit the
target as the first thing he ever aimed at without knowing about the
inability of the rifle to aim properly.

The ballistic matching shows that is an untrue statement.

WRONG! Ballistic matching proves only that a certain bullet came
through the barrel of a certain gun. It does NOT prove who (if anyone)
was hit by that bullet.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
The many shots
corroborates my list of multiple shots striking in Dealey Plaza. As well
as other statements.

So you use imaginary shots to support your goofy theories. Great approach.

The word "Imaginary" is in hopes that it will invalidate solid evidence.

You think what you imagine is solid evidence.

Post by mainframetech
Forget it. As to "Goofy", it's just another word intended to try and
lower the strength of the evidence without having to use real proof.
When proof is lacking, try ridicule.

Your proof is lacking so I do resort to ridicule.

Ah. You have admitted to using ridicule, and in a situation where you
had no sensible, intelligent answers. I see.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Bud

Post by deke
I think I know where all this is all going although nobody has said it
yet. Occam's Razor implies that a lone gunman is the simplest explanation
for the assassination. This is simply not true. It's not just a matter of
whether there was a lone gunman or not - many other things have to be
taken into consideration, such as the gunman's lack of marksmanship
skills, the inferior weapon he supposedly used, his lack of a reasonable
motive, evidence pointing to other shooters involved, etc, etc. When all
that is considered, the lone gunman theory is NOT the simplest
explanation.

You misunderstand Occam`s Razor. The idea that Kennedy was shot by one
person is simpler than him being shot by multiple gunmen ("Entities are
not to be multiplied without necessity"). What that means to this case is
if Oswald, shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD can satisfy what is
known then a more complex explanation is unlikely to be better.

The problem with the RFK killing is that there were those that thought
there were evidence of 14 bullets, and Sirhan's gun didn't carry that
many.

What people think is not always in line with reality. If 9 bullets had
been recovered or bullets that were fired from a different gun had been
recovered, there would be compelling evidence of a second gunman. No such
evidence exists.

"Using modern technology to limit ambient noise and slow down the tape, Van Praag counted 13 shot “impulses,” or wave forms resembling gunshots, and possibly more drowned out by screams."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/06/06/the-bobby-kennedy-assassination-tape-were-13-shots-fired-or-only-8/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2360ca90cf76

Oh, goody. More junk science. Explain how an audio engineer is qualified
to do forensic audio analysis. What training did he have to identify the
impulses as gunshots?

As usual you praise science when the finding suits your wacky WCR
theories, but not when it shows something else.

It never shows something else. Every scientific experiment conducted
affirms the findings of the WC.

WRONG! For example, the testing of the MC rifle by Robert Frazier
showed that it could not be aimed properly.

As it was received, it fired a few inches high and to the right and we
don't have any way of knowing if that was the condition it was in when
Oswald fired it at JFK or if it became misaligned when Oswald dropped it
behind the boxes. What we do know through ballistic matching is it was the
only rifle in the world that could have fired the only two bullets
recovered from the shooting, so whatever condition it was in, it got the
job done.

WRONG! It's hard to figure what problem you have with memory.
We've had this discussion many times. And here you are repeating it once
again.
1. If a person was going to go shoot the POTUS, (whom LHO liked, and
thought was a 'great leader') that person would practice with their
rifle.

How could he do that when he didn't even fetch his rifle until the night
before?

Post by mainframetech
2. The rifle in question had the kind of problem where the scope was
mounted incorrectly and could only be fixed by shimming up one of the 2
supports on the scope. There was a third support, but the Klein's
gunsmith didn't bother to put a screw in for that one.

Which doesn't prove what the alignment of the scope was a time of the
shooting but even if it was of by as much as it was when the FBI tested
it, that would only cause the rifle to be aimed a few inches off the
intended target. It would not preclude hitting that target.

Post by mainframetech
3. Since the fix for the scope was the shimming up of the support, that
was the problem all along, and would have been a problem from the
beginning through any shooting that might have been done with the
rifle, such as practice.
4. If LHO had practiced with the rifle he would have found the scope
error and had it fixed, but that wasn't done. Therefore he did not
practice with the rifle.

You don't find out a rifle is misaligned because your shots are a few
inches off target because that could be the result of human error. If I
miss a putt by two inches it doesn't mean by putter is misaligned.

Post by mainframetech
5. If he didn't practice with the rifle, it probably means he didn't take
a shot at JFK.

About as illogical as any of your other conclusions.

Post by mainframetech
Now onward to your usual complaint. Yes, the MC rifle was the only
weapon that could have fired the 2 bullets recovered in the murder.
However, where those 2 bullets were recovered state clearly that they
never hit or hurt anyone.

Yet you want to claim bullets that weren't recovered at all killed JFK.
Brilliant!!!

Post by mainframetech
Following that statement with "it got the job
done". It is unfortunate foolishness. There was absolutely no
information in the preceding sentences that could be construed as evidence
that the bullets in question killed or even hurt anyone!

Where is the evidence that your phantom bullets hit JFK?

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Yet the WCR has Oswald as a
superior shot and that it was easy to shoot JFK moving obliquely from the
window.

That is not what the WCR said and the shooting didn't require a superior
shot. Testimony indicated that by USMC standards Oswald was an average
marksman which would mean as compared to the general public, he was well
above average.

How quickly you forgot the statement someone made here that the DIs
were the ones that marked the scores that passed trainees, and that none
of them wanted their companies to lose people from lack of training, so
they 'helped' the scores where necessary. Oswald was known as a bad shot
to his buddies. He frequently got 'Maggie's Drawers' (missed the whole
target).

So to create and excuse for dismissing the documented scores recorded by
Oswald, you want to ASSUME his DIs fudged this scores even though you can
produce no evidence that happened. Instead you rely on anecdotal evidence.
If the reason for fudging his scores was to get him passed, why did they
bump him all the way up to Sharpshooter? A simple Marksman rating would
have qualified him.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Oswald hadn't had any practice for years since he came back from
Russia

We have no idea how much or how little Oswald practiced. We do know that
on 11/22/63 he only had 4 Carcano bullets left and they were sold in boxes
of 20.

No, we don't know that. His practice was not done,

Even if that were true, you would have no way of knowing that.

Post by mainframetech
and that has been proven above.

Nothing has been proven other than you have no concept of what proof is.

Post by mainframetech
as to having 4 bullets left from a box of bullets, you
can't even prove he had a box of bullets, much less that there was 4 left.
The FBI were unable to find anyplace where he might have bought
ammunition.

He had four left. The three he fired at JFK and the one he left in the
chamber of the rifle.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
and the inability to aim the rifle made it impossible to hit the
target as the first thing he ever aimed at without knowing about the
inability of the rifle to aim properly.

The ballistic matching shows that is an untrue statement.

WRONG! Ballistic matching proves only that a certain bullet came
through the barrel of a certain gun. It does NOT prove who (if anyone)
was hit by that bullet.

It tells us all the recovered bullets came from Oswald's rifle.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
The many shots
corroborates my list of multiple shots striking in Dealey Plaza. As well
as other statements.

So you use imaginary shots to support your goofy theories. Great approach.

The word "Imaginary" is in hopes that it will invalidate solid evidence.

You think what you imagine is solid evidence.

Post by mainframetech
Forget it. As to "Goofy", it's just another word intended to try and
lower the strength of the evidence without having to use real proof.
When proof is lacking, try ridicule.

Your proof is lacking so I do resort to ridicule.

Ah. You have admitted to using ridicule, and in a situation where you
had no sensible, intelligent answers. I see.

Intelligent answers are wasted on you.

[claviger]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
As usual you praise science when the finding suits your wacky WCR
theories, but not when it shows something else.

It never shows something else. Every scientific experiment conducted
affirms the findings of the WC.

WRONG! For example, the testing of the MC rifle by Robert Frazier
showed that it could not be aimed properly.

Correct. Now tell the rest of his analysis. The scope was off high/right,
which would favor a sniper hitting a moving target curving to the right.
Sadly possible dumb luck played a big part in this shooting incident.

Post by mainframetech
Yet the WCR has Oswald as a superior shot and that it was easy to
shoot JFK moving obliquely from the window.

Not at all. What you don't comprehend the longest shot was inside 100
yards, defined as short range by both the Military and Hunters. I doubt
you fired rifles much in the service and never been hunting, or you would
already know this fact. Old saying: Closer to the target the luckier you
get.

Post by mainframetech
Oswald hadn't had any practice for years since he came back from
Russia and the inability to aim the rifle made it impossible to hit the
target as the first thing he ever aimed at without knowing about the
inability of the rifle to aim properly.

You have no idea what training LHO had or didn't have during his two years
in the Soviet Union. Did you know he joined to a shooting club in Minsk?
Who operated that shooting club, Spetsnaz? Marina claims he frequently
practiced with his rifle at home and elsewhere. She said LHO went to a
place called "Lopfield". The local "poor man's practice range" was the
Trinity River Bottoms a short distance from Love Field and two well known
gun shops. Several witnesses claimed to see LHO at a new firing range 15
minutes from both Irving and Oak Cliff. Empty boxes of 6.5 mm ammo were
found at a local gravel pit near Irving. So LHO had many places nearby to
practice with rifles.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
The many shots corroborates my list of multiple shots
striking in Dealey Plaza.

You have been asked several times to tell us where those snipers
were located, the weapons they used, and the trajectories of all
those shots. So far, no answers to any of these basic questions.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
As well as other statements.

What other statements? Don't keep us in suspense.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
So you use imaginary shots to support your goofy theories.
Great approach.

The word "Imaginary" in hopes that it will invalidate solid evidence.

OK, what solid evidence?

Post by mainframetech
Forget it. As to "Goofy", it's just another word intended to try and
lower the strength of the evidence without having to use real proof.
When proof is lacking, try ridicule.

Your idea of proof is lacking in followthrough.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
I guess you don't like the position because you keep getting
corrected.

Not by you.

Of course by me. Rarely do others bother. But I'm conscientious
and don't want any of your false info to get out.
Chris

So why don't you be real conscientious and answer all
the basic questions above?

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
As usual you praise science when the finding suits your wacky WCR
theories, but not when it shows something else.

It never shows something else. Every scientific experiment conducted
affirms the findings of the WC.

WRONG! For example, the testing of the MC rifle by Robert Frazier
showed that it could not be aimed properly.

Correct. Now tell the rest of his analysis. The scope was off high/right,
which would favor a sniper hitting a moving target curving to the right.
Sadly possible dumb luck played a big part in this shooting incident.

Silly. And we don't know for sure when the scope was off center.

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
Yet the WCR has Oswald as a superior shot and that it was easy to
shoot JFK moving obliquely from the window.

Not at all. What you don't comprehend the longest shot was inside 100
yards, defined as short range by both the Military and Hunters. I doubt

So what? His rifle is inaccurate at closer ranges.

Post by claviger
you fired rifles much in the service and never been hunting, or you would
already know this fact. Old saying: Closer to the target the luckier you
get.

Post by mainframetech
Oswald hadn't had any practice for years since he came back from
Russia and the inability to aim the rifle made it impossible to hit the
target as the first thing he ever aimed at without knowing about the
inability of the rifle to aim properly.

You have no idea what training LHO had or didn't have during his two years
in the Soviet Union. Did you know he joined to a shooting club in Minsk?

Not really. It was just the KGB keeping an eye on him.

Post by claviger
Who operated that shooting club, Spetsnaz? Marina claims he frequently
practiced with his rifle at home and elsewhere. She said LHO went to a
place called "Lopfield". The local "poor man's practice range" was the

No, just worked the bolt. Stop misrepresenting the facts.

Post by claviger
Trinity River Bottoms a short distance from Love Field and two well known
gun shops. Several witnesses claimed to see LHO at a new firing range 15
minutes from both Irving and Oak Cliff. Empty boxes of 6.5 mm ammo were
found at a local gravel pit near Irving. So LHO had many places nearby to
practice with rifles.

Hoazs. He didn't have that many rounds to practice with.

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
The many shots corroborates my list of multiple shots
striking in Dealey Plaza.

You have been asked several times to tell us where those snipers
were located, the weapons they used, and the trajectories of all
those shots. So far, no answers to any of these basic questions.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
As well as other statements.

What other statements? Don't keep us in suspense.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
So you use imaginary shots to support your goofy theories.
Great approach.

The word "Imaginary" in hopes that it will invalidate solid evidence.

OK, what solid evidence?

Post by mainframetech
Forget it. As to "Goofy", it's just another word intended to try and
lower the strength of the evidence without having to use real proof.
When proof is lacking, try ridicule.

Your idea of proof is lacking in followthrough.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
I guess you don't like the position because you keep getting
corrected.

Not by you.

Of course by me. Rarely do others bother. But I'm conscientious
and don't want any of your false info to get out.
Chris

So why don't you be real conscientious and answer all
the basic questions above?

[claviger]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
As usual you praise science when the finding suits your wacky WCR
theories, but not when it shows something else.

It never shows something else. Every scientific experiment conducted
affirms the findings of the WC.

WRONG! For example, the testing of the MC rifle by Robert Frazier
showed that it could not be aimed properly.

Correct. Now tell the rest of his analysis. The scope was off high/right,
which would favor a sniper hitting a moving target curving to the right.
Sadly possible dumb luck played a big part in this shooting incident.

