My bing browser now has an AI feature that answers questions put to it. I
asked it the following question:

"Did Oswald kill JFK?"

This was its response:

"Yes, Oswald killed JFK. He shot and killed Kennedy on November 22, 1963, from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas1. Oswald was charged with the assassination of Kennedy,
but he denied responsibility for the killing, claiming that he was a "patsy"1. Despite forensic, ballistic, and eyewitness evidence supporting the official findings, public opinion polls have shown that most Americans still do not believe that the
official version tells the whole truth of the events12 , and the assassination spawned numerous conspiracy theories.

I hope this helps!"

What we can conclude from this is AI is smarter than the conspiracy hobbyists.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 6:53:47 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

My bing browser now has an AI feature that answers questions put to it. I asked it the following question:

"Did Oswald kill JFK?"

This was its response:

"Yes, Oswald killed JFK. He shot and killed Kennedy on November 22, 1963, from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas1. Oswald was charged with the assassination of

Kennedy, but he denied responsibility for the killing, claiming that he was a "patsy"1. Despite forensic, ballistic, and eyewitness evidence supporting the official findings, public opinion polls have shown that most Americans still do not believe that
the official version tells the whole truth of the events12 , and the assassination spawned numerous conspiracy theories.

I hope this helps!"

What we can conclude from this is AI is smarter than the conspiracy hobbyists.

I came to own a turtle, through no fault of my own. I was feeding him some worms today, and like every time previous I dropped them on his head, but he continued to look up, despite them squirming around at his feed. I said to him "You probably think
Oswald was innocent.", which I thought was a killer put-down.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:14:06 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 6:53:47 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

My bing browser now has an AI feature that answers questions put to it. I asked it the following question:

"Did Oswald kill JFK?"

This was its response:

"Yes, Oswald killed JFK. He shot and killed Kennedy on November 22, 1963, from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas1. Oswald was charged with the assassination of

Kennedy, but he denied responsibility for the killing, claiming that he was a "patsy"1. Despite forensic, ballistic, and eyewitness evidence supporting the official findings, public opinion polls have shown that most Americans still do not believe that
the official version tells the whole truth of the events12 , and the assassination spawned numerous conspiracy theories.

I hope this helps!"

What we can conclude from this is AI is smarter than the conspiracy hobbyists.

I came to own a turtle, through no fault of my own. I was feeding him some worms today, and like every time previous I dropped them on his head, but he continued to look up, despite them squirming around at his feed. I said to him "You probably think

Oswald was innocent.", which I thought was a killer put-down.

Getting back to our theological discussion, there was a conspiracy hobbyist who died and went
to heaven. He was greeted at the Pearly Gates by St. Peter. He asked St. Peter if he could ask God one question. St. Peter said, "Sure. No problem. I'll take you to the Big Guy myself. St. Peter
introduced the new arrival to God who promptly asked God, "Who killed JFK?". God answered
immediately, "It was Lee Harvey Oswald.". Astonished, the conspiracy hobbyist turned to St.
Peter and said, "It goes higher up than I ever imagined.".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 6:53:47 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

My bing browser now has an AI feature that answers questions put to it. I asked it the following question:

"Did Oswald kill JFK?"

This was its response:

"Yes, Oswald killed JFK. He shot and killed Kennedy on November 22, 1963, from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas1. Oswald was charged with the assassination of

Kennedy, but he denied responsibility for the killing, claiming that he was a "patsy"1. Despite forensic, ballistic, and eyewitness evidence supporting the official findings, public opinion polls have shown that most Americans still do not believe that
the official version tells the whole truth of the events12 , and the assassination spawned numerous conspiracy theories.

I hope this helps!"

What we can conclude from this is AI is smarter than the conspiracy hobbyists.

There's a reason why they call it "artificial" intelligence.
The fact that you believe whatever it says is no surprise.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 5:05:59 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 6:53:47 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

My bing browser now has an AI feature that answers questions put to it. I asked it the following question:

"Did Oswald kill JFK?"

