Re: NO CHUCK, IT AIN'T SUBJECTIVE!

In article <reharris1-E620EB.09374509022008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Robert
Harris
says...
>
>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:


<BOTTOM POST>

>> 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?

Perhaps an analogy might convey to you how I feel about refuting your 
arguments, Robert. Let's say:

1. There are two men in a room that is locked from the inside and 
outside--neither has any chance of getting out....and no one can get in.

2. There are five cameras recording, along with a dozen spectators behind 
one-way glass watching their every move.

3. The taller fellow strangles the shorter guy to death.

Case closed--no mystery--wrap it up--I don't need to answer questions, 
perhaps, such as how the taller guy could pull that off when he had a 
broken arm. I just don't frickin care....there are other more im****tant 
matters to take care of.

Now, I'm not trying to say that the JFK assassination was as cut and dry 
as my example, but you get the idea....and the bottom line is that I'd say

about 90% of all the folks who have studied this case, CT or LN, feel the 
same way about your theory.

That's just the way I feel, Robert--if you think I'm narrow minded, well 
fine--I'll just have to live with that.

And, BTW, if you are positing there were two hits to the head, where is 
your evidence?...I hope it's not the "Dog ate my evidence" kind...or that 
HB&F were all blind in one eye and had trouble seeing out of the other 
one. :-)

John Canal