On Jan 27, 8:06 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 12:59 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I look at witness statements because those people were there during
the
> > assassination and can tell us what happened, Chuck.
>
> What witnesses have to say can be im****tant, but witnesses can also be
> wildly wrong, or their recollections can be open to odd interpretation.
> You seem to find a speck of information that can be broadly interpreted
as
> being opposed to the WC conclusions and then you build these massive
> conspiracies on flimsy 'evidence'.
>
yep, yes-er-ee we're gonna empty the prisons because of all that
eyewitness testimony -- from where do you loons feed on this stuff?
Gott'a be a expert witness that can't find honest work anywhere.....
>
> > I then compare what they said, with their actions in the films and
> > photos, to confirm or deny their accuracy.
>
> Why don't you compare what they said with the physical evidence? Sort
> eyewitness/earwitness accounts for consistency and for agreement with
the
> recovered rifle, shells, etc. and discard the silly stuff. Either that,
or
> you maybe you'll be thrilling us with your new conspiracy theory
involving
> the fluffy little white dog Jean Hill saw.
>
>
>
> > > You tend to ignore
> > > witnesses that conflict with your theories, and prop up witnesses
that
> > > corroborate your theories.
>
> > Nonsense.
>
> > The entire purpose of my posting is, to ask people to post verifiable
> > witness testimony that DISAGREES with me.
>
> Why is that the standard? You come up with odd theories, and then expect
> me, or someone else, to convince you that your odd theory is wrong?
You're
> beyond being a conspiracist, Bob-you are what I categorize as an
> Unreachable. An Unreachable is someone so in love with the thought of a
> JFK conspiracy that they are immune to any rational thought process or
> evidence that says otherwise. I dare say that I'd have an easier time
> convincing Jim Fetzer that Bush/Cheney didn't plant explosives in the
WTC
> than disabusing you of your JFK conspiracy gunman in the sewer theory.
>
>
>
> > Did you even bother to read the post you are attacking Chuck:-)
>
> Yes.
>
> > You can easily solve this case based on the rifle found on the 6th
floor,
>
> > > the spent shells, the bullet/bullet fragments, and the wounds to the
> > > victims.
>
> > Wrong again, Chuck. You are talking about evidence against one of the
> > shooters.
>
> There is no evidence that anyone else was involved, Bob.
>
>
>
> > > Everything else is speculation or a sideshow.
>
> > Chuck, you seem to thrive on sweeping, unsup****ted generalizations.
What
> > exactly is wrong, with examining witness statements and then trying to
> > corroborate/deny their accuracy??
>
> Unsup****ted? All of the major investigations have Oswald as the lone
> killer.
>
>
>
> > Isn't your REAL mission, to convince everyone to stop looking so
closely
> > at the case?
>
> I'm not on a mission. It is a nice diversion to read the nonsense people
> like you post. I get a good laugh out of it, although at times it
saddens
> me to know that so many people believe their own fellow citizens would
> murder their President and then turn a blind eye or be part of a
cover-up,
> or that a conspiracy even close in size to the one people like you
believe
> in is even possible.
>
> > Does it bother you, that the evidence is almost 100% AGAINST your
single
> > assassin theory??
>
> Look, Bob, how can you write what you just wrote with a straight
> keyboard? There is an overwhelming, powerful case against Oswald.
>
> Because almost everyone that posts here has read much more than the
> average person about the JFK murder, it is easy to forget the mountain
> of evidence against LHO. Most murderers in prison right now are there
> with far less evidence against them than Oswald had against him.
>
>
>
> > Does it bother you, that there is NOT EVEN ONE verifiable witness who
> > sup****ts your/Posner/Bugliosi/WC's shooting scenario??
>
> I disagree with you, but the short answer is no.
>
>
>
> > Chuck, did you know that among the law enforcement professionals,
there
> > was not a single contem****aneous statement sup****ting the shooting
> > scenario that is required for the SA theory??
>
> As bigdog pointed out, I think SS agent Bennett is a pretty good
> witness.
>
>
>
> > Why doesn't that bother you Chuck?
>
> Because witnesses are so inaccurate.
>
> Focus, Bob:
>
> It was Oswald's rifle. The bullets/shells are a ballistic match, and
> Oswald fled the building.
>
> You can convict 99.5 times out of 100 on that alone.
>
> Could someone have put Oz up to it? Many reasonable people certainly
> thought so in the days/weeks/months following 11/22/63.
>
> But nothing has ever surfaced, and I don't believe this total loser,
> Oswald, was egged on or working for someone else. It was nasty,
> horrible crime of op****tunity.
|
