Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Robert Harris]

So needy.... but so easy to ignore.

You did not "ignore" me. You responded to me but evaded the questions. And you did that, because you didn't like the answers

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?

 

[JayUtah]

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

I have been in this thread for several years debating the Kennedy assassination. I will be in it long after you are gone, debating the Kennedy assassiation. It is profoundly egotistical for you to think this thread is only about you and your claims, and that the regulars are somehow obliged to address you on your foisted terms. And it is profoundly delusional for you to insist that your wanton attention-grubbing qualifies as "debating the assassination."

I will not play your game, and it appears no one else will either.

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

Whatever you think "[my] theory and [my] assertions" may be, it has nothing to do with the fact that you were given an opportunity to present and defend your claims, and that based on that presentation and "defense" I have made up my mind regarding them. None of your frantic efforts to shift the burden of proof changes that.

Deal with the fact that people have made up their minds about you.

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.

Do not put words in my mouth.

 

[RoboTimbo]

#7 - Attempt to shift the burden of proof. Just like every other CTist.

It's just amazing that each one of them thinks they're unique in some way when they all do the exact same (predictable) things.

 

[JayUtah]

It's just amazing that each one of them thinks they're unique in some way when they all do the exact same (predictable) things.

Including attempting to reset the argument, which is yet another of the things I advised Harris not to do at the very outset. And remember that what we here at ISF call a "fringe reset" is known elsewhere as a Harris Award. It's one thing to pretend to deny you're trying to start the debate all over again. It's another thing to be so known for a particular tactic that it bears your name.

 

[Robert Harris]

I have been in this thread for several years debating the Kennedy assassination. I will be in it long after you are gone, debating the Kennedy assassiation. It is profoundly egotistical for you to think this thread is only about you and your claims

This forum is about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and whether he was the victim of more than a single assassin.

And it is open to all forum members. As such, you don't get to shut me up. And I just cannot think of anything of less importance to me, than whether you agree.

As I stated before, I will continue to post evidence here, which contrary to all the personal smears, is ALL THAT MATTERS. And the fact that you continually evade that evidence, is just one more form of corroboration.

 

[RoboTimbo]

#12 - Mistaking opinion for evidence.

I think this one should be named for the CTist who has pretty much made it his own personal meme. Then he'll have two namesake fallacies.

 

[Robert Harris]

Including attempting to reset the argument, which is yet another of the things I advised Harris not to do at the very outset. And remember that what we here at ISF call a "fringe reset" is known elsewhere as a Harris Award. It's one thing to pretend to deny you're trying to start the debate all over again. It's another thing to be so known for a particular tactic that it bears your name.

LOL!!

Are you actually trying to claim that someone here has refuted my arguments that Oswald could not have fired all the shots??

If you are, then you belied your own claim by failing to cite even a single rebuttal, after I repeatedly challenged you to do so.

What you are calling a "reset" is nothing more than me giving you guys another chance to refute me and answer the most critical questions. Sadly, I only get the same thing I got before - a lot of personal drivel and phony excuses for why you cannot address the issues and evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

This forum is about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy...

Partly true.

...and whether he was the victim of more than a single assassin.

False. The thread is about how the proposals of various Kennedy conspiracy theories never end -- in essence how all the conspiracy theorists rely on the fringe-reset behavior. Your claims are about more than one assassin, but that is not the titular subject of the thread, nor does it function as a limitation on what may be discussed or with whom.

No matter how much attention you want, you don't get to pretend this thread is only about you and your claims.

And it is open to all forum members. As such, you don't get to shut me up.

I'm not trying to shut you up. I'm telling you I will not play your rhetorical game. You may continue to solicit players, but I think the regulars are pretty much on to you at this point.

And I just cannot think of anything of less importance to me, than whether you agree.

I disagree. Both before your absence and after it, you have obsessed over trying to bait me into playing your rhetorical games again. Others have also noticed this. I think you care more about whether I engage you than about any of your arguments, which you must know after 20 years have limited convincing power. I have told you countless times I will not re-open the debate with you. Yet you seem to think about nothing else.

As I stated before, I will continue to post evidence here, which contrary to all the personal smears, is ALL THAT MATTERS. And the fact that you continually evade that evidence, is just one more form of corroboration.

