In article <fol0a6010vt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
John Canal <John_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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,
John, that is not only one of the goofiest arguments I have ever heard,
it is also one of the lamest excuses I have ever seen, for evading the
facts and evidence.
Did it ever occur to you, that if you really had evidence sup****ting a
single assassin scenario, you wouldn't have to make up a fantasy like
that?
I tell you what, John, since you refuse to tackle my arguments, as you
have a few dozen other conspiracy claims, why don't you just itemize
your proof that Oswald acted alone??
Let's make it easier yet. What are the three best pieces of evidence
your have, that proves Oswald acted alone?
> but you get the idea....
No, I don't.
You are PRETENDING that this is an open and shut case, all the while
knowing that you can't justify your claim, to save your proverbial life.
> 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.
I'm not so sure about that - beyond the hard core members of .john's
team, anyway.
But if you are right, then I guess I need to work a little harder.
>
> That's just the way I feel,
Maybe you need to stop feeling and start thinking a bit more:-)
> 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. :-)
Watch it, if you can summon the courage, john.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ
Robert Harris
|