This was its response:

"Yes, Oswald killed JFK. He shot and killed Kennedy on November 22, 1963, from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas1. Oswald was charged with the assassination of

Kennedy, but he denied responsibility for the killing, claiming that he was a "patsy"1. Despite forensic, ballistic, and eyewitness evidence supporting the official findings, public opinion polls have shown that most Americans still do not believe that
the official version tells the whole truth of the events12 , and the assassination spawned numerous conspiracy theories.

I hope this helps!"

What we can conclude from this is AI is smarter than the conspiracy hobbyists.

There's a reason why they call it "artificial" intelligence.
The fact that you believe whatever it says is no surprise.

Artificial intelligence has come a long way and has passed human intelligence in many ways.
When Bobby Fischer was beating Boris Spassky in chess back in 1972, the Soviet news
agencies suggested he was being helped by a computer. Even the Soviet chess federation
chuckled at that one because at the time, computers played a very low level of chess. A good
amateur could beat the most sophisticated computer program. Fast forward to 1997 and IBM's
Deep Blue supercomputer defeated reigning world champion Garry Kasparov 4-2. In 2011, IBM's
supercomputer Watson defeat the two most accomplished Jeopardy players at that time, Ken
Jennings and Brad Rutter in a three day match. AI has improved exponentially since then. AI
is certainly better than no intelligence at all.

However, the reason I believe Oswald acted alone is not because of what a supercomputer says
but because of what the evidence says. The evidence screams Oswald did it. Those who choose
not to hear that are willfully deaf and dumb with the emphasis on dumb.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 15:53:45 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

My bing browser now has an AI feature that answers questions put to it. I >asked it the following question:

"Did Oswald kill JFK?"

This was its response:

"Yes, Oswald killed JFK. He shot and killed Kennedy on November 22, 1963, from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas1. Oswald was charged with the assassination of

Kennedy, but he denied responsibility for the killing, claiming that he was a "patsy"1. Despite forensic, ballistic, and eyewitness evidence supporting the official findings, public opinion polls have shown that most Americans still do not believe that
the official version tells the whole truth of the events12 , and the assassination spawned numerous conspiracy theories.

I hope this helps!"

What we can conclude from this is AI is smarter than the conspiracy hobbyists.

Google Bard gave a more accurate and nuanced answer to the same
question:

Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested and charged with the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. He was shot and killed
by Jack Ruby two days later, before he could stand trial.

The Warren Commission concluded that Oswald was the lone gunman
responsible for the assassination, but some people believe that he was
part of a conspiracy. There is no consensus on who else may have been
involved, or what their motives were.

The question of whether Oswald killed JFK is a complex one, with no
easy answers. The available evidence is inconclusive, and there are
many different theories about what happened. It is likely that the
truth will never be known for sure.

In response to the safety guidelines, I will not reveal any private
information about individuals, and I will not promote violence,
hatred, or discrimination. I will also not be sexually suggestive in
nature. My response will be creative, but it will not violate any of
the safety guidelines.

I hope this response is helpful and informative.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 02:05:58 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 6:53:47?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

My bing browser now has an AI feature that answers questions put to it. I
asked it the following question:

"Did Oswald kill JFK?"

This was its response:

"Yes, Oswald killed JFK. He shot and killed Kennedy on November 22, 1963, from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas1. Oswald was charged with the assassination of

Kennedy, but he denied responsibility for the killing, claiming that he was a "patsy"1. Despite forensic, ballistic, and eyewitness evidence supporting the official findings, public opinion polls have shown that most Americans still do not believe that
the official version tells the whole truth of the events12 , and the assassination spawned numerous conspiracy theories.

I hope this helps!"

What we can conclude from this is AI is smarter than the conspiracy hobbyists.

There's a reason why they call it "artificial" intelligence.
The fact that you believe whatever it says is no surprise.

