• 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:
Still waiting Jay.
Click to expand...

Be prepared to wait indefinitely. As I have told you numerous times, I have reached my conclusion regarding your findings. No matter how desperately you wish it, I will not continue to play your game.

I will continue to ask, until you answer.
Click to expand...

I have given you all the answers I intend to. Most recently I have advised you to re-read the preceding 50 or so pages. That was my answer before. It is my answer now. And no matter how frantically you attempt to engage me, that will continue to be my answer.

Deal with it.
 
JayUtah said:
And no matter how frantically you attempt to engage me, that will continue to be my answer.

Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Is this typical CTist behavior, frantically waving their hands to try to get rational people to engage with them? Like children trying to get the parents' attention while they're having an adult conversation?
 
RoboTimbo said:
Is this typical CTist behavior, frantically waving their hands to try to get rational people to engage with them? Like children trying to get the parents' attention while they're having an adult conversation?
Click to expand...


Very much so. However it's embarrassing to witness when an adult has been doing it for so many years.
 
Robert Harris said:
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?
Click to expand...

This one is important. Listen to the Secret Service agents who rejected the single bullet theory. They were probably wrong about that, but what is important is WHY they rejected it.

Watch the presentation.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Is this typical CTist behavior, frantically waving their hands to try to get rational people to engage with them? Like children trying to get the parents' attention while they're having an adult conversation?
Click to expand...

What a ludicrous accusation - as if nutters haven't spent far more time, trying to pitch their minority theory. Bugliosi began to write his book in the 80's.

You seem to want to argue about EVERYTHING other than the evidence, no matter how idiotic your argument is.

The evidence is what matters. It is ALL that matters.
 
JayUtah said:
It's a classic fringe reset. He has basically started over where he was around page 42 or 43 and is expecting everyone to pretend the past 50 pages didn't happen.
Click to expand...

Wrong as usual.

My articles and presentations have generated almost no replies at all, beyond endless excuses for why people will not discuss them.

The simple fact is, that none of my arguments in support of the fact that Oswald could not have acted alone, have been refuted.

If you think otherwise, then PROVE IT. Cite the refutation verbatim.
 
JayUtah said:
I have repeatedly directed you to the preceding 50 pages.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I don't take directions from someone who tells endless whoppers and deliberately misrepresents the evidence.

Actually, I rarely take directions from honest people either:-)

Bugliosi and Posner claimed that there were two shots fired, by frame 225. Do you agree with them, or do you think they were full of crap?

I believe them, Jay. How about you?
 
Robert Harris said:
Wrong as usual.

My articles and presentations have generated almost no replies at all, beyond endless excuses for why people will not discuss them.

The simple fact is, that none of my arguments in support of the fact that Oswald could not have acted alone, have been refuted.

If you think otherwise, then PROVE IT. Cite the refutation verbatim.
Click to expand...

What's wrong Jay - having a little trouble finding these brilliant rebuttals:D
 
JayUtah said:
It's a classic fringe reset. He has basically started over where he was around page 42 or 43 and is expecting everyone to pretend the past 50 pages didn't happen.
Click to expand...

It gets difficult to tell one CTist from another after a while. None of them have ever brought anything unique.
 
Robert Harris said:
I'm sorry, but I don't take directions from someone who tells endless whoppers and deliberately misrepresents the evidence.

Actually, I rarely take directions from honest people either:-)

Bugliosi and Posner claimed that there were two shots fired, by frame 225. Do you agree with them, or do you think they were full of crap?

I believe them, Jay. How about you?
Click to expand...

Do not confuse me with someone who is playing your game. You have been directed to where I and others have given you the answers you seek. If you choose not to be so "directed" then the consequences of that denial are yours.

I repeat, apparently in vain. I have drawn my conclusions regarding your claims. I have directed you to the reasons for having drawn them. I have further determined that continued engagement with you in your typical pattern is not likely to change my conclusions. If you wish reasons for that determination, they can also be found in the preceding 50 or so pages.

Your obsessive attempts to restart the engagement de novo are irrational and baffling.
 
RoboTimbo said:
It must be frustrating for them to be so marginalized.
Click to expand...

Well of course, Robo.

My presentations have generated nearly 5000 subscribers and 13 million views.

Or by "marginalized", were you referring to the tiny minority who actually buy into the lone nut theory:-)
 
JayUtah said:
Not at all. They are the ones you explicitly refuse to be directed to. I will not assume responsbility for your intransigence, nor will I play your game.
Click to expand...

Cite the best refutation you've seen - VERBATIM.

Stop making excuses and for once, actually PROVE your assertion.
 
JayUtah said:
Do not confuse me with someone who is playing your game. You have been directed to where I and others have given you the answers you seek. If you choose not to be so "directed" then the consequences of that denial are yours.

I repeat, apparently in vain. I have drawn my conclusions regarding your claims. I have directed you to the reasons for having drawn them.
Click to expand...

BS!! You've done nothing but evade my presentations and the evidence I've presented.

You even refuse to answer questions about YOUR OWN THEORY, using the laughable excuse that they are part of my "game".

Whatever "conclusions" you have drawn, are utterly and totally worthless, since you have steadfastly refused to support them with any kind of evidence, and have evaded countless, verifiable facts.

Why in holy hell, would you refuse to discuss the evidence???
 
Robert Harris said:
BS!! You've done nothing but evade my presentations and the evidence I've presented.

You even refuse to answer questions about YOUR OWN THEORY, using the laughable excuse that they are part of my "game".

Whatever "conclusions" you have drawn, are utterly and totally worthless, since you have steadfastly refused to support them with any kind of evidence, and have evaded countless, verifiable facts.

Why in holy hell, would you refuse to discuss the evidence???
Click to expand...

Do not mistake me for someone who is playing your game. I have drawn my conclusions regarding your claims. I have directed you to where the reasons for that conclusion may be found. You are not entitled to a new debate simply because you want one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom