In article <foo39h027hu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
John Canal <John_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article <reharris1-FEB6AE.05184110022008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Robert
Harris
> says...
> >
> >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,
>
> According to you, that is.
John, you were trying to equate a hypothetical situation in which ALL
relevant evidence proved a single killer was involved, with one in which
ALL relevant evidence proves exactly the opposite.
I think calling that goofy, was being more than kind:-)
>
> >it is also one of the lamest excuses I have ever seen, for evading the
> >facts and evidence.
>
> According to you, that is.
No John, you were arguing for a hypothetical situation, because you
could not sup****t your argument for the real situation.
That is, by definition, an evasion.
>
> >Did it ever occur to you, that if you really had evidence sup****ting a
> >single assassin scenario,
>
> Oh, so there's really no evidence to sup****t a siongle assassin
> conclusion? LOL!!!!!
Well, let's see what you have then. Maybe I am about to be refuted!
>
> Have you even glimsed at the WC volumes?
Yes, I have the whole thing on CD, and have studied it for many years.
>
> >you wouldn't have to make up a fantasy like
> >that?
>
> Just trying, unsuccessfully to get my point across.
Umm... John, pardon my impatience, but when do you intend to post that
evidence which proves that only one assassin was involved in the attack?
You said "LOL" in reference to my denial of that claim, so I presume you
are going to reveal this exciting new evidence.
>
> >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.
>
> BINOO! You're helping to make my point.
Umm.. John, the question was, why don't you itemize the evidence you
have which proves that only one assassin was involved in the attack.
> You said a few dozen other
> conspiracy claims...heck why didn't you say the 100 or so other
different
> ones? And, earth to Robert, it's not even possible that more than one
> could be accurate. If someone addressed all those theories their book
> would be bigger than RH.
John, it doesn't matter how many silly theories have been advanced over
the last 45 years. That is predictable when a crime of this magnitude
takes place.
But after you post your proof that only one shooter was involved, you
will eliminate not only my case, but a multitude of others as well.
When do you intend to do that, John?
>
> >your proof that Oswald acted alone??
>
> Good grief, you've heard it all already
Umm.. no, I have never seen anyone seriously attempt to do so - until
now of course:-)
> and have an answer for every bit
> of it.....but how about you honor this request and I'll honor your
> request...not that we [yes, you and I] haven't been over this before.
John, where is your evidence?
>
> Ok, list here, by name,_________ all the researchers who agree with you
on
> the major points of your theory. Those major points would be: 1. At what
> Z-frame was each shot was fired?, 2) What was the location of each
> shooter?, 3) Where were the entry and exit points on JFK?, 4) Who (LHO?)
> fired the shots?, and 5) Who was behind the conspiracy?
John, why did you say "LOL" when I declared that you have NO, that is
ZERO evidence for your claim that ONLY one assassin was involved?
You have no such evidence, do you John?
And why do you want to conduct a poll, when you believe that 80% or so -
the ones who sup****t conspiracy, are full of crap?
After you remove the undecideds, you have a rather pathetic, single
digit minority, which as you have already confirmed, has ZERO evidence
to sup****t their SA conclusion.
So, why should we care about the opinions of a group like that, which
neither one of us has much faith in?
I have another idea, John.
Let's look at just the evidence and facts that are verifiable, and the
statements of the people who were actually there and heard the shots.
Let's pay particular attention to the ones whose statements can be
confirmed in the photos and films.
>
> And here are two conditions---
I have two conditions also, John.
1. Look at the facts.
2. Look at the evidence.
I'd love to add a third condition, related to being honest, but for now,
I will settle for those.
Robert Harris
> 1) the list must be more than three,
> (besides yourself), and 2) Those who you name must be 100% behind
> you...IOW, none of this, "Well, he could be right", stuff.--if these
> conditions aren't met, we're done--and if you can't understand why, I'm
> sorry for that, but we're still done.
>
> John Canal
|
