• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Harris said:
I will no longer "debate" here,
Click to expand...
You did right to put the word in quotes since you haven't been debating at all. You've made pronouncements and presented your opinion as evidence and were soundly handed your head for it. Then you've run away from all rebuttals with your fingers in your ears.

since it is impossible to have meaningful discourse when I have to spend 98% of my time, untangling deliberate misrepresentations, and outright lies.
Click to expand...
How about spending 98% of your time answering the questions asked of you.

What is your complete and coherent alternative hypothesis for JFK's assassination? Make sure that it accounts for a consilience of evidence.

But as a reminder to everyone, the question of conspiracy, is a simple one. If these people were reacting to what they said they heard, then the fat lady has sung.
Click to expand...
This is an example of you presenting your opinion as evidence. Answer the questions asked of you and respond to the rebuttals which expose the fatal flows in your opinions.
 
In addition to the visible reactions, the science and the overwhelming consensus of the witnesses, here is more corroboration from the Secret Service.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAqqWwG_bbE

I realize that you guys are here to debunk "conspiracy theories", in an assembly line manner. But you must never forget that unlikely as you might think it is, you just might, on rare occasions, be wrong.

When you debate "truthers" and moon landing hoaxers, the evidence is overwhelmingly on your side. Have you noticed that the opposite is true, on this issue?
 
Actually, I think I will discuss and debate arguments that are relevant to the conspiracy question, so long as they contain no ad hominem attacks or references to me, personally.

Is anyone up for that?
 
Robert Harris said:
For those who might be new to this issue...
Click to expand...

Fringe reset. We're the same people you were talking to earlier, Harris.

Robert Harris said:
Actually, I think I will discuss and debate arguments that are relevant to the conspiracy question, so long as they contain no ad hominem attacks or references to me, personally.

Is anyone up for that?
Click to expand...

You don't know what an ad hominem attack is, and you don't know the difference between a reference to you and a reference to your argument.

No one is interested in playing your self-aggrandizement game, and your actual arguments have been addressed at length whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
 
The Warren Commission concluded that "most" relevant witnesses reported only a single shot prior to the very end of the attack.

John Connally heard ONE early shot and then "felt" the second, which he never heard.

..and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it.

His wife heard ONE early shot, prior to looking back at JFK at app. frame 258. She then heard the second and third shots, "some time" after that.

Bill Greer heard ONE early shot and then near simultaneous shots at the end.

Roy Kellerman heard ONE early shot and then a "flurry" of at least two closely spaced shots at the end.

Does anyone here believe that ALL of those people were wrong, and suffered exactly the same delusion?
 
Last edited:
Robert Harris said:
...

2. Mr. Sieznant claims that nobody sees these reactions, other than me - strange, since everybody was originally claiming that the reactions were caused by Greer slamming on the brakes, and throwing the limo passengers forward and Sieznant himself, claimed that Oswald could have fired both shots at 285 and 313.
Click to expand...
Where does Hank claim this?


I will no longer "debate" here, since it is impossible to have meaningful discourse when I have to spend 98% of my time, untangling deliberate misrepresentations, and outright lies. But as a reminder to everyone, the question of conspiracy, is a simple one. If these people were reacting to what they said they heard, then the fat lady has sung.
Click to expand...
You don't have to spend any of your time here doing any of this, Bob; you do it here because it's your hobby, and you know your precious "evidence" is no good anyplace else. If it was worth anything, you'd have taken it to somebody, like the FBI, who could do something more useful with it than just self-righteously "debate" about the whole thing.
 
Robert Harris said:
Actually, I think I will discuss and debate arguments that are relevant to the conspiracy question, so long as they contain no ad hominem attacks or references to me, personally.

Is anyone up for that?
Click to expand...

STILL no takers??

What is this terrible aversion to evidence around here?

Is it that you have so much faith in the LN theory, which has no evidential support whatsoever, that you refuse to look at the verifiable facts and evidence?

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence."

Richard Dawkins
 
Robert Harris said:
What is this terrible aversion to evidence around here?
Click to expand...

Your evidence has been addressed. The aversion is instead to your attention-grubbing song-and-dance routine, Harris. And no, there are no takers for that. I will no longer play your game, and it looks like no one else will either.
 
Last edited:
Robert Harris said:
The Warren Commission concluded that "most" relevant witnesses reported only a single shot prior to the very end of the attack.

John Connally heard ONE early shot and then "felt" the second, which he never heard.

..and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it.

His wife heard ONE early shot, prior to looking back at JFK at app. frame 258. She then heard the second and third shots, "some time" after that.

Bill Greer heard ONE early shot and then near simultaneous shots at the end.

Roy Kellerman heard ONE early shot and then a "flurry" of at least two closely spaced shots at the end.

Does anyone here believe that ALL of those people were wrong, and suffered exactly the same delusion?
Click to expand...

No answers??

Is the question REALLY that tough?

It isn't to anyone who is objective and honest.
 
JayUtah said:
Sorry, no fringe reset for you today.
Click to expand...

You are begging the question, since you have not demonstrated that any of these arguments have been seriously addressed or refuted.

And you will corroborate that fact by failing to even attempt to prove otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom