Re: NO CHUCK, IT AIN'T SUBJECTIVE!

This is the most pathetic and ridiculous argument I have seen yet:-)

I have received hundreds of emails from people over the years, in 
agreement with me, although I have never asked for credentials, and a 
letter of endorsement for the shot at 285 from Dr. Michael Stroscio, who 
wrote an extensive paper on Alvarez's analysis of the Zfilm. He holds a 
Phd in Physics and has served on Presidential science commissions.

I think you will also find quite a few people in ACJ who agree with me 
as well, but as we all know, you will not consider anyone other than a 
conspiracy denier to be a real "researcher", will you John?

Your claim that you will only post your "proof" that a Single assassin 
acted alone, if I produce a list of sup****ters is laughable and beyond 
ludicrous.

If you really had such evidence, you would be shouting it from the 
rooftops and spamming it to the newsgroups three times a day, without 
the slightest concern for how popular I was:-)

Furthermore, if you really believed this was just a popularity contest, 
you wouldn't be a denier. You'd have to go with that 70-80 percent who 
recognize that this crime was a conspiracy - and that includes 
"researchers", which includes the vast majority of authors who have 
written on the subject.

But even if I was the only person on the planet to realize what 
happened, it wouldn't matter. The facts and evidence trump all. That is 
ALL that matters when it comes to solving ANY crime. 

And that's why you can only produce pathetically lame excuses, isn't it 
John - you have NO, that is ZERO evidence to sup****t a SA conclusion.





Robert Harris 




In article <fot92n0160t@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 John Canal <John_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> [....]
> 
> >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?
> 
> So you're not going to list any researchers who agree with your theory?
My 
> guess is, and this is really a wild one, that you don't know of one
single 
> researcher who totally agrees with your theory.....isn't that right, 
> Robert?
> 
> And here's where I go from there--there are hundreds who I agree with
that 
> LHO was the lone assassin!
> 
> Bottom line, Robert, is that I'd be foolish if I'd take the time to
argue 
> for the lone assassin conclusion with you when your evidence for a 
> conspiracy is soooooo frickin unconvincing you can't even name one 
> researcher out of perhaps a thousand that agrees with you.
> 
> But come with a few, by name, and I'll list my evidence. Remember, they 
> must agree totally with you on those aforementioned major points.
> 
> John Canal