Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
Earlier Robert claimed that due to having to debate "the whole forum," he would intentionally let some posts go unanswered. His demonstrated choices about which posts to answer and which to let go, among this allegedly ponderous workload, should give you some indication how profitable it is to engage him on the nominal topic.
Click to expand...

Jay, you get top priority.

You told me early on, that you were more knowledgeable about this case than I am, so I am eager to get your opinions.

Ok, ok, I lied. At least I'm honest about it:)

I don't ask because of your self proclaimed expertise. I ask because I know you will continue to tacitly corroborate me by dodging the tough questions.

And in the unlikely event that you actually answer, we both know what will happen.

Evasion is admission of defeat, Jay. But I will admit that you are intelligent - bright enough to realize that your theory won't hold up to the evidence and facts related to this crime. I'll give you credit for that.
 
JayUtah said:
This thread existed long before you arrived and will persist long after you leave.
Click to expand...

Yep, just like belief in the magic of Jesus:-)

Unfortunately, longevity doesn't answer any questions. It's the verifiable facts and evidence which do that. The same facts and evidence that you refuse to discuss.
 
Robert Harris said:
Jay, you get top priority.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant; I have formed my opinion based on the discussion to date.

I am eager to get your opinions.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered.

Evasion is admission of defeat, Jay. But I will admit that you are intelligent - bright enough to realize that your theory won't hold up to the evidence and facts related to this crime. I'll give you credit for that.
Click to expand...

You continue to mistake me for someone who is playing your game, including putting words in my mouth.
 
Robert Harris said:
Jay, you get top priority.

You told me early on, that you were more knowledgeable about this case than I am, so I am eager to get your opinions.

Ok, ok, I lied. At least I'm honest about it:)

I don't ask because of your self proclaimed expertise. I ask because I know you will continue to tacitly corroborate me by dodging the tough questions.

And in the unlikely event that you actually answer, we both know what will happen.

Evasion is admission of defeat, Jay. But I will admit that you are intelligent - bright enough to realize that your theory won't hold up to the evidence and facts related to this crime. I'll give you credit for that.
Click to expand...

The mods will probably bump my comment to AAH, but I just have to say, this is utterly insane.
 
Sandy McCroskey said:
The mods will probably bump my comment to AAH, but I just have to say, this is utterly insane.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.

But I think Jay will eventually acquire the testicular abundance to answer the tough questions:-)

I'll bet you are as eager as I am, to hear Jay's theories and rebuttals, aren't you Sandy?
 
Last edited:
Robert Harris said:
Did you mean asked and evaded?
Click to expand...

No, I mean what I said. Do not put words in my mouth. I have reached a judgment on whether you're genuinely interested in what I write, based on your demonstrated reaction to what I have written. I see no reason to alter that judgment.

Consider that you are obsessing over someone who has, several times, expressed that he has already made his mind up about your claims, and that in doing so, you are utterly ignoring a number of people who are still trying to engage you on specific points arising from your claims. Consider whether that obsession supports or undermines the suggestion that you are simply playing rhetorical games.
 
Last edited:
Robert Harris said:
I couldn't agree more.

But I think Jay will eventually acquire the testicular abundance to answer the tough questions:-)

I'll bet you are as eager as I am, to hear Jay's theories and rebuttals, aren't you Sandy?
Click to expand...


I know it goes against the rules of Time-Travel but I can't help wanting to win money by predicting Roberts responses.

ETA: "Groundhog Day" plus "HotTub Time Machine"
 
Last edited:
Robert Harris said:
Did you mean asked and evaded?

Tell everyone about your theory, Jay. Do you go with Posner and Bugliosi or have you come up with something else?
Click to expand...

You are so inordinately proud of having "come up with something else," you can't see that what you've come up with is unsubstantiated, baroquely complicated, extremely fanciful, absurdly unrealistic, dependent on physical impossibilities and risible in the extreme. (And we haven't even gotten yet here to your notion that Oswald was a right-winger or that there was a shooter in the storm drain...)

It is evident that your alleged admiration for the men you like to say exemplify skepticism to you is based merely on their espousal of unpopular, unconventional ideas, such as atheism, rather than on anything remotely related to the methodology of their thinking or the tools at the disposal of every truly critical thinker (or else you wouldn't disparage these tools and this methodology).

And that somehow, in 2015, you still think that challenging the Warren Commission is a brave, skeptical stand...
 
Last edited:
Robert Harris said:
Did you mean asked and evaded?

Tell everyone about your theory, Jay. Do you go with Posner and Bugliosi or have you come up with something else?
Click to expand...

Think about the conspiracy theories you have yourself rejected, Bob. You take pride in being somehow different from those kooks. Did you ask yourself the kinds of questions that have been asked here about your theory, or did you reject those theories out of hand simply because they weren't your (wonderfully creative) theory?
 
JayUtah said:
Earlier Robert claimed that due to having to debate "the whole forum," he would intentionally let some posts go unanswered. His demonstrated choices about which posts to answer and which to let go, among this allegedly ponderous workload, should give you some indication how profitable it is to engage him on the nominal topic.
Click to expand...

Understood.

Hank
 
Robert Harris said:
I have no idea what you're talking about.

Present your questions that you think I'm evading, one at a time, and I will do my best to provide answers.
Click to expand...

You have no idea?

Hilarious.

Let's do this in order:
Robert Harris said:
to who Oswald's accomplices were, I do not have a list of names for you, although I am extremely suspicious of James Braden, who was on the third floor of the Daltex building, had connections with David Ferrie and Carlos Marcello, who confessed to an FBI informant that he ordered the assassination, and was at the Cabana hotel with Jack Ruby, the night before the assassination.

He also lied in his HSCA testimony, claiming he was with his parole officer during the assassination - a claim the parole officer flatly denied.
Click to expand...
HSienzant said:
You might want to double-check those assertions, Robert. You won't be able to establish any of those, other than him being on the third floor of the Dal-Tex building after the assassination.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid.htm

Hank
Click to expand...


Still waiting for you to document any of the claims you made early on.

Hank

PS:
Robert Harris said:
Evasion is admission of defeat...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sandy McCroskey said:
You are so inordinately proud of having "come up with something else," you can't see that what you've come up with is unsubstantiated, baroquely complicated, extremely fanciful, absurdly unrealistic, dependent on physical impossibilities and risible in the extreme. (And we haven't even gotten yet here to your notion that Oswald was a right-winger or that there was a shooter in the storm drain...)
Click to expand...

Wait, what???

Oswald a right-winger?

Shooter in the storm drain?

Seriously?

Hank
 
BUMP AT BOB'S REQUEST

HSienzant said:
Straw argument. I know of no such claim by the Warren Commission. The HSCA was wedded to the dictabelt analysis, which colored their conclusions about what shots were fired when.

You've presented no evidence for a shot at Zapruder frame 285. This is your pet theory. Not the HSCA's. Not the Warren Commission's. Not any "lone nutter's" theory, either. Yours. Right? You're presuming what you must prove. That's a LOGICAL FALLACY. It's called "Begging the Question", which is where you imbed in your argument the very point you're going to need to prove.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Please, click on the link and familiarize yourself with the fallacy you committed. And try to avoid doing it again.

Hank
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom