Re: NO CHUCK, IT AIN'T SUBJECTIVE!

In article <fohrp00l7j@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 John Canal <John_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> In article <reharris1-0B489B.14464807022008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Robert
Harris
> says...
> >
> >In article 
> ><e0d4c9dd-37c0-4b90-8a2a-571b272d2388@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > Chuck Schuyler <chucks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Feb 6, 11:51 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Robert,
> 
> Because you've invested so many hours into trying to make sure your
theory 
> has no holes, I sincerely feel bad (I know the last thing you need is my

> sympathy) about asking you this: How on earth can you say that your 
> evidence sup****ting your theory is not subjective (and is 
> conclusive)....

The evidence speaks for itself, John.

That's why you and your friends ONLY want to talk about Robert Harris, 
and not the facts.


> when at least about three-fourths of the other CTs and all 
> the LNs think your theory is wrong? IOW, while it's not as bad, one
could 
> compare your situation to the fellow who thinks he has irrefutable 
> evidence that Greer shot JFK...

No, when I encounter those people, I exlain that they are seeing an 
optical illusion caused by the glare on Kellerman's head and that none 
of the witnesses in DP that day re****ted that Greer shot anybody.

Look at the above sentence, John. Do you notice that there is ZERO ad 
hominem in that sentence? 

Your rebuttals should begin...

1. The REAL reason that every nonvictim in the limo reacted within 
1/18th of a second of Zapruder's reaction is....

2. The REAL reason that every one of their testimonies confirmed a shot 
then is....

3. The REAL reason Brehm heard the first of three shots as the limo 
passed in front of him is....

4. The REAL reason that we see Jean Hill snap her head to the right as 
the limo passed in front of her is...


etc. etc.

Why can't you do that, John?

Hey, I have no problem if you want to waste the bandwidth 
psychoanalyzing me. But don't you think that you need to EARN the right 
to say that my arguments are crap, by first refuting them?





Robert Harris






> I mean, what would you like to say to 
> him?--but there is nothing you could say that wouldn't upset him or make

> him think you're the one that's not thinking logically.
> 
> FWIW, and if it's any concilation, I think you're a pretty smart 
> guy....and, even though you're being attacked seemingly all the time,
you 
> seem to keep your cool....at least keep that up.
> 
> John Canal