Silly. And we don't know for sure when the scope was off center.

Correct, or how much it made a difference. The FBI expert said
if anything, it helped the sniper not the targeted passenger.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
Yet the WCR has Oswald as a superior shot and that it was easy to
shoot JFK moving obliquely from the window.

Not at all. What you don't comprehend the longest shot was inside 100
yards, defined as short range by both the Military and Hunters. I doubt

So what? His rifle is inaccurate at closer ranges.

How would you know that? The further from the target the more offset of
trajectory. For a closer shot the sniper might use the fixed sights which
would be accurate.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger
you fired rifles much in the service and never been hunting, or you would
already know this fact. Old saying: Closer to the target the luckier you
get.

Post by mainframetech
Oswald hadn't had any practice for years since he came back from
Russia and the inability to aim the rifle made it impossible to hit the
target as the first thing he ever aimed at without knowing about the
inability of the rifle to aim properly.

You have no idea what training LHO had or didn't have during his two years
in the Soviet Union. Did you know he joined to a shooting club in Minsk?

Not really. It was just the KGB keeping an eye on him.

You got a memo from the KGB on that?

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger
Who operated that shooting club, Spetsnaz? Marina claims he frequently
practiced with his rifle at home and elsewhere. She said LHO went to a
place called "Lopfield". The local "poor man's practice range" was the

No, just worked the bolt. Stop misrepresenting the facts.

LHO took a bus all the way to "Lopfield" just to work the bolt?
He could stay home and do that.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger
Trinity River Bottoms a short distance from Love Field and two well known
gun shops. Several witnesses claimed to see LHO at a new firing range 15
minutes from both Irving and Oak Cliff. Empty boxes of 6.5 mm ammo were
found at a local gravel pit near Irving. So LHO had many places nearby to
practice with rifles.

Hoazs.

Hoax
https://www.facebook.com/Hoaz-504571616314252/

Post by Anthony Marsh
He didn't have that many rounds to practice with.

How would you know?

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
As usual you praise science when the finding suits your wacky WCR
theories, but not when it shows something else.

It never shows something else. Every scientific experiment conducted
affirms the findings of the WC.

WRONG! For example, the testing of the MC rifle by Robert Frazier
showed that it could not be aimed properly.

Correct. Now tell the rest of his analysis. The scope was off high/right,
which would favor a sniper hitting a moving target curving to the right.
Sadly possible dumb luck played a big part in this shooting incident.

Silly. And we don't know for sure when the scope was off center.

Correct, or how much it made a difference. The FBI expert said
if anything, it helped the sniper not the targeted passenger.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
Yet the WCR has Oswald as a superior shot and that it was easy to
shoot JFK moving obliquely from the window.

Not at all. What you don't comprehend the longest shot was inside 100
yards, defined as short range by both the Military and Hunters. I doubt

So what? His rifle is inaccurate at closer ranges.

How would you know that? The further from the target the more offset of
trajectory. For a closer shot the sniper might use the fixed sights which
would be accurate.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger
you fired rifles much in the service and never been hunting, or you would
already know this fact. Old saying: Closer to the target the luckier you
get.

Post by mainframetech
Oswald hadn't had any practice for years since he came back from
Russia and the inability to aim the rifle made it impossible to hit the
target as the first thing he ever aimed at without knowing about the
inability of the rifle to aim properly.

You have no idea what training LHO had or didn't have during his two years
in the Soviet Union. Did you know he joined to a shooting club in Minsk?

Not really. It was just the KGB keeping an eye on him.

You got a memo from the KGB on that?

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger
Who operated that shooting club, Spetsnaz? Marina claims he frequently
practiced with his rifle at home and elsewhere. She said LHO went to a
place called "Lopfield". The local "poor man's practice range" was the

No, just worked the bolt. Stop misrepresenting the facts.

LHO took a bus all the way to "Lopfield" just to work the bolt?
He could stay home and do that.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger
Trinity River Bottoms a short distance from Love Field and two well known
gun shops. Several witnesses claimed to see LHO at a new firing range 15
minutes from both Irving and Oak Cliff. Empty boxes of 6.5 mm ammo were
found at a local gravel pit near Irving. So LHO had many places nearby to
practice with rifles.

Hoazs.

Hoax
https://www.facebook.com/Hoaz-504571616314252/

Post by Anthony Marsh
He didn't have that many rounds to practice with.

How would you know?

Becaause we know that he was cheap.

[mainframetech]

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
As usual you praise science when the finding suits your wacky WCR
theories, but not when it shows something else.

It never shows something else. Every scientific experiment conducted
affirms the findings of the WC.

WRONG! For example, the testing of the MC rifle by Robert Frazier
showed that it could not be aimed properly.

Correct. Now tell the rest of his analysis. The scope was off high/right,
which would favor a sniper hitting a moving target curving to the right.
Sadly possible dumb luck played a big part in this shooting incident.

Or since you think Oswald was such a good shooter, he would lead the
target to accommodate the movement, and so the scope would make his shot
go off. All silliness since Oswald didn't fire the rifle. But someone
did, and no one was hit or hurt by any MC type bullet.

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
Yet the WCR has Oswald as a superior shot and that it was easy to
shoot JFK moving obliquely from the window.

Not at all. What you don't comprehend the longest shot was inside 100
yards, defined as short range by both the Military and Hunters. I doubt
you fired rifles much in the service and never been hunting, or you would
already know this fact. Old saying: Closer to the target the luckier you
get.

What you don't comprehend is that an experienced sniper looked at the
whole scene and decided it was a difficult shot, even for a real sniper.
Aside from that, we have the tale that Marine scores were taken by the
DIs, and that they would at times 'help' the shooter so they wouldn't
fail. Otherwise it would be a mark against the trainer. Add to that the
fact that Oswald's buddies said that he was a bad shot, and that he got
'Maggie's Drawers' (missed the whole target) many times.

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
Oswald hadn't had any practice for years since he came back from
Russia and the inability to aim the rifle made it impossible to hit the
target as the first thing he ever aimed at without knowing about the
inability of the rifle to aim properly.

You have no idea what training LHO had or didn't have during his two years
in the Soviet Union. Did you know he joined to a shooting club in Minsk?

I'm aware that Oswald went hunting with some guys in Russia, but it
was occasional, not every day. That why I said that he "hadn't had any
practice for years since he came back from Russia " (see above).

Post by claviger
Who operated that shooting club, Spetsnaz? Marina claims he frequently
practiced with his rifle at home and elsewhere. She said LHO went to a
place called "Lopfield". The local "poor man's practice range" was the
Trinity River Bottoms a short distance from Love Field and two well known
gun shops. Several witnesses claimed to see LHO at a new firing range 15
minutes from both Irving and Oak Cliff. Empty boxes of 6.5 mm ammo were
found at a local gravel pit near Irving. So LHO had many places nearby to
practice with rifles.