Of course, you can simply ask AI - here's what it said:


AI is likely to be wrong about things that are:

New or rare. AI models are trained on large datasets of data,
but they can only learn from what they have seen before. If something
is new or rare, the AI model may not be able to accurately predict or understand it.
Complex or nuanced. AI models are good at making predictions
based on simple rules, but they can struggle with complex or nuanced
problems. For example, an AI model might be able to predict whether a
patient is likely to have cancer based on their medical history, but
it might not be able to understand the nuances of the patient's
condition or the best course of treatment.
Subjective or ambiguous. AI models are good at dealing with
objective data, but they can struggle with subjective or ambiguous
data. For example, an AI model might be able to predict the outcome of
a sporting event based on the past performance of the teams, but it
might not be able to predict the outcome of a political election,
which is influenced by a variety of factors.
Biased. AI models are trained on data that is collected by
humans, and this data can be biased. If the data is biased, the AI
model will be biased as well. For example, if an AI model is trained
on data that only includes white men, the model will be more likely to
make predictions that are biased towards white men.

It is important to be aware of the limitations of AI models so that we
can use them effectively. We should not rely on AI models to make
decisions that are critical or important, and we should always be
prepared to question the results of AI models.


As Gil points out, it's truly only morons who *believe* in AI. AI is
only a tool, like any other tool, if you don't know how to use it,
you'll be misled. I've been using AI for a few months, but I know it
for what it is - simply a tool to get things done faster. It has
distinct biases that you need to understand and compensate for.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 6:27:11 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:14:06 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 6:53:47 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

My bing browser now has an AI feature that answers questions put to it. I
asked it the following question:

"Did Oswald kill JFK?"

This was its response:

"Yes, Oswald killed JFK. He shot and killed Kennedy on November 22, 1963, from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas1. Oswald was charged with the assassination of

Kennedy, but he denied responsibility for the killing, claiming that he was a "patsy"1. Despite forensic, ballistic, and eyewitness evidence supporting the official findings, public opinion polls have shown that most Americans still do not believe that
the official version tells the whole truth of the events12 , and the assassination spawned numerous conspiracy theories.

I hope this helps!"

What we can conclude from this is AI is smarter than the conspiracy hobbyists.

I came to own a turtle, through no fault of my own. I was feeding him some worms today, and like every time previous I dropped them on his head, but he continued to look up, despite them squirming around at his feed. I said to him "You probably think

Oswald was innocent.", which I thought was a killer put-down.

Getting back to our theological discussion, there was a conspiracy hobbyist who died and went
to heaven. He was greeted at the Pearly Gates by St. Peter. He asked St. Peter if he could ask God one question. St. Peter said, "Sure. No problem. I'll take you to the Big Guy myself. St. Peter
introduced the new arrival to God who promptly asked God, "Who killed JFK?". God answered
immediately, "It was Lee Harvey Oswald.". Astonished, the conspiracy hobbyist turned to St.
Peter and said, "It goes higher up than I ever imagined.".

An oldie but a goodie.

I heard one I told at aaj.

A conspiracist gets his wings and floats to Heaven and is ushered through the Pearly Gates to God by St. Peter. "God," says the conspiracist, "I have but one question on my mind that has bothered me for decades. It brought strife to my Earthly life,
strained friendships, and even caused difficulties in my marriage. I spent countless hours at night alone, pondering this question, misunderstood by others. I was never able to find the answers for this question in life. Would you grant me the honor of
answering this question before I take my place at your side for eternity in your Heavenly Kingdom?" "Child," God says, smiling benevolently and gently patting his head, "You have been a faithful believer in life. A humble servant. May you suffer no more.
What is your question, my creation?" The conspiracist blurts, "Who killed John F. Kennedy?" God settles back in his arched throne and reaches for his staff, stroking his white beard. "You know, " God says, "I have a few theories about that..."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 8:53:47 AM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:

My bing browser now has an AI feature that answers questions put to it. I asked it the following question:

"Did Oswald kill JFK?"

