Just as you'd never accept such a lame, shoddy attempt if I presented it as evidence of something going against the conspiracy narrative.
You know you wouldn't.
Not as a stand alone, no. Wait and see,
You don't know anything. You choose to believe it based on nothing at all because it reinforces your chosen conclusion, which is exactly why you suck at this so badly.
Thank you for your honest review. I promise to do better from now on.
Take a look back through this thread and see what standard of proof you hold for everyone else's arguments compared to your own. You've been provided with reports, studies and facts from multiple posters and none of it was ever good enough for you because it challenged your preconceived conclusions. You'll accept FAR less from yourself though, which should embarrass you.
Most of it is copies of conclusions and asertions made by the so called ”debunkers”. Is this enough, you say?
Look at our current conversation regarding McLain's position. I've provided a 192 page annotated and sourced study with screen captures, figures, measurements. You've countered with a couple frames of a shapeless blob and somehow think you are on even footing.
You aren't.
I don’t care how many pages with screen captures you are posting if you are not explaining what is what and what its evidence for.
You want me to read it and start taking it down. I could do that and have done so several times before, no worries. This time, though, I’ll try something different, and do it the way it is supposed to be done.
1. BBN/W&A published their joint investigation of the a ocoustical evidence saying that it was five rifle shots on the dictabelt recording. Four from behind the president and one from in front, from the picket fence on the knoll, being the fatal head shot.
2. You are objecting to this, saying this findings have been debunked by a guy named Dale Myers.
3. I ask you how you know that Myers have ”debunked” the investigations findings.
4. You post his ”paper” and demand I read it.
5. I say that I have certainly read it but that’s not the point. The point is that YOU have to explain how YOU got convinced of the veracity of Myers proclamations.
6. You start to post copied asertions from Myers but still, no science, no data, no method.
7. And on and on.
If i were the one who found convincing data and arguments in a published report of an investigation I would be delighted to present it and start scoring points.
Instead I have to drag you through it kicking and screaming as if it was ME who should present the data and science backing YOUR proclamations??
Is this really, sane?
I'll dumb it down for you.
Well, thank you.
Which 2 cars is McLain riding between and on what side of the street in the Hughes film?
Which 2 cars is the Dorman figure riding between and on what side of the street in the Dorman film?
Spell it out and make your point.
OK, so which other Dallas PD motorcycle officer with a white notepad clipped to his windshield is shown in the Dorman film?
Circular reasoning. There is just ONE motorcycle in the Dorman film. The white ticket book is proven not unique to McLain = no evidence for McLain being the cop on the Dorman bike.
Dale Myers in the study I presented. Jump in at page 123.
How?