You've been trying to squeeze in that stupid story for a long time.
It was rejected by the FBI and the WC. And it didn't make much sense.
You cling to it because you need for Oswald to have some practice, but if
he had practiced, he would have noticed the failure of the scope and had
it fixed before taking on the POTUS. It wasn't fixed, and so he didn't
practice. You've also been shown the statement of Marina that the FBI
harassed her and suggested that if she didn't cooperate she would be sent
back home, which she had made clear she didn't want to do. She would
probably say whatever they wanted her to say. Oswald was dead and wasn't
worth defending at the time. Later, she began saying that he was
railroaded.

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
The many shots corroborates my list of multiple shots
striking in Dealey Plaza.

You have been asked several times to tell us where those snipers
were located, the weapons they used, and the trajectories of all
those shots. So far, no answers to any of these basic questions.

I'm always surprised when you have no idea how silly that sounds,
yet say it again and again. Knowing a bullet has struck somewhere doesn't
need to have trajectory or firing location specified, and it's doubtful
that YOU the famous 'trajectory expert' would be able to calculate such if
you knew where the bullet had struck. For example, here's a bullet
strike, tell me where the firing location was:

Loading Image...

Well?

Chris

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
As well as other statements.

What other statements? Don't keep us in suspense.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
So you use imaginary shots to support your goofy theories.
Great approach.

The word "Imaginary" in hopes that it will invalidate solid evidence.

OK, what solid evidence?

Post by mainframetech
Forget it. As to "Goofy", it's just another word intended to try and
lower the strength of the evidence without having to use real proof.
When proof is lacking, try ridicule.

Your idea of proof is lacking in followthrough.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
I guess you don't like the position because you keep getting
corrected.

Not by you.

Of course by me. Rarely do others bother. But I'm conscientious
and don't want any of your false info to get out.
Chris

So why don't you be real conscientious and answer all
the basic questions above?

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
As usual you praise science when the finding suits your wacky WCR
theories, but not when it shows something else.

It never shows something else. Every scientific experiment conducted
affirms the findings of the WC.

WRONG! For example, the testing of the MC rifle by Robert Frazier
showed that it could not be aimed properly.

Correct. Now tell the rest of his analysis. The scope was off high/right,
which would favor a sniper hitting a moving target curving to the right.
Sadly possible dumb luck played a big part in this shooting incident.

Or since you think Oswald was such a good shooter, he would lead the
target to accommodate the movement, and so the scope would make his shot
go off. All silliness since Oswald didn't fire the rifle. But someone
did, and no one was hit or hurt by any MC type bullet.

We don't know what condition the scope was in at the time of the shooting
and if it was not zeroed whether Oswald knew that or not. We don't know
how much of the shooting was skill and how much of it was luck. What we do
know from the ballistic matching is that the only bullet and shells
recovered from the shooting came from Oswald's rifle which tells a
sensible person the Carcano was the murder weapon. But you can pretend
there were other rifles involved if that makes it more interesting for
you.

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
Yet the WCR has Oswald as a superior shot and that it was easy to
shoot JFK moving obliquely from the window.

Not at all. What you don't comprehend the longest shot was inside 100
yards, defined as short range by both the Military and Hunters. I doubt
you fired rifles much in the service and never been hunting, or you would
already know this fact. Old saying: Closer to the target the luckier you
get.

What you don't comprehend is that an experienced sniper looked at the
whole scene and decided it was a difficult shot, even for a real sniper.

That's what some writer claimed an experienced sniper said. Of course he
didn't elaborate as to what would make such a short shot at a target
moving slowly and almost directly away from the shooter so difficult. Not
only were the shots not difficult, the shooting wasn't all that great. Two
hits out of three shots with the two hits being almost a foot apart is not
exactly world class shooting. It would probably win you the booby prize at
your local turkey shoot.

Post by mainframetech
Aside from that, we have the tale that Marine scores were taken by the
DIs, and that they would at times 'help' the shooter so they wouldn't
fail. Otherwise it would be a mark against the trainer. Add to that the
fact that Oswald's buddies said that he was a bad shot, and that he got
'Maggie's Drawers' (missed the whole target) many times.

The DIs could have qualified Oswald simply by fudging his score to
marksman so why would they have bothered to elevate him to the next level
of sharpshooter?

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
Oswald hadn't had any practice for years since he came back from
Russia and the inability to aim the rifle made it impossible to hit the
target as the first thing he ever aimed at without knowing about the
inability of the rifle to aim properly.

You have no idea what training LHO had or didn't have during his two years
in the Soviet Union. Did you know he joined to a shooting club in Minsk?

I'm aware that Oswald went hunting with some guys in Russia, but it
was occasional, not every day. That why I said that he "hadn't had any
practice for years since he came back from Russia " (see above).

You have no idea how much Oswald practiced so you just assume he never
practiced.

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Who operated that shooting club, Spetsnaz? Marina claims he frequently
practiced with his rifle at home and elsewhere. She said LHO went to a
place called "Lopfield". The local "poor man's practice range" was the
Trinity River Bottoms a short distance from Love Field and two well known
gun shops. Several witnesses claimed to see LHO at a new firing range 15
minutes from both Irving and Oak Cliff. Empty boxes of 6.5 mm ammo were
found at a local gravel pit near Irving. So LHO had many places nearby to
practice with rifles.

You've been trying to squeeze in that stupid story for a long time.
It was rejected by the FBI and the WC. And it didn't make much sense.
You cling to it because you need for Oswald to have some practice, but if
he had practiced, he would have noticed the failure of the scope and had
it fixed before taking on the POTUS. It wasn't fixed, and so he didn't
practice. You've also been shown the statement of Marina that the FBI
harassed her and suggested that if she didn't cooperate she would be sent
back home, which she had made clear she didn't want to do. She would
probably say whatever they wanted her to say. Oswald was dead and wasn't
worth defending at the time. Later, she began saying that he was
railroaded.

Whatever you need to convince yourself of to make your theories seem
plausible to you.

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
The many shots corroborates my list of multiple shots
striking in Dealey Plaza.

You have been asked several times to tell us where those snipers
were located, the weapons they used, and the trajectories of all
those shots. So far, no answers to any of these basic questions.

I'm always surprised when you have no idea how silly that sounds,
yet say it again and again. Knowing a bullet has struck somewhere doesn't
need to have trajectory or firing location specified, and it's doubtful
that YOU the famous 'trajectory expert' would be able to calculate such if
you knew where the bullet had struck. For example, here's a bullet
http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg
Well?

Yes it's kind of hard to determine where a shooter was located when you
have no bullets, no shells, no rifle, and no witnesses but it's very easy
to dream up imaginary shooters anywhere you want them to be.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
As usual you praise science when the finding suits your wacky WCR
theories, but not when it shows something else.