Do not put words in my mouth. I have given you the reasons why I will not engage you further. Do not pretend the reasons are otherwise.

 

[JayUtah]

LOL!!

Are you actually trying to claim that someone here has refuted my arguments that Oswald could not have fired all the shots??

If you are, then you belied your own claim by failing to cite even a single rebuttal, after I repeatedly challenged you to do so.

What you are calling a "reset" is nothing more than me giving you guys another chance to refute me and answer the most critical questions. Sadly, I only get the same thing I got before - a lot of personal drivel and phony excuses for why you cannot address the issues and evidence.

Do not mistake me for someone who is playing your game. You were directed to the discussion of your claims. You explicitly declined to consider it. Your belief that you are thereafter entitled to a new debate is irrational.

 

[Robert Harris]

Do not put words in my mouth. I have given you the reasons why I will not engage you further. Do not pretend the reasons are otherwise.

I'm afraid you put the words in your own mouth, every time you dodge the tough questions and issues. And you need to stop pretending that you weren't doing that, from the day I first posted here.

As for your rather ludicrous claim that this forum is not here to consider the question of conspiracy in the JFK case, I guess I will continue to post empirical, verifiable evidence, while you continue to evade it.

 

[abaddon]

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

Spam, spam, spam.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm afraid you put the words in your own mouth, every time you dodge the tough questions and issues.

No. Refusing to play your games does not license you to put words in people's mouths.

As for your rather ludicrous claim that this forum is not here to consider the question of conspiracy in the JFK case...

I made no such claim. You have not read the thread, so you are not an authority on what its purpose is.

 

[Robert Harris]

No. Refusing to play your games does not license you to put words in people's mouths.

What a silly accusation. I never claimed you said anything that you did not say.

I said you corroborate me whenever you evade the tough questions and issues, and you most certainly do.

I made no such claim.

Of course you did. I said the purpose of the forum was to discuss whether JFK was the victim of a conspiracy. You replied,

"False. The thread is about how the proposals of various Kennedy conspiracy theories never end.."

It's one thing when you misrepresent me, but quite another when you misrepresent your own statements

 

[JayUtah]

I said you corroborate me whenever you evade the tough questions and issues, and you most certainly do.

Do not put words in my mouth.

You replied,

You quoted only half my response. The other half doesn't fit your interpretation.

You are once again trying to moderate the forum. Earlier you tried to impose rules upon who could address you. Now you're trying to tell people they are obliged to address you on your terms. Neither is true. You are not a moderator, and no one is going to play your games.

 

[JayUtah]

I said the purpose of the forum was to discuss whether JFK was the victim of a conspiracy.

No. You said

This forum is about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and whether he was the victim of more than a single assassin.

"Victim of more than a single assassin" and "victim of a conspiracy" are not equivalent concepts.

 

[Robert Harris]

Do not put words in my mouth.

Do you think my arguments for a shot at 285-288 have been refuted?

 

[JayUtah]

Do you think my arguments for a shot at 285-288 have been refuted?

Do not mistake me for someone who is playing your game. You were directed to where your claims were discussed.

 

[Robert Harris]

No. You said

​

"Victim of more than a single assassin" and "victim of a conspiracy" are not equivalent concepts.

Wrong again, amigo.

A "conspiracy" is a crime carried out by more than a single perpetrator.

Ergo, "more than a single assassin" = "conspiracy".

I can't believe that I have to explain that to you.

 

[Robert Harris]

Do not mistake me for someone who is playing your game. You were directed to where your claims were discussed.

Don't you think you've worn that excuse out

The reason you won't answer that question is that if you tell the truth, you will be supporting me. If you claim otherwise, you will be challenged to describe that nonexistent refutation.

That's a nasty corner to be in, eh Jay?

Do you think my arguments for a shot at 285-288 have been refuted?

 

[JayUtah]

Wrong again, amigo.

A "conspiracy" is a crime carried out by more than a single perpetrator.

Ergo, "more than a single assassin" = "conspiracy".

I can't believe that I have to explain that to you.

Not all conspirators have to be shooters. In your theory, the mafia don was a conspirator but not a shooter. I can't believe I have to explain that to you. If you had read the thread, you'd have seen several recurrent conspiracy theories, not all of which involve Oswald as a shooter, and not all of which involve multiple shooters.