Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

[smartcooky]

1. There are no reasons to argue that the ca 52 witnesses hearing shots from the knoll were mistaken while the ca 48 witnesses hearing shots from the TSBD were correct.

Ah, I see you're using Josiah Thomson's fraudlently manipulated numbers. That, is where you are going wrong. Try using the correct numbers

Tablulated here

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm

And yes there is very good reason for the witnesses nearest to the TSBD to carry greater credibility than those near the knoll. They were not as susceptible to being fooled by echoes from the structures near the knoll. The Bryan pergola (the structure at the top of the grassy knoll) is the perfect shape to act as a reflector for echoes from where the shots were actually fired from (TSBD)

Acoustics is a very complex science. The waveform relationships resulting from echoes reflected from complex shaped structures can give some baffling aural effects. It is perfectly possible for people to be standing side by side near a structure such as the Bryan pergola to all hear the same sound and swear they came from different directions. However, it is not the case in reverse. If any shots had come from the Grassy Knoll, the people between the TSBD and the knoll would have reported shots coming from both directions. Only 3% did, and none of them were between the knoll and the TSBD. They were;

Garland Slack who was at the vehicle entrance of the Sheriff's Office in Houston street. He thought the first two shots came from the triple underpass, and the third from the TSBD. Slack is located in the perfect place to get echoes from the underpass.

Samual Paternostro who was on the second floor of the Criminal Courts Building building in Houston Street. The thought the first two shots came from the TSBD and the third from the triple underpass. Paternostro is also located in the perfect place to get echoes from the underpass.

A.J. Millican who was standing on the north side of Elm Street between the knoll and the triple underpass. He reports the three shot from the TSBD and then two more shots from the underpass, and the three more shots that sounded coming from further away. (After the first three shots, he is describing echoes)

Paul Landis (A SS Agent) who was standing on rear part of the right running board on the follow up car in the presidential motorcade. He heard the first shot come from behind him (that is the direction if the TSBD) and the second from somewhere in front (he did not hear a third shot)

2. There are no reasons to expect that witnesses hearing multiple shots from different directions fired tightly spaced in two successive bursts, would be keeping exact count of the exact number of shots and thereafter report it correctly to investigators who were clearly biased in favor of three shots from the TSBD.

Only 3% of witnesses reported shots from two directions, Their reports can be discounts and being below the "noise" level

3. The very reason for HSCA to hire the two world leading expert teams in the field of acoustic analysis was to scientifically determine the number of shots and from where they were fired, because the witness record was so inconclusive.

They were wrong. Their work has been refuted and debunked time and time again. Even THEY agree that they were wrong.

 

[HSienzant]

You said that the microfilm receipt of Oswald's purchase of the rifle is fake; a charge that you have bought unseen.

I have postponed this topic to the near future because my time is limited.

Translation: By 'near future' I mean I will avoid this topic like it had a radioactive half-life of 4 billion years.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

No need. If he meant the railroad bridge, he would have said so. But he didn’t, he said, the railroad tracks. End of story.

The railroad tracks are on both sides of the bridge (north and south) and go over the bridge. "Coming from the railroad tracks" is hardly definitive.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

6. There is a photograph showing smoke over the lower part of the knoll just after the shooting.

[qimg]https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TLxk6_guQpI/AAAAAAAAFfQ/qbO0Ity5XdI/s1600/216.+Frame+From+Dave+Wiegman+Film.jpg[/qimg]

How many shooters were there atop the overpass? Look at all the smoke up there!

It's no coincidence, I would wager, that they use a grainy fifth or tenth generation image instead of a first generation copy. Is that smoke that's circled? Or just sunlight illuminating the tops of the bushes in the area?

Or is it steam? There were steampipes in that area. One of the witnesses - who you referenced in regard to the supposed Mauser that never was - mentioned burning his hands on steampipes as he scaled the fence.

== QUOTE ==
Mr. WEITZMAN - I immediately ran toward the President's car. Of course, it was speeding away and somebody said the shots or the firecrackers, whatever it was at that time, we still didn't know the President was shot, came from the wall. I immediately scaled that wall.
Mr. BALL - What is the location of that wall?
Mr. WEITZMAN - It would be between the railroad overpass and I can't remember the name of that little street that runs off Elm; it's cater-corner--the section there between the--what do you call it--the monument section?
Mr. BALL - That's where Elm actually dead ends?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; I scaled the wall and, apparently, my hands grabbed steampipes. I burned them.
Mr. BALL - Did you go into the railroad yards?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==

This is yet another excellent example of you begging the question.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

How many shooters were there atop the overpass? Look at all the smoke up there!

It's no coincidence, I would wager, that they use a grainy fifth or tenth generation image instead of a first generation copy. Is that smoke that's circled? Or just sunlight illuminating the tops of the bushes in the area?

Or is it steam? There were steampipes in that area. One of the witnesses - who you referenced in regard to the supposed Mauser that never - was mentioned burning his hands on steampipes as he scaled the fence.

== QUOTE ==
Mr. WEITZMAN - I immediately ran toward the President's car. Of course, it was speeding away and somebody said the shots or the firecrackers, whatever it was at that time, we still didn't know the President was shot, came from the wall. I immediately scaled that wall.
Mr. BALL - What is the location of that wall?
Mr. WEITZMAN - It would be between the railroad overpass and I can't remember the name of that little street that runs off Elm; it's cater-corner--the section there between the--what do you call it--the monument section?
Mr. BALL - That's where Elm actually dead ends?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; I scaled the wall and, apparently, my hands grabbed steampipes. I burned them.
Mr. BALL - Did you go into the railroad yards?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==

This is yet another excellent example of you begging the question.

Hank

And let's stay on Weitzman above for the moment. Your cited website counts him as a KNOLL witness:
https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/Sort216Witness.htm

Weitzman, Seymour KNOLL
But he never said he thought the shots came from the knoll. He was around the corner, on Main Street at the time of the shooting, and ran from the corner of Houston and Main directly toward the Presidential limo as it went through the overpass. Running that way takes him toward the knoll. As he got closer, he was directed to the area atop the knoll by a spectator, he said.

== QUOTE ==
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; we did. We watched the President pass and we turned and started back to the courthouse when we heard the shots.
Mr. BALL - You say you turned and were starting back to the courthouse---what courthouse and what is the location of that courthouse?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Sitting on Main, Houston, Record and so forth. We were at the back side and we turned around and were going into the Main Street entrance. We made maybe three or four steps when we heard what we thought at that time was either a rifle shot or a firecracker, I mean at that second.
Mr. BALL - How many shots did you hear?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Three distinct shots.
Mr. BALL - How were they spaced?
Mr. WEITZMAN - First one, then the second two seemed to be simultaneously.
Mr. BALL - You mean the first and then there was a pause?
Mr. WEITZMAN - There was a little period in between the second and third shot.
Mr. BALL - What was the longest, between the first and second or the second and third shot; which had the longest time lapse in there?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Between the first and second shot.
Mr. BALL - What did you do then?
Mr. WEITZMAN - I immediately ran toward the President's car. Of course, it was speeding away and somebody said the shots or the firecrackers, whatever it was at that time, we still didn't know the President was shot, came from the wall. I immediately scaled that wall.
Mr. BALL - What is the location of that wall?
Mr. WEITZMAN - It would be between the railroad overpass and I can't remember the name of that little street that runs off Elm; it's cater-corner--the section there between the--what do you call it--the monument section?
Mr. BALL - That's where Elm actually dead ends?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; I scaled the wall and, apparently, my hands grabbed steampipes. I burned them.
== UNQUOTE ==

Your website is cheating. You've researched none of it, that much is apparent. Even a casual reading of the eyewitness testimony would reveal that they count a lot of people as knoll witnesses who weren't. Including Weitzman.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

No, you are wrong:

”This initial transfer of energy causes the target to swell or move minutely into the force and against the line of fire. The greater the transferred energy, the more pronounced the forward movement” (Karger, 2008; Coupland, 2011; Radford, 2009).​

Tell us what Karger defines as "minutely".

Is he talking about thousandths of an inch that is measurable only on high-speed cameras shooting 100,000 frames per second?

Or is he talking about a movement of about three inches visible to the naked eye? http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm

== QUOTE ==
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. Also, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side all the way down, with no blood on his forehead or face--- suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, meaning in the direction of this Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from.
== UNQUOTE ==

Or better yet, don't tell us what he says. Provide a link and let us read it for ourselves. Where's the cite for your evidence?

This is yet another example of the conspiracy critics having it both ways. For DECADES they told us that anything hit by a bullet goes in the direction of the bullet. Shown irrefutable proof that JFK's head goes forward when struck (meaning, therefore, a shot from behind), suddenly the obvious truth they've been clamoring about for decades now reverses, now anything hit by a bullet goes toward the bullet before going back.

It's another example of their desperation, the 'any port in a storm' mentality, any explanation, just grasping at something, anything, their flailing about, to explain away the obvious.

Hank​

 

[manifesto]

You are the one claiming gunsmoke as evidence. That means your claimed grassy knoll shooter was using a musket.

No. It means that there is always smoke, more or less, depending on rifle and ammo. The shooter could have loaded his own ammo with more gunpowder, etc.

No matter what, witnesses thought that they saw smoke comming down the knoll in connection to hearing shot/s comming from there.

If it was triggered/conditioned on them hearing shots from there, or not, it is additional witness support of the proposition that shot/s where fired from the knoll.

 

[manifesto]

Tell us what Karger defines as "minutely".

Is he talking about thousandths of an inch that is measurable only on high-speed cameras shooting 100,000 frames per second?

Or is he talking about a movement of about three inches visible to the naked eye? http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm

== QUOTE ==
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. Also, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side all the way down, with no blood on his forehead or face--- suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, meaning in the direction of this Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from.
== UNQUOTE ==

Or better yet, don't tell us what he says. Provide a link and let us read it for ourselves. Where's the cite for your evidence?

This is yet another example of the conspiracy critics having it both ways. For DECADES they told us that anything hit by a bullet goes in the direction of the bullet. Shown irrefutable proof that JFK's head goes forward when struck (meaning, therefore, a shot from behind), suddenly the obvious truth they've been clamoring about for decades now reverses, now anything hit by a bullet goes toward the bullet before going back.

It's another example of their desperation, the 'any port in a storm' mentality, any explanation, just grasping at something, anything, their flailing about, to explain away the obvious.

Hank

No Hank, on the contrary, it’s you and your brothers and sisters in the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut, who want it both ways.

1. A little nick forward just before the head is violently is thrown backwards is evidence of a bullet fired from behind = head is minutely moving with bullets transfered momentum.

2. JFK’s head violently thrown backwards is evidence of a bullet fired from ... behind = head is violently moving AGAINST the bullets transfered momentum.

Should all of US not members in your Mighty Church, laugh, or should we cry?

What are you expecting us to do?

 

[manifesto]

The railroad tracks are on both sides of the bridge (north and south) and go over the bridge. "Coming from the railroad tracks" is hardly definitive.

Hank

Yes, there is railroad tracks all the way to New Orleans. If he thought the shots were fired from the railway bridge/tripple overpass, my guess is that he would have said so.

What’s your best guess? Shots fired from the railroad tracks just outside, New Orleans?

Could you give some instructions here? Should non members in your Mighty Church of the Lone Nut, laugh, or should they cry?

What’s your expectations?

 

[Tomtomkent]

No. It means that there is always smoke, more or less, depending on rifle and ammo. The shooter could have loaded his own ammo with more gunpowder, etc.

No matter what, witnesses thought that they saw smoke comming down the knoll in connection to hearing shot/s comming from there.

Would you care to state how much smoke would be expected from a weapon using common forms of ammunition?
Would the amount of smoke be expected to be noticeable?

If it was triggered/conditioned on them hearing shots from there, or not, it is additional witness support of the proposition that shot/s where fired from the knoll.

Sorry, but this is, frankly nonsense. How can the statements "support" a conclusion it may, or not be "triggered /conditioned" on? (I assume you mean 'Conditional Upon' which is the closest this would come to making any kind of sense? If not, please try again).

In short: The statements aren't evidence supporting shots, if the smoke was connected to the sound or not. The world doesn't work like that. You don't get to decide what you want to prove happened, then suggest any and all evidence might support your conclusion, even if that is not what was heard.

Given there are things more likely to cause smoke visible from any distance than guns, like, for examples, cigarettes, we can't assume that smoke we don't expect to see from a rifle, is proof that what they heard wasn't an echo.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yes, there is railroad tracks all the way to New Orleans. If he thought the shots were fired from the railway bridge/tripple overpass, my guess is that he would have said so.

What’s your beat guess? Shots fired from the railroad tracks just outside, New Orleans?

Could you give some instructions here? Should non members in your Mighty Church of the Lone Nut, laugh, or should they cry?

What’s your expectations?

So you are relying on witness testimony so shaky you have to guess?

 

[manifesto]

How many shooters were there atop the overpass? Look at all the smoke up there!

It's no coincidence, I would wager, that they use a grainy fifth or tenth generation image instead of a first generation copy. Is that smoke that's circled? Or just sunlight illuminating the tops of the bushes in the area?

Looks like smoke to me?

Or is it steam? There were steampipes in that area. One of the witnesses - who you referenced in regard to the supposed Mauser that never was - mentioned burning his hands on steampipes as he scaled the fence.

The steam outlets were way off from where the smoke is visible in the photo or where witnesses saw it in connection to the shooting.

That said, is this another in a long row of diabolical ”coincidents” your Mighty Church demands of you to gobble up on pure faith alone? The only seconds steam was visible on that day were exactly when at least 50+ witnesses heard rifle shot/s fired from there?

Why do you expect the rest of us, non believers, to do the same?

Should we laugh or should we cry?

What’s expected of us?

== QUOTE ==
Mr. WEITZMAN - I immediately ran toward the President's car. Of course, it was speeding away and somebody said the shots or the firecrackers, whatever it was at that time, we still didn't know the President was shot, came from the wall. I immediately scaled that wall.
Mr. BALL - What is the location of that wall?
Mr. WEITZMAN - It would be between the railroad overpass and I can't remember the name of that little street that runs off Elm; it's cater-corner--the section there between the--what do you call it--the monument section?
Mr. BALL - That's where Elm actually dead ends?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; I scaled the wall and, apparently, my hands grabbed steampipes. I burned them.
Mr. BALL - Did you go into the railroad yards?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==

This is yet another excellent example of you begging the question.