It never shows something else. Every scientific experiment conducted
affirms the findings of the WC.

WRONG! For example, the testing of the MC rifle by Robert Frazier
showed that it could not be aimed properly.

Correct. Now tell the rest of his analysis. The scope was off high/right,
which would favor a sniper hitting a moving target curving to the right.
Sadly possible dumb luck played a big part in this shooting incident.

Or since you think Oswald was such a good shooter, he would lead the
target to accommodate the movement, and so the scope would make his shot
go off. All silliness since Oswald didn't fire the rifle. But someone
did, and no one was hit or hurt by any MC type bullet.

We don't know what condition the scope was in at the time of the shooting
and if it was not zeroed whether Oswald knew that or not. We don't know
how much of the shooting was skill and how much of it was luck. What we do
know from the ballistic matching is that the only bullet and shells
recovered from the shooting came from Oswald's rifle which tells a
sensible person the Carcano was the murder weapon. But you can pretend
there were other rifles involved if that makes it more interesting for
you.

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
Yet the WCR has Oswald as a superior shot and that it was easy to
shoot JFK moving obliquely from the window.

Not at all. What you don't comprehend the longest shot was inside 100
yards, defined as short range by both the Military and Hunters. I doubt
you fired rifles much in the service and never been hunting, or you would
already know this fact. Old saying: Closer to the target the luckier you
get.

What you don't comprehend is that an experienced sniper looked at the
whole scene and decided it was a difficult shot, even for a real sniper.

That's what some writer claimed an experienced sniper said. Of course he
didn't elaborate as to what would make such a short shot at a target
moving slowly and almost directly away from the shooter so difficult. Not
only were the shots not difficult, the shooting wasn't all that great. Two
hits out of three shots with the two hits being almost a foot apart is not
exactly world class shooting. It would probably win you the booby prize at
your local turkey shoot.

Post by mainframetech
Aside from that, we have the tale that Marine scores were taken by the
DIs, and that they would at times 'help' the shooter so they wouldn't
fail. Otherwise it would be a mark against the trainer. Add to that the
fact that Oswald's buddies said that he was a bad shot, and that he got
'Maggie's Drawers' (missed the whole target) many times.

The DIs could have qualified Oswald simply by fudging his score to
marksman so why would they have bothered to elevate him to the next level
of sharpshooter?

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
Oswald hadn't had any practice for years since he came back from
Russia and the inability to aim the rifle made it impossible to hit the
target as the first thing he ever aimed at without knowing about the
inability of the rifle to aim properly.

You have no idea what training LHO had or didn't have during his two years
in the Soviet Union. Did you know he joined to a shooting club in Minsk?

I'm aware that Oswald went hunting with some guys in Russia, but it
was occasional, not every day. That why I said that he "hadn't had any
practice for years since he came back from Russia " (see above).

You have no idea how much Oswald practiced so you just assume he never
practiced.

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Who operated that shooting club, Spetsnaz? Marina claims he frequently
practiced with his rifle at home and elsewhere. She said LHO went to a
place called "Lopfield". The local "poor man's practice range" was the
Trinity River Bottoms a short distance from Love Field and two well known
gun shops. Several witnesses claimed to see LHO at a new firing range 15
minutes from both Irving and Oak Cliff. Empty boxes of 6.5 mm ammo were
found at a local gravel pit near Irving. So LHO had many places nearby to
practice with rifles.

You've been trying to squeeze in that stupid story for a long time.
It was rejected by the FBI and the WC. And it didn't make much sense.
You cling to it because you need for Oswald to have some practice, but if
he had practiced, he would have noticed the failure of the scope and had
it fixed before taking on the POTUS. It wasn't fixed, and so he didn't
practice. You've also been shown the statement of Marina that the FBI
harassed her and suggested that if she didn't cooperate she would be sent
back home, which she had made clear she didn't want to do. She would
probably say whatever they wanted her to say. Oswald was dead and wasn't
worth defending at the time. Later, she began saying that he was
railroaded.

Whatever you need to convince yourself of to make your theories seem
plausible to you.

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
The many shots corroborates my list of multiple shots
striking in Dealey Plaza.

You have been asked several times to tell us where those snipers
were located, the weapons they used, and the trajectories of all
those shots. So far, no answers to any of these basic questions.

I'm always surprised when you have no idea how silly that sounds,
yet say it again and again. Knowing a bullet has struck somewhere doesn't
need to have trajectory or firing location specified, and it's doubtful
that YOU the famous 'trajectory expert' would be able to calculate such if
you knew where the bullet had struck. For example, here's a bullet
http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg
Well?

Yes it's kind of hard to determine where a shooter was located when you
have no bullets, no shells, no rifle, and no witnesses but it's very easy
to dream up imaginary shooters anywhere you want them to be.

Not at all. We have the shots recorded.

[claviger]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
Yes it's kind of hard to determine where a shooter was located when you
have no bullets, no shells, no rifle, and no witnesses but it's very easy
to dream up imaginary shooters anywhere you want them to be.

Not at all. We have the shots recorded.

Where did they come from?

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
Yes it's kind of hard to determine where a shooter was located when you
have no bullets, no shells, no rifle, and no witnesses but it's very easy
to dream up imaginary shooters anywhere you want them to be.

Not at all. We have the shots recorded.

Where did they come from?

The TSBD and the grassy knoll.
Were you asleep in 1978?

[claviger]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
Yes it's kind of hard to determine where a shooter was located when you
have no bullets, no shells, no rifle, and no witnesses but it's very easy
to dream up imaginary shooters anywhere you want them to be.

Not at all. We have the shots recorded.

Where did they come from?

The TSBD and the grassy knoll.
Were you asleep in 1978?

MFT disagrees with your limited answer. Many shots were fired
from multiple locations all over Dealey Plaza.

[mainframetech]

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
Yes it's kind of hard to determine where a shooter was located when you
have no bullets, no shells, no rifle, and no witnesses but it's very easy
to dream up imaginary shooters anywhere you want them to be.

Not at all. We have the shots recorded.

Where did they come from?

The TSBD and the grassy knoll.
Were you asleep in 1978?

MFT disagrees with your limited answer. Many shots were fired
from multiple locations all over Dealey Plaza.

Naturally, there are witnesses. Find them in the book "The Men that
Don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. And also see a list of the
shooters and their assigned positions. There were many shooters to
guarantee killing the target.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
Yes it's kind of hard to determine where a shooter was located when you
have no bullets, no shells, no rifle, and no witnesses but it's very easy
to dream up imaginary shooters anywhere you want them to be.

Not at all. We have the shots recorded.

Where did they come from?

The TSBD and the grassy knoll.
Were you asleep in 1978?

MFT disagrees with your limited answer. Many shots were fired
from multiple locations all over Dealey Plaza.

Naturally, there are witnesses. Find them in the book "The Men that
Don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. And also see a list of the
shooters and their assigned positions. There were many shooters to
guarantee killing the target.

I quit reading comic books when I was still a kid.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
Yes it's kind of hard to determine where a shooter was located when you
have no bullets, no shells, no rifle, and no witnesses but it's very easy
to dream up imaginary shooters anywhere you want them to be.

Not at all. We have the shots recorded.

Where did they come from?

The TSBD and the grassy knoll.
Were you asleep in 1978?

MFT disagrees with your limited answer. Many shots were fired
from multiple locations all over Dealey Plaza.

So what? Disagree with him on many things.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by deke
I think I know where all this is all going although nobody has said it
yet. Occam's Razor implies that a lone gunman is the simplest explanation
for the assassination. This is simply not true. It's not just a matter of
whether there was a lone gunman or not - many other things have to be
taken into consideration, such as the gunman's lack of marksmanship
skills, the inferior weapon he supposedly used, his lack of a reasonable
motive, evidence pointing to other shooters involved, etc, etc. When all
that is considered, the lone gunman theory is NOT the simplest
explanation.

Occam's Razor is always and only used to avoid admitting an inconvenient
truth. Someone would use it to argue that plate tectonics is too
complicated an explanation for a simple event.

[claviger]

Occam's Razor

CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
labyrinthine, convoluted explanation is more correct.

It's called Olliie's Razor :
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

[bigdog]

Post by claviger
Occam's Razor
CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
labyrinthine, convoluted explanation is more correct.
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

It's the Rube Goldberg approach.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by claviger
Occam's Razor
CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
labyrinthine, convoluted explanation is more correct.
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

It's the Rube Goldberg approach.

LNs patting themselves on the back for nothing. A mutual admiration
society.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by claviger
Occam's Razor
CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
labyrinthine, convoluted explanation is more correct.
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

Since I brought up Rube Goldberg, here's a Rube Goldberg type contraption
courtesy of Mythbusters.

https://coolmaterial.com/roundup/rube-goldberg-machines/

[mainframetech]

Post by claviger
Occam's Razor
CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
labyrinthine, convoluted explanation is more correct.
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

Sounds like you can't understand some things that CTs have said and
need an excuse for why that is. So you blame them for complexity.

Chris

[claviger]

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Occam's Razor
CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
labyrinthine, convoluted explanation is more correct.
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

Sounds like you can't understand some things that CTs have said and
need an excuse for why that is. So you blame them for complexity.
Chris

CTs thrive on complexity. It's a mental addiction they get high on.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Occam's Razor
CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
labyrinthine, convoluted explanation is more correct.
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

Sounds like you can't understand some things that CTs have said and
need an excuse for why that is. So you blame them for complexity.
Chris

CTs thrive on complexity. It's a mental addiction they get high on.

All you do is make personal insults. Never debate facts.

[mainframetech]

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Occam's Razor
CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
labyrinthine, convoluted explanation is more correct.
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

Sounds like you can't understand some things that CTs have said and
need an excuse for why that is. So you blame them for complexity.
Chris

CTs thrive on complexity. It's a mental addiction they get high on.

You must be explaining why they're so smart. Thank you.

Chris

[claviger]

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Occam's Razor
CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
convoluted, labyrinthine explanation is more correct.
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

Sounds like you can't understand some things that
CTs have said and need an excuse for why that is.

Don't need an excuse. CTs have no concept of wholistic thinking.
Some intellectuals refer to it as formal logic or scientific analysis.

Post by mainframetech
So you blame them for complexity.
Chris

Yes, because CTs need complexity to make their theories work.

[mainframetech]

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Occam's Razor
CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
convoluted, labyrinthine explanation is more correct.
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

Sounds like you can't understand some things that
CTs have said and need an excuse for why that is.

Don't need an excuse. CTs have no concept of wholistic thinking.
Some intellectuals refer to it as formal logic or scientific analysis.

I think you'll find that your favorite words to drop are 'Holistic
thinking'. No 'W'. Hopefully you know more about the theory than your
spelling suggests.

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
So you blame them for complexity.
Chris

Yes, because CTs need complexity to make their theories work.

Thank you. This case has much complexity, mainly introduced by humans
trying to blame it on a 'patsy'.

Chris

[claviger]

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Occam's Razor
CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
convoluted, labyrinthine explanation is more correct.
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

Sounds like you can't understand some things that
CTs have said and need an excuse for why that is.

Don't need an excuse. CTs have no concept of wholistic thinking.
Some intellectuals refer to it as formal logic or scientific analysis.

I think you'll find that your favorite words to drop are 'Holistic
thinking'. No 'W'. Hopefully you know more about the theory than
your spelling suggests.

Your have a special talent for putting your ignorance on display, and you
have it backwards. Holistic is for the collective health of mind and
body. Wholistic is the ability to understand the whole entity of anything
and how all parts fit together. The reason why you can't explain the
positions and trajectories for any of your snipers.

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
So you blame them for complexity.
Chris

Yes, because CTs need complexity to make their theories work.

Thank you. This case has much complexity, mainly introduced by
humans trying to blame it on a 'patsy'.
Chris

You have no proof whatsoever LHO was anything but a Communist punk who
shot the President to get attention. He was not a patsy. He said that to
play games with the Press and net in all the gullible guppies.

[mainframetech]

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Occam's Razor
CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
convoluted, labyrinthine explanation is more correct.
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

Sounds like you can't understand some things that
CTs have said and need an excuse for why that is.

Don't need an excuse. CTs have no concept of wholistic thinking.
Some intellectuals refer to it as formal logic or scientific analysis.

I think you'll find that your favorite words to drop are 'Holistic
thinking'. No 'W'. Hopefully you know more about the theory than
your spelling suggests.

Your have a special talent for putting your ignorance on display, and you
have it backwards. Holistic is for the collective health of mind and
body. Wholistic is the ability to understand the whole entity of anything
and how all parts fit together. The reason why you can't explain the
positions and trajectories for any of your snipers.

I've come to realize that when LNs begin insults and ad hominem attacks, that they have run out of intelligent things to say in support of their beliefs.

You'll find that 'wholistic' is just another way to spell 'holistic' and does not have any separate meaning. Anyone familiar with the methods would not make the mistake. So I think you're putting us on.

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
So you blame them for complexity.
Chris

Yes, because CTs need complexity to make their theories work.

Thank you. This case has much complexity, mainly introduced by
humans trying to blame it on a 'patsy'.
Chris

You have no proof whatsoever LHO was anything but a Communist punk who
shot the President to get attention. He was not a patsy. He said that to
play games with the Press and net in all the gullible guppies.

