• 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:
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...

Why won't you answer the question, Jay?

You dodged dozens of questions, long before this.

Do you at least, have some new excuses?
 
Hans said:
Wow 4% of the US population viewed your materials and 0.001625% of the world
Click to expand...

The quantitative argument isn't very compelling. In leiu of actual importance on the merits of the arguments -- which would (if convincing) be of some interest to academia and law enforcement -- he has to backpedal to being "YouTube famous," which fame isn't especially noteworthy outside of YouTube.
 
Robert Harris said:
Why won't you answer the question, Jay?

You dodged dozens of questions, long before this.

Do you at least, have some new excuses?
Click to expand...

You persist in mistaking me for someone who is playing your game. Your obsession over trying to re-engage someone who has declared numerous times and in the most forceful terms that he has already reached his conclusion is, at this point, merely sad.
 
Hans said:
I believe they might have a case against the CTist based on credo quia absurdum est
Click to expand...

Robo seems to be a little bashful today, perhaps you will answer his question for him.

How many shots do you think were fired, prior to frame 285?
 
JayUtah said:
The quantitative argument isn't very compelling. In leiu of actual importance on the merits of the arguments -- which would (if convincing) be of some interest to academia and law enforcement -- he has to backpedal to being "YouTube famous," which fame isn't especially noteworthy outside of YouTube.
Click to expand...

I have an amusing image in my head of him spending endless hours assessing his own own materials to drive up the count.

lol
 
Hans said:
I have an amusing image in my head of him spending endless hours assessing his own own materials to drive up the count.

lol
Click to expand...

As I mentioned before, someone who spams his videos and links in pretty much any venue that will tolerate him can't really cite hit-count, view-count, or subscriptions as a credible metric of the merits of the argument, or even of popularity (i.e., non-marginal status).

The fact is that scholarship of the Kennedy era is an important academic field, and that studies of Kennedy's assassination are of special interest. Harris' inability to penetrate that field at any more than a populist level is the indication of marginalization that we're talking about. Conspiracy theorists typically have a very inflated picture of their own importance. This comes about by various filtration methods. But they are generally ill-equipped to deal with the negligence of their impact in the larger field of relevant scholarship.
 
Hans said:
I have an amusing image in my head of him spending endless hours assessing his own own materials to drive up the count.

lol
Click to expand...

I have a mental image of him jumping up and down in front of parents waving his arms and shouting "Look at me! Look at meeeeeee!"

Wow, 20 years and too ashamed of his opinions to take them to the FBI.
 
Hans said:
I have an amusing image in my head
Click to expand...

That is quite common among people who believe on the basis of faith, rather than evidence.

It is also common among those types, to refuse to look at evidence which proves them wrong.

Have you examined any of my articles and presentations yet? Are you prepared to do what none of your partners can do, and post a rebuttal to ANY of them?

Or do you intend to just continue to post lame excuses?
 
JayUtah said:
As I mentioned before, someone who spams his videos and links in pretty much any venue that will tolerate him can't really cite hit-count, view-count, or subscriptions as a credible metric of the merits of the argument, or even of popularity (i.e., non-marginal status).

The fact is that scholarship of the Kennedy era is an important academic field, and that studies of Kennedy's assassination are of special interest. Harris' inability to penetrate that field at any more than a populist level is the indication of marginalization that we're talking about. Conspiracy theorists typically have a very inflated picture of their own importance. This comes about by various filtration methods. But they are generally ill-equipped to deal with the negligence of their impact in the larger field of relevant scholarship.
Click to expand...

Jay, do you think that most of the witnesses that day all suffered from the same delusion?

Or do you think they were correct in reporting that they heard only a single, early shot and then closely bunched shots at the end?
 
JayUtah said:
You persist in mistaking me for someone who is playing your game. Your obsession over trying to re-engage someone who has declared numerous times and in the most forceful terms that he has already reached his conclusion is, at this point, merely sad.
Click to expand...

Jay, is English your first language?

You seem to think that I was asking you whether you reached a conclusion. I was not. Here is what I asked you:

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???
 
Hans said:
I believe they might have a case against the CTist based on credo quia absurdum est
Click to expand...

Hans, do you see reactions like this, following any of the early shots?

http://jfkhistory.com/duckstwice.gif

I don't and neither does anyone else, who has addressed that question. Of course, if Oswald had fired all the shots, the earliest would have been the loudest and most startling.

If the early shots were not loud enough to startle anyone like the later shots did, how could they have all come from the same rifle?
 
Robert Harris said:
Jay, is English your first language?

You seem to think that I was asking you whether you reached a conclusion. I was not. Here is what I asked you:

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...

Is English your first language? How many times must I tell you that I have evaluated your claims and reached my conclusion? How many times must you be told that I have no further interest in playing your games? Why do you persist in attempting to re-engage a debate?
 
Robert Harris said:
Hans, do you see reactions like this, following any of the early shots?

http://jfkhistory.com/duckstwice.gif

I don't and neither does anyone else, who has addressed that question. Of course, if Oswald had fired all the shots, the earliest would have been the loudest and most startling.

If the early shots were not loud enough to startle anyone like the later shots did, how could they have all come from the same rifle?
Click to expand...


So needy.... but so easy to ignore.
 
JayUtah said:
Is English your first language? How many times must I tell you that I have evaluated your claims and reached my conclusion? How many times must you be told that I have no further interest in playing your games? Why do you persist in attempting to re-engage a debate?
Click to expand...

If you do not wish to debate the assassination, then get out of the subforum.

If you remain, you are going to be challenged to defend your theory and your assertions.

But never forget that every time you evade the tough questions and issues, you are tacitly admitting that you are wrong and that you realize that you cannot defend your position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom