Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[RoboTimbo]

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

LOL! You really have no idea what that fallacy is. You heard it here and now misuse the term.

And you will corroborate that fact by failing to even attempt to prove otherwise.

#72 - Fringe reset. Just like every other CTist. Again.

 

[Robert Harris]

For those who might be new to this issue, I explain in detail, the facts and evidence associated with the 285 shot, in this brief presentation.

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

Any rebuttals?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Any rebuttals?

You've already been instructed to deal with the numerous rebuttals that reveal the fatal flaws of your opinions.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

You continue to mistake me for someone who is playing your game.

 

[Robert Harris]

This argument specifically addresses the question of whether it was possible for Oswald to have fired all the shots. After all this time, no one has been able to refute it or even try.

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html

 

[Robert Harris]

What matters most?

1. Evidence

2. Evidence

3. Evidence

What matters least?

1. Evasions

2. Excuses for evading

3. "Robert Harris"

I propose that we discuss what matters most.

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

 

[RoboTimbo]

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html

Inane. Do as you were instructed.

 

[Robert Harris]

Inane. Do as you were instructed.

I'm sorry you feel that the evidence is inane.

In reality, it is not just important. It is ALL that is important in a forum like this.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm sorry you feel that the evidence is inane.

In reality, it is not just important. It is ALL that is important in a forum like this.

Your "evidence" is since it consists solely of your opinion. However, I was referring not to your opinions but to your constant spamming, as you well knew.

What is your complete and coherent hypothesis for what happened the day JFK was assassinated?

 

[Robert Harris]

Your "evidence" is since it consists solely of your opinion.

Please be specific about which evidence you think is only mine and not everyone else's. Please cite verbatim, my description of that evidence.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Please be specific about which evidence you think is only mine and not everyone else's. Please cite verbatim, my description of that evidence.

Do as you were instructed. Go back and read where it's already been pointed out.

 

[JayUtah]

Please be specific about which evidence you think is only mine and not everyone else's. Please cite verbatim, my description of that evidence.

Re-read the last 50 pages of the discussion.

 

[BStrong]

Please be specific about which evidence you think is only mine and not everyone else's. Please cite verbatim, my description of that evidence.

As hard as it may be for you to believe it, you have not been appointed the JFK thread hall monitor.

 

[Robert Harris]

Do as you were instructed. Go back and read where it's already been pointed out.

So, you cannot provide a verbatim example of evidence which is only "mine"??

Perhaps I can help you out here.

Were the WC's conclusions about the large consensus of witnesses only mine and not yours?

Were the visible, simultaneous reactions only mine and not yours?

Were the analyses of Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio, only mine and not yours?

Were the sworn testimonies of the people we see reacting, only mine and not yours?

I don't have my own evidence. The evidence I present is verifiable and beyond dispute. You may present your own conclusions of course, in the unlikely event that you ever address this evidence, but you won't get away with pretending that the evidence is not EVERYONE'S.

 

[Robert Harris]

This argument specifically addresses the question of whether it was possible for Oswald to have fired all the shots. After all this time, no one has been able to refute it or even try.

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html

No arguments?

 

[Robert Harris]

Re-read the last 50 pages of the discussion.

There is no evidence I have presented which has been proven to be invalid - none.

There have been conclusions which are disputed, but never evidence.

It's disappointing that you would support such a ridiculously false assertion as this.

 

[JayUtah]

There is no evidence I have presented which has been proven to be invalid - none.

There have been conclusions which are disputed, but never evidence.

It's disappointing that you would support such a ridiculously false assertion as this.

Once again you have mistaken me for someone who is playing your game.

 

[Robert Harris]

Once again you have mistaken me for someone who is playing your game.

In addition to your false claim that I invent evidence that no one else sees, your statement that, "other evidence tells us there was no shot", at 285 was deliberately false.

There is no such evidence and no one else in this forum has claimed that such evidence exists. You just made that up, didn't you Mr. Utah

It is REALLY this important to you, to promote the thoroughly discredited, "lone nut" theory, that you have to resort to tactics like this?

 

[Hans]

Any bets on how many times he will post the same link and try to taunt someone into buying into his attempt at a fringe reset?

I'll go for for 71 times with another attempt at a yet another fringe reset in late August.

 

[JayUtah]

In addition to your false claim that I invent evidence that no one else sees, your statement that, "other evidence tells us there was no shot", at 285 was deliberately false.

There is no such evidence and no one else in this forum has claimed that such evidence exists. You just made that up, didn't you Mr. Utah

It is REALLY this important to you, to promote the thoroughly discredited, "lone nut" theory, that you have to resort to tactics like this?

The only "tactic" I am resorting to is not playing the rhetorical game you have laid out. I have examined your claims and I have drawn my conclusions regarding their credibility. I have drawn further conclusions regarding how likely you are to respond to further engagement.

If you wish to understand the reasons behind those conclusions, please re-read the preceding 50 or so pages.