Received: by 10.68.231.2 with SMTP id tc2mr5408050pbc.8.1336168050837;
        Fri, 04 May 2012 14:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: Dr Burkley - seriously Lners?
Date: 4 May 2012 17:47:29 -0400
Lines: 50
Approved: jmcad...@shell.core.com
Message-ID: <4fa44295@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
References: <c670f5fb-5c4b-4e19-987d-41e057f3199f@w6g2000pbp.googlegroups.com> <3773da95-7379-4128-822f-260c5b254650@f27g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> <8e855247-ea81-4d5a-8ca3-6386d7ac8517@sm5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> <e5ab269d-ceef-4002-a644-9553c77307d3@9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com> <4f9ee669@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <8b9446f3-5797-4b57-8b77-7be9746d45a0@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com> <4fa076d8@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <sa66q75ngme5uhgiu8o6flkofbnbvh6ei1@4ax.com>
Return-Path: <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: aa...@panix.com
Delivered-To: aa...@panix.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sa66q75ngme5uhgiu8o6flkofbnbvh6ei1@4ax.com>
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.61.15.155
X-Original-Trace: 4 May 2012 15:56:53 -0500, 24.61.15.155
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.2
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.2
X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1336168050 166.84.1.2 (4 May 2012 16:47:30 -0500)
X-Original-Trace: 4 May 2012 16:47:30 -0500, 166.84.1.2
Path: pr3ni4441pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.albasani.net!mcadams.posc.mu.edu!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 5/3/2012 7:50 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 1 May 2012 20:37:49 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>>                If the SBT is no good, why can't the CTs agree on an
>>>>> alternative, after all these years?   You've got a low back wound, a
>>>>> separate throat wound, and no bullets found in between.   What's the
>>>>> story there, Thalia?
>>>>
>>>>> Jean
>>>>
>>>
>>>                 Nice evasion, Tony.  What's your better-than-the-SBT
>>> theory?
>>>
>>
>> Another phony challenge. I don't have to have a competing theory to
>> point out the errors in someone else's theory.
>
> Yes you do.  If you can't come up with a better theory, any sensible
> person would go with the best theory out there.
>

Argumentum ad Ignorantium.

> Do you, for example, believe that Kennedy was hit in the throat from
> the front?
>
>
>> I have suggested a Modified Single Bullet Theory similar to the Humes
>> SBT. How many times are you going to refuse to answer MY questions?
>> What errors do you see in the Humes SBT?
>>
>
> Why should anybody care about Humes SBT when we have a lot more
> information than he did?
>

In other words you also refuse to read the Humes SBT and can not refute 
it. I am not arguing that Humes was correct. He was an idiot. I am just 
pointing out that the correct solution does not have to be the Specter 
SBT. There are as many SBTs as there are WC defenders. Maybe some day in 
the next millennium one of them will get it right.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm