Re: NO CHUCK, IT AIN'T SUBJECTIVE!

In article <fov3nn02arc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 John Canal <John_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> In article <reharris1-16F0C0.05294713022008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Robert
Harris
> says...
> >
> >
> >This is the most pathetic and ridiculous argument I have seen yet:-)
> 
> That's your opinion...and perhaps your opinions aren't as highly
regarded as 
> you
> think?


It doesn't matter how I am "regarded". Your latest tactic is 
pathetically transparent, John. 

The notion that you are withholding evidence that proves Oswald acted 
alone, because I won't present a list of sup****ters is an enormous 
insult to the intelligence of everyone who reads these posts.

Exactly how many people do you think fell for this crap, John?

How many do you think thought to themselves, "Damn! If only Harris would 
give him that list, John could go ahead and prove the SA theory, once 
and for all!"

You're big on these polls, John. How many do you think bought it?



> 
> >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,
> 
> You're not getting it, Robert. I'm pretty sure you have a "complete"
> theory---IOW, you've got yourself a counter argument for just about
every
> question someone (CT or LN) who disagrees with you might throw at you

ROFLMAO!!

So, this is about that fast talking Harris who keeps his rebuttals 
stashed in a filebox on his desk.

I tell you what, John. Forget I exist. Just look at the people who 
reacted at 285 and then look at what they said.

You can even turn the sound off when you watch this video (you should 
listen to Nellie though):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s


> ---and, 
> to
> your credit, that's the only way to go. If it's one thing that gets
under my
> skin it's when a dedicated CT has only a partial conspiracy theory, e.g.
I 
> know
> someone fired from the GK. Then you ask him who was behind the
conspiracy, 
> where
> the lead went, or why the medical evidence doesn't sup****t a frntal shot
and
> they don't have a clue--again, they're just certain someone fired from
the
> knoll.

Do some critical thinking, John.

Do you suppose that police officers decide there were no shooters involved

in a shooting, because they don't have the names and addresses of the 
perps??

It is perfectly logical and reasonable to address the question of whether 
a shooter was in a particular location, even if you have no clue as who it

was or who he was working for.

I think you realize that, and you use this fallacious reasoning as a way 
to attack arguments that you don't know how to refute.


> 
> Now, what I want to know is this: who, by name agrees with all the major

> points
> (within reason) of your theory? If there's not then I repeat, If your 
> arguments
> are so unconvincing you can't get even one of your fellow RESEARCHERS
(not 
> some
> fan of yours who hasn't studied the case), I can't see me spending my
time
> listing my evidence and engaging you in another (we've been here 
> before)marathon
> debate...when we'll end up the same, i.e. "agreeing to disagree".
> 
> Name someone, Robert, who totally agrees with you--if you had compelling
> evidence worth listening to there should be a few out there who
do--doncha
> think? Heck, I can name a ton of researchers who have the same beliefs
about
> this case as me...why should I care about convincing you? Anyway, you're
not
> going to change your mind.

Sorry, John. 

I don't jump through hoops unless I get at least a biscuit or a sardine 
for a reward.

John, you are NOT smarter than every other conspiracy denier around here, 
who likewise, cannot prove that Oswald acted alone. Poor David Peon 
recently tried. Take a look at his tragic results, John:-)

But at least he had the guts to try.

Sup****t your argument or stop wasting my time with these silly games.






Robert Harris