Robert Harris wrote:
> In article
> <1d6356ec-ad43-48c0-b999-4738ec7b2eeb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Chuck Schuyler <chucks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9, 1:17=EF=BF=BDpm, Robert Harris <reharr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > How do I offer a rebuttal, Bob?
>
> Well, you start off by saying, "Bob, you are wrong in claiming that just
> because 5 people reacted in perfect unison, and they all described shots
> at the same time they reacted, that there really was a shot then,
because
> ....(fill in the blank)."
Bob, you are wrong because you have zero witness sup****t for 3 loud
shots and 2 soft shots. You have meager witness sup****t for multiple
directions/locations for the origin of the shots.
> On other issues, you will need to alter the verbiage Chuck. But perhaps,
> you can find other conspiracy deniers who will be able to help you more
> than I can.
I`ll do what I can, provided I don`t have to put a lot of time into
it. I hate conspiracy mongers.
> > There were three shots fired-that's it.
>
> You see, the problem with that statement Chuck, is you forgot to prove
it.=
The witnesses largely re****ted three large bangs. You have to pound
your square peg of a theory into the round peg reality of three loud
bangs.
> You forgot to explain why people heard, and reacted to a flurry of shots
> at the end, why they never heard or reacted to the second shot,
You can see through the Stemmons sign? I can see JFK reacting to the
second shot as he emerges from behind it.
And where do you see witnesses jumping out of their skin from the first
shot, the one witnesses placed shortly after the limo turned onto Elm?
>and why
> the first one, which hit the street sounded so much different and weaker
> than the others.
You only have three loud noises to work with, Bob. If you use one
here, you have only two left.
> Those are the facts which belie your claim, Chuck. And what is really
> laughable, is that you are basing that conclusion on the same witnesses
> whom you call looney tunes when they are describing the spacing of the
> shots, or in other ways, confirming multiple assassins.
Not all information is created equally. There is information that is
easier, and less prone to error, like being aware of how many loud noises
they heard. Putting together exact sequencing of event using the
impressions of confused and frightenened witnesses under attack is a bit
more prone to error.
> You want them to be idiots when they disagree with you, and infallible
> when they don't.
As do you. Kellerman puts the last two shots very close together, others
(like Nellie Connally) put considerable time betwen them. How do you
reconcile this incompatible information?
> Of course, this is part of the reason you don't defend your claims,
right
> Chuck:-)
Chuck, being an LN, tends to go to the source of the problem. In this
case, it`s usually not the material, but the person looking at the
material that is source of the problem.
> > Most people only re****ted three
> > shots, and that matches quite nicely with three spent shells recovered
on
> > the TSBD 6th floor that are a match to the Carcano found on the same
floor
> > determined to have been owned by Lee Oswald-who rapidly fled the scene
of
> > the murder and was later ID'ed as the gunman that killed JD Tippit. It
> > also dovetails quite well with witness re****ts that a weapon was
> > heard/felt blasting away right over their heads (the fifth floor
> > witnesses) and several people from the street below who saw a rifle
being
> > fired from the building. Simple.
>
> Wow! Everything sure is "nice" in your world, Chuck.
>
> But why do you continue to tell me that Oswald was involved in the
> shooting, when I have told you on countless occasions that he probably
> was??
All these years looking at this case, and you can even draw that
simple conclusion?
> Are you so desperate to try to find something to beat me on, that you
> have to pretend that I claimed Oswald was innocent:-)
Your inability to come to a conclusion on this simple matter draws into
question your ability to look into more complex matters, and speaks to
your credibility. Why would I invest time following what such a person had
to say?
> > There isn't a D.A. in the country who wouldn't have loved prosecuting
> > Oswald for this crime.
>
> That's nice.
The truth usually is.
> > This case is only complicated in Kookville. Unfortunately, you live
there.
> > In fact, you may be the mayor.
>
> I'm sorry you have to lower yourself to this level, Chuck - especially
> in a newsgroup in which you know I will not be allowed to reply in kind.
Yah, I saw this on the moderated board, and it should not have been
allowed. I`m taking that group out of the header so I can say what I
want.
> I understand how bitter you are, but this is not a religion, Chuck. It's
> a murder case, and one in which we are blessed with a vast quantity of
> evidence, that you need to stop ignoring.
>
> >
> > Are you going to lie at this newsgroup and announce that if humble
Chuck
> > can find some sort of boffo piece of evidence, that it might change
your
> > mind about conspriacy?
>
> I never lie Chuck, er.. at least not about the case.
>
> I would cheerfully sup****t your side and you don't even have to find any
> spectacular evidence. Just refute my arguments on the Z285 shot, and I'm
> your man.
>
> When do the checks go out?
>
>
> >
> > Who are you kidding?
>
> Let's see now, you fantasized yourself finding "boffo" evidence and then
> fantasized that I would evade it, and then fantasized that I would lie
> about it.
>
> I guess I should hang my head in shame:-)
>
>
> >
> > If you live to be 100 years old, you'll still believe JFK was killed
by a
> > conspiracy. Nothing will change your mind. You are unreachable.
>
> LOL!!
>
> I have a proposition for you Chuck. I'll give you $200 for every time
> you previously admitted in the newsgroups that you were wrong and you
> give me $100 for every time I admitted I was wrong.
>
> Do we have a bet?
Being wrong a lot isn`t a virtue, Bob.
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
|