This was its response:

"Yes, Oswald killed JFK. He shot and killed Kennedy on November 22, 1963, from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas1. Oswald was charged with the assassination of

Kennedy, but he denied responsibility for the killing, claiming that he was a "patsy"1. Despite forensic, ballistic, and eyewitness evidence supporting the official findings, public opinion polls have shown that most Americans still do not believe that
the official version tells the whole truth of the events12 , and the assassination spawned numerous conspiracy theories.

I hope this helps!"

What we can conclude from this is AI is smarter than the conspiracy hobbyists.

No. What we can conclude is that there is no "intelligence" in AI. It is a computer program synthethizing official history without any critical thought or functioning, and spitting out the answer in a manner programmed to resemble the way in which a
human might. If that is, said human was without critical thinking functionality.

You guys are all the same. You cajole and eveigle to have the circumstantial case laid out on a table and viewed "holistically", instead of critically, piece by piece. This of course, will always lead to an "Oswald guilty" verdict - which is the very
reason you insist upon it.

Why is that holistic approach is bullshit in this particular case? We are dealing with a police force now infamous for the sheer volume of innocent people it put away. But just as importantly, there are rules in court around evidence based on centuries
of experience. None of the evidence was ever examined by a court - yet we know there are numerous issues with the handling of it . We also know there are numerous issues with changes in witness stories - with said changes never questioned under cross-
examination.

The Lone nut holistic approach is simply designed to maintain the status quo and they are shit scared of any calls for an honest investigation. They know the case they lay out on the table will quickly fall apart. Officially.

And do I need to spell out what the AI result will be when the case is officially upended?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 8:43:03 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 8:53:47 AM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:

My bing browser now has an AI feature that answers questions put to it. I asked it the following question:

"Did Oswald kill JFK?"

This was its response:

"Yes, Oswald killed JFK. He shot and killed Kennedy on November 22, 1963, from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas1. Oswald was charged with the assassination of

Kennedy, but he denied responsibility for the killing, claiming that he was a "patsy"1. Despite forensic, ballistic, and eyewitness evidence supporting the official findings, public opinion polls have shown that most Americans still do not believe that
the official version tells the whole truth of the events12 , and the assassination spawned numerous conspiracy theories.

I hope this helps!"

What we can conclude from this is AI is smarter than the conspiracy hobbyists.

No. What we can conclude is that there is no "intelligence" in AI. It is a computer program synthethizing official history without any critical thought or functioning, and spitting out the answer in a manner programmed to resemble the way in which a

human might. If that is, said human was without critical thinking functionality.

You guys are all the same. You cajole and eveigle to have the circumstantial case laid out on a table and viewed "holistically", instead of critically, piece by piece. This of course, will always lead to an "Oswald guilty" verdict - which is the very

reason you insist upon it.

If by "piece by piece" you mean the conspiracy hobbyist standard practice of looking at each
piece of evidence in isolation from all the rest, we know why you guys do that. No one piece of
evidence by itself can prove conclusively that Oswald was the assassin. Taken as a whole, there
can be no doubt he was the assassin. The case against Oswald is greater than the sum of its
parts. It's like a jig saw puzzle. If you look at one piece of the puzzle, it isn't clear what the picture
will look like. When you assemble the pieces the only way they can be put together, the picture
becomes perfectly clear. The pieces of evidence in this case only go together one way. The
only picture they present when looked at as a whole is that Oswald was the assassin.

Why is that holistic approach is bullshit in this particular case? We are dealing with a police force now infamous for the sheer volume of innocent people it put away. But just as importantly, there are rules in court around evidence based on centuries

of experience. None of the evidence was ever examined by a court - yet we know there are numerous issues with the handling of it . We also know there are numerous issues with changes in witness stories - with said changes never questioned under cross-
examination.

The Lone nut holistic approach is simply designed to maintain the status quo and they are shit scared of any calls for an honest investigation. They know the case they lay out on the table will quickly fall apart. Officially.

Every investigation has concluded Oswald was the assassin. If there was another, it would
reach the same conclusion and you assclowns still wouldn't accept it.

And do I need to spell out what the AI result will be when the case is officially upended?

You will not live to see that happen. Neither will anybody else.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 19:51:27 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 8:43:03?PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 8:53:47?AM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:

My bing browser now has an AI feature that answers questions put to it. I >> > asked it the following question:

"Did Oswald kill JFK?"

This was its response:

"Yes, Oswald killed JFK. He shot and killed Kennedy on November 22, 1963, from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas1. Oswald was charged with the assassination of

Kennedy, but he denied responsibility for the killing, claiming that he was a "patsy"1. Despite forensic, ballistic, and eyewitness evidence supporting the official findings, public opinion polls have shown that most Americans still do not believe that
the official version tells the whole truth of the events12 , and the assassination spawned numerous conspiracy theories.

I hope this helps!"

What we can conclude from this is AI is smarter than the conspiracy hobbyists.

No. What we can conclude is that there is no "intelligence" in AI. It is a computer program synthethizing official history without any critical thought or functioning, and spitting out the answer in a manner programmed to resemble the way in which a

human might. If that is, said human was without critical thinking functionality.

You guys are all the same. You cajole and eveigle to have the circumstantial case laid out on a table and viewed "holistically", instead of critically, piece by piece. This of course, will always lead to an "Oswald guilty" verdict - which is the very

reason you insist upon it.

If by "piece by piece" you mean the conspiracy hobbyist standard practice of looking at each
piece of evidence in isolation from all the rest, we know why you guys do that. No one piece of
evidence by itself can prove conclusively that Oswald was the assassin. Taken as a whole, there
can be no doubt he was the assassin. The case against Oswald is greater than the sum of its
parts. It's like a jig saw puzzle. If you look at one piece of the puzzle, it isn't clear what the picture
will look like. When you assemble the pieces the only way they can be put together, the picture
becomes perfectly clear. The pieces of evidence in this case only go together one way. The
only picture they present when looked at as a whole is that Oswald was the assassin.

And with this EXACT SAME METHOD, we can prove that *YOU* are Jack The
Ripper.

Why is that holistic approach is bullshit in this particular case? We are dealing with a police force now infamous for the sheer volume of innocent people it put away. But just as importantly, there are rules in court around evidence based on

centuries of experience. None of the evidence was ever examined by a court - yet we know there are numerous issues with the handling of it . We also know there are numerous issues with changes in witness stories - with said changes never questioned under
cross-examination.

The Lone nut holistic approach is simply designed to maintain the status quo and they are shit scared of any calls for an honest investigation. They know the case they lay out on the table will quickly fall apart. Officially.

Every investigation has concluded Oswald was the assassin.

You mean "Every GOVERNMENTAL investigation..." Do try to be honest.

And do I need to spell out what the AI result will be when the case is officially upended?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 8:43:03 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

No. What we can conclude is that there is no "intelligence" in AI. It is a computer program synthethizing official history without any critical thought or functioning, and spitting out the answer in a manner programmed to resemble the way in which a

human might. If that is, said human was without critical thinking functionality.

Like a lone nutter.

You guys are all the same. You cajole and eveigle to have the circumstantial case laid out on a table and viewed "holistically", instead of critically, piece by piece. This of course, will always lead to an "Oswald guilty" verdict - which is the very

reason you insist upon it.

Why is that holistic approach is bullshit in this particular case? We are dealing with a police force now infamous for the sheer volume of innocent people it put away. But just as importantly, there are rules in court around evidence based on centuries

of experience. None of the evidence was ever examined by a court - yet we know there are numerous issues with the handling of it . We also know there are numerous issues with changes in witness stories - with said changes never questioned under cross-
examination.

Absolutely correct. Much of the evidence in this case, including anything Marina Oswald said, would have never been permitted in court.
This case could not have been allowed the scrutiny of a public trial so the cops allowed their pal Ruby to kill him.

The Lone nut holistic approach is simply designed to maintain the status quo and they are shit scared of any calls for an honest investigation. They know the case they lay out on the table will quickly fall apart. Officially.

And do I need to spell out what the AI result will be when the case is officially upended?