Have you realized yet that you saying something like he was a punk,
etc. does not make it so? That you would have to add some evidence that
might help to convince people. Make sure it's facts.

Chris

[claviger]

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Occam's Razor
CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
convoluted, labyrinthine explanation is more correct.
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

Sounds like you can't understand some things that
CTs have said and need an excuse for why that is.

Don't need an excuse. CTs have no concept of wholistic thinking.
Some intellectuals refer to it as formal logic or scientific analysis.

I think you'll find that your favorite words to drop are 'Holistic
thinking'. No 'W'. Hopefully you know more about the theory than
your spelling suggests.

Your have a special talent for putting your ignorance on display, and you
have it backwards. Holistic is for the collective health of mind and
body. Wholistic is the ability to understand the whole entity of anything
and how all parts fit together. The reason why you can't explain the
positions and trajectories for any of your snipers.

I've come to realize that when LNs begin insults and ad hominem attacks,
that they have run out of intelligent things to say in support of their beliefs.
You'll find that 'wholistic' is just another way to spell 'holistic' and does
not have any separate meaning. Anyone familiar with the methods would
not make the mistake. So I think you're putting us on.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE & USAGE
Wholistic vs Holistic
The two words "wholistic" and "holistic" have very different meanings,
but there is some confusion and they are often used in an incorrect
manner. The two words have very distinct meanings though somewhat
similar in definition. Wholistic refers to the whole, a whole item or whole
body of a person or thing. The word defines the consideration of the
entire structure or makeup, which includes the body, mind and the spirit
in the case of a human being. The word holistic is connected to holism,
which focuses on the total entity and the interdependence of the diverse
parts of this totality. Holistic has to do with the healing systems that are
considered alternative like homeopathy and Ayurveda that deal with the
human body as an interconnected whole .
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/139505/wholistic-vs-holistic

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
So you blame them for complexity.
Chris

Yes, because CTs need complexity to make their theories work.

Thank you. This case has much complexity, mainly introduced by
humans trying to blame it on a 'patsy'.
Chris

You have no proof whatsoever LHO was anything but a Communist punk
who shot the President to get attention. He was not a patsy. He said that
to play games with the Press and net in all the gullible guppies.

Have you realized yet that you saying something like he was a punk,
etc. does not make it so? That you would have to add some evidence
that might help to convince people. Make sure it's facts.
Chris

He was anti-USA, anti-American, anti-Democracy, anti-Authority,
anti-Free Speech (by political enemies), and applauded American
enemies like Cuba. He was fired from every job for having a bad
attitude, except the TSBD but now we know why he stayed on for
that job. LHO was a wife beater and a lousy father to his children.
Look at the legacy he left them to deal with. He only thought about
himself and never about what his kids would have to endure after
he murdered a popular President of the USA. The guy acted like a
perpetual teenage punk all his life.

[mainframetech]

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Occam's Razor
CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
convoluted, labyrinthine explanation is more correct.
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

Sounds like you can't understand some things that
CTs have said and need an excuse for why that is.

Don't need an excuse. CTs have no concept of wholistic thinking.
Some intellectuals refer to it as formal logic or scientific analysis.

I think you'll find that your favorite words to drop are 'Holistic
thinking'. No 'W'. Hopefully you know more about the theory than
your spelling suggests.

Your have a special talent for putting your ignorance on display, and you
have it backwards. Holistic is for the collective health of mind and
body. Wholistic is the ability to understand the whole entity of anything
and how all parts fit together. The reason why you can't explain the
positions and trajectories for any of your snipers.

I've come to realize that when LNs begin insults and ad hominem attacks,
that they have run out of intelligent things to say in support of their beliefs.
You'll find that 'wholistic' is just another way to spell 'holistic' and does
not have any separate meaning. Anyone familiar with the methods would
not make the mistake. So I think you're putting us on.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE & USAGE
Wholistic vs Holistic
The two words "wholistic" and "holistic" have very different meanings,
but there is some confusion and they are often used in an incorrect
manner. The two words have very distinct meanings though somewhat
similar in definition. Wholistic refers to the whole, a whole item or whole
body of a person or thing. The word defines the consideration of the
entire structure or makeup, which includes the body, mind and the spirit
in the case of a human being. The word holistic is connected to holism,
which focuses on the total entity and the interdependence of the diverse
parts of this totality. Holistic has to do with the healing systems that are
considered alternative like homeopathy and Ayurveda that deal with the
human body as an interconnected whole .
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/139505/wholistic-vs-holistic

Ah good! Got you to learn the meaning of the word you keep throwing
around.

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
So you blame them for complexity.
Chris

Yes, because CTs need complexity to make their theories work.

Thank you. This case has much complexity, mainly introduced by
humans trying to blame it on a 'patsy'.
Chris

You have no proof whatsoever LHO was anything but a Communist punk
who shot the President to get attention. He was not a patsy. He said that
to play games with the Press and net in all the gullible guppies.

Have you realized yet that you saying something like he was a punk,
etc. does not make it so? That you would have to add some evidence
that might help to convince people. Make sure it's facts.
Chris

He was anti-USA, anti-American, anti-Democracy, anti-Authority,
anti-Free Speech (by political enemies), and applauded American
enemies like Cuba. He was fired from every job for having a bad
attitude, except the TSBD but now we know why he stayed on for
that job. LHO was a wife beater and a lousy father to his children.
Look at the legacy he left them to deal with. He only thought about
himself and never about what his kids would have to endure after
he murdered a popular President of the USA. The guy acted like a
perpetual teenage punk all his life.

There's not much facts in your opening list of 'antis', but did it
occur to you that Oswald was intentionally the way he was mainly because
he was playing a part that got him information that he could then bring to
the FBI? That his photo of himself with a rifle and literature was to
convince someone that he was rough and ready to get involved in some rebel
move? When he got his photo with the rifle, he rolled it up in a blanket
and threw it in the garage, no longer needing it. He was having trouble
being accepted by the Cubans, which might help you to understand.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Occam's Razor
CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
convoluted, labyrinthine explanation is more correct.
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

Sounds like you can't understand some things that
CTs have said and need an excuse for why that is.

Don't need an excuse. CTs have no concept of wholistic thinking.
Some intellectuals refer to it as formal logic or scientific analysis.

I think you'll find that your favorite words to drop are 'Holistic
thinking'. No 'W'. Hopefully you know more about the theory than
your spelling suggests.

Your have a special talent for putting your ignorance on display, and you
have it backwards. Holistic is for the collective health of mind and
body. Wholistic is the ability to understand the whole entity of anything
and how all parts fit together. The reason why you can't explain the
positions and trajectories for any of your snipers.

I've come to realize that when LNs begin insults and ad hominem attacks,
that they have run out of intelligent things to say in support of their beliefs.
You'll find that 'wholistic' is just another way to spell 'holistic' and does
not have any separate meaning. Anyone familiar with the methods would
not make the mistake. So I think you're putting us on.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE & USAGE
Wholistic vs Holistic
The two words "wholistic" and "holistic" have very different meanings,
but there is some confusion and they are often used in an incorrect
manner. The two words have very distinct meanings though somewhat
similar in definition. Wholistic refers to the whole, a whole item or whole
body of a person or thing. The word defines the consideration of the
entire structure or makeup, which includes the body, mind and the spirit
in the case of a human being. The word holistic is connected to holism,
which focuses on the total entity and the interdependence of the diverse
parts of this totality. Holistic has to do with the healing systems that are
considered alternative like homeopathy and Ayurveda that deal with the
human body as an interconnected whole .
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/139505/wholistic-vs-holistic

Ah good! Got you to learn the meaning of the word you keep throwing
around.

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
So you blame them for complexity.
Chris

Yes, because CTs need complexity to make their theories work.

Thank you. This case has much complexity, mainly introduced by
humans trying to blame it on a 'patsy'.
Chris

You have no proof whatsoever LHO was anything but a Communist punk
who shot the President to get attention. He was not a patsy. He said that
to play games with the Press and net in all the gullible guppies.

Have you realized yet that you saying something like he was a punk,
etc. does not make it so? That you would have to add some evidence
that might help to convince people. Make sure it's facts.
Chris

He was anti-USA, anti-American, anti-Democracy, anti-Authority,
anti-Free Speech (by political enemies), and applauded American
enemies like Cuba. He was fired from every job for having a bad
attitude, except the TSBD but now we know why he stayed on for
that job. LHO was a wife beater and a lousy father to his children.
Look at the legacy he left them to deal with. He only thought about
himself and never about what his kids would have to endure after
he murdered a popular President of the USA. The guy acted like a
perpetual teenage punk all his life.

There's not much facts in your opening list of 'antis', but did it
occur to you that Oswald was intentionally the way he was mainly because
he was playing a part that got him information that he could then bring to
the FBI? That his photo of himself with a rifle and literature was to
convince someone that he was rough and ready to get involved in some rebel
move? When he got his photo with the rifle, he rolled it up in a blanket
and threw it in the garage, no longer needing it. He was having trouble
being accepted by the Cubans, which might help you to understand.

Apparently lots of things occur to you for which there is not evidence. It
must be fun to pretend all the time.

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Occam's Razor
CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
convoluted, labyrinthine explanation is more correct.
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

Sounds like you can't understand some things that
CTs have said and need an excuse for why that is.

Don't need an excuse. CTs have no concept of wholistic thinking.
Some intellectuals refer to it as formal logic or scientific analysis.

I think you'll find that your favorite words to drop are 'Holistic
thinking'. No 'W'. Hopefully you know more about the theory than your
spelling suggests.

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
So you blame them for complexity.
Chris

Yes, because CTs need complexity to make their theories work.

Thank you. This case has much complexity, mainly introduced by humans
trying to blame it on a 'patsy'.

The only complexity is introduced by those who think there was a patsy. It
is a straightforward case of murder. One man killing another. It's as
obvious who the killer was as it is who the victim was.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Occam's Razor
CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
convoluted, labyrinthine explanation is more correct.
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

Sounds like you can't understand some things that
CTs have said and need an excuse for why that is.

Don't need an excuse. CTs have no concept of wholistic thinking.
Some intellectuals refer to it as formal logic or scientific analysis.

I think you'll find that your favorite words to drop are 'Holistic
thinking'. No 'W'. Hopefully you know more about the theory than your
spelling suggests.

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
So you blame them for complexity.
Chris

Yes, because CTs need complexity to make their theories work.

Thank you. This case has much complexity, mainly introduced by humans
trying to blame it on a 'patsy'.

The only complexity is introduced by those who think there was a patsy. It
is a straightforward case of murder. One man killing another. It's as
obvious who the killer was as it is who the victim was.

Can you even admit that it would be a conspiracy if:
A. Oswald was involved with other shooters
or
B. Oswald was a paid hitman?

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Occam's Razor
CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
convoluted, labyrinthine explanation is more correct.
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

Sounds like you can't understand some things that
CTs have said and need an excuse for why that is.

Don't need an excuse. CTs have no concept of wholistic thinking.
Some intellectuals refer to it as formal logic or scientific analysis.

I think you'll find that your favorite words to drop are 'Holistic
thinking'. No 'W'. Hopefully you know more about the theory than your
spelling suggests.

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
So you blame them for complexity.
Chris

Yes, because CTs need complexity to make their theories work.

Thank you. This case has much complexity, mainly introduced by humans
trying to blame it on a 'patsy'.

The only complexity is introduced by those who think there was a patsy. It
is a straightforward case of murder. One man killing another. It's as
obvious who the killer was as it is who the victim was.

We've spent years proving you wrong. Of course, your failing memory
will save you from having to face the failures and errors you've made.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Occam's Razor
CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
convoluted, labyrinthine explanation is more correct.
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

Sounds like you can't understand some things that
CTs have said and need an excuse for why that is.

Don't need an excuse. CTs have no concept of wholistic thinking.
Some intellectuals refer to it as formal logic or scientific analysis.

I think you'll find that your favorite words to drop are 'Holistic
thinking'. No 'W'. Hopefully you know more about the theory than your
spelling suggests.

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
So you blame them for complexity.
Chris

Yes, because CTs need complexity to make their theories work.

Thank you. This case has much complexity, mainly introduced by humans
trying to blame it on a 'patsy'.

The only complexity is introduced by those who think there was a patsy. It
is a straightforward case of murder. One man killing another. It's as
obvious who the killer was as it is who the victim was.

We've spent years proving you wrong. Of course, your failing memory
will save you from having to face the failures and errors you've made.

Who's we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

[claviger]

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
Occam's Razor
CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
convoluted, labyrinthine explanation is more correct.
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

Sounds like you can't understand some things that CTs have said and
need an excuse for why that is. So you blame them for complexity.
Chris

I understand everything CTs try to come up with but always fail.
Somehow they hope to find all relevant answers ensconced in
the magic elixir of complexity.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by claviger
Occam's Razor
CTs take the opposite approach: the more intricate, tangled,
labyrinthine, convoluted explanation is more correct.

Sounds kinda like your Magic Bullet Theory and your miss which melt into
thin aire.

Post by claviger
The most hyperbolic solution is the best solution.

Even worse is the kook who says the SS agent shot JFK in the head and NO
ONE in the SS car heard that shot.

What to test if you can hear an AR-15 shot only 2 feet away from your
head?