Corbett's belief that AI is some kind of all-knowing technical God is ridiculous.
AI only knows what it's programmed to know. If you or I programmed it, it would find that there was enough doubt of Oswald's guilt.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 6:00:09 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 8:43:03 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

No. What we can conclude is that there is no "intelligence" in AI. It is a computer program synthethizing official history without any critical thought or functioning, and spitting out the answer in a manner programmed to resemble the way in which a

human might. If that is, said human was without critical thinking functionality.

Like a lone nutter.

You guys are all the same. You cajole and eveigle to have the circumstantial case laid out on a table and viewed "holistically", instead of critically, piece by piece. This of course, will always lead to an "Oswald guilty" verdict - which is the very

reason you insist upon it.

Why is that holistic approach is bullshit in this particular case? We are dealing with a police force now infamous for the sheer volume of innocent people it put away. But just as importantly, there are rules in court around evidence based on

centuries of experience. None of the evidence was ever examined by a court - yet we know there are numerous issues with the handling of it . We also know there are numerous issues with changes in witness stories - with said changes never questioned under
cross-examination.

Absolutely correct. Much of the evidence in this case, including anything Marina Oswald said, would have never been permitted in court.

Why does that matter now?

This case could not have been allowed the scrutiny of a public trial so the cops allowed their pal Ruby to kill him.

Your evidence the cops deliberately allowed Ruby to kill Oswald is....................?

The Lone nut holistic approach is simply designed to maintain the status quo and they are shit scared of any calls for an honest investigation. They know the case they lay out on the table will quickly fall apart. Officially.

And do I need to spell out what the AI result will be when the case is officially upended?

Corbett's belief that AI is some kind of all-knowing technical God is ridiculous.

AI only knows what it's programmed to know. If you or I programmed it, it would find that there was enough doubt of Oswald's guilt.

What AI does is search reference material at warp speed. I posted it because it reflects the
consensus among historical references that Oswald is the assassin. You're never going to
change that, Gil, which means you are wasting your time.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 03:11:37 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 6:00:09?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 8:43:03?PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

No. What we can conclude is that there is no "intelligence" in AI. It is a computer program synthethizing official history without any critical thought or functioning, and spitting out the answer in a manner programmed to resemble the way in which a

human might. If that is, said human was without critical thinking functionality.

Like a lone nutter.

You guys are all the same. You cajole and eveigle to have the circumstantial case laid out on a table and viewed "holistically", instead of critically, piece by piece. This of course, will always lead to an "Oswald guilty" verdict - which is the very

reason you insist upon it.

Why is that holistic approach is bullshit in this particular case? We are dealing with a police force now infamous for the sheer volume of innocent people it put away. But just as importantly, there are rules in court around evidence based on

centuries of experience. None of the evidence was ever examined by a court - yet we know there are numerous issues with the handling of it . We also know there are numerous issues with changes in witness stories - with said changes never questioned under
cross-examination.

Absolutely correct. Much of the evidence in this case, including anything Marina Oswald said, would have never been permitted in court.

Why does that matter now?

It matters because it proves your bias... it shows that you cannot
acknowledge facts commonly known by most people.

This case could not have been allowed the scrutiny of a public trial so the cops allowed their pal Ruby to kill him.

Your evidence the cops deliberately allowed Ruby to kill Oswald is....................?

The fact that he was in a position to do so.

The Lone nut holistic approach is simply designed to maintain the status quo and they are shit scared of any calls for an honest investigation. They know the case they lay out on the table will quickly fall apart. Officially.

And do I need to spell out what the AI result will be when the case is officially upended?

Corbett's belief that AI is some kind of all-knowing technical God is ridiculous.

AI only knows what it's programmed to know. If you or I programmed it, it would find that there was enough doubt of Oswald's guilt.

What AI does is search reference material at warp speed. I posted it because it reflects the
consensus among historical references that Oswald is the assassin. You're never going to
change that, Gil, which means you are wasting your time.

And my AI quote contradicted yours. Moron, aren't you?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)