Hank

No, it’s yet another example of you expecting non members of your Mighty Church to laugh hard or cry in despair.

Which one is it?

 

[manifesto]

So you are relying on witness testimony so shaky you have to guess?

No, I’m saying that most of the ASKED witnesses thought they heard shot/s comming from the knoll.

This in turn is as strong or stronger witness support of shot/s from the knoll than from the TSBD. A far cry from ”13% of the witness said they heard shot/s from the knoll”.

THAT is my claim.

 

[traxy]

Wow. The laser eye-ball-dude.

I hope you can see the irony in this statement, you being the guy arguing for the last 4 pages that a shapeless blob that comes into view for 3 or 4 frames is in fact a motorcycle cop.

I don't need laser eyes, just a properly working set. All 4 of my sources are in complete agreement, which jives perfectly with the autopsy report, photos and x-rays and the testimony of the doctors that spent 3 hours examining the body.

1. Almost everyone of the 50 doctors, nurses, SS-agents, FBI-agents, x-ray technicians, from three hospitals and two federal police agencies, that observered JFK’s headwounds close up (including the Harper fragment) halucinated seeing a BIG GAPING WHOLE in the right back of the head, big as a grape fruit. With brain substance including cerebellum oozing out from the wound on the table.

This is wholly incorrect. I encourage you to read ALL the statements from the Parkland doctors:

In interviews with author Gerald Posner, the Parkland doctors were nearly unanimous in their agreement with the autopsy findings at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Dr. Carrico points out, "We did [originally] say there was a parietal-occipital wound . . . and I think we were mistaken. The reason I say that is that the President was lying on his back and shoulders, and you could see the hole, with scalp and brain tissue hanging back down his head, and it covered most of the occipital [rear] portion of his head. We saw a large hole on the right side of his head. I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there. It was parietal bone. And if we said otherwise, we were mistaken."(3)
Dr. Adolph Giesecke agrees. "I guess I have to say I was wrong in my Warren Commission testimony on the wound and in some of my pronouncements since then. I just never got that good of a look at it. . . . The truth is there was a massive head wound, with brain tissue and blood around it. And with that type of wound you could not get accurate information unless you feel around inside the hole and look into it in detail, and I certainly didn't do that, nor did I see anyone else do that."(4)

Dr. Paul Peters, portrayed in JFK by I. D. Brickman (see photo above), also concedes his initial impression was inaccurate: ". . . I now believe the head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than the rear." Dr. Pepper Jenkins states, "The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal [side] region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital."(5)

"I don't think any of us got a good look at the head wound," says Dr. Malcolm Perry.(6) "I did not look at it that closely. . . . But like everyone else, I saw it back there. It was in the occipital/parietal area. The occipital and parietal bone join each other, so we are only talking a centimeter or so in difference. And you must remember the President had a lot of hair, and it was bloody and matted, and it was difficult to tell where the wound started or finished."(7)

Dr. Charles Baxter concurs: "He had such a bushy head of hair, and blood and all in it, you couldn't tell what was the wound versus dried blood or dangling tissue. I have been misquoted enough on this, some saying I claimed the whole back of his head was blown away. That's just wrong. I never even saw the back of his head. The wound was on the right side, not the back."(8)

Dr. Ronald Jones confirms his colleagues' observations, adding he did not even realize for several minutes that there was a head wound. He finally noticed there was a "large side wound, with blood and tissue that extended toward the rear, from what you could tell of the mess that was there."

2. Some of the photographic record or the subject photographed were manipulated in order to conform to the three shots from the TSBD Lone Nut scenario.

AWESOME! I was waiting for you to go full conspiracy loon, now we're finally here!

OK, explain how all 4 of the sources I provided were manipulated and give timelines. I'll warn you ahead of time, I'm going to bury you here.

Wrong. Except for a tiny amount of photografic record, easy to manipulate.

Explain how, and more importantly, when.

Zapruder film
Nix Film
Muchmore Film
Moorman Polaroid
Autopsy photos
Autopsy x-ray

All in complete agreement with each other that there was no massive rear blowout. All 6 of them have to be altered in your scenario.

Go!

 

[HSienzant]

On top of that, there is reported instances of witness intimidation and manipulation in favor of only one direction, the TSBD, and in favor of only three shots.

By 'witness intimidation', Manifesto means people like Jean Hill, who expanded her claims over the years to including seeing a man shooting from the top of the knoll, but originally denied seeing a shooter in her Warren Commission testimony.

When a liar lies, and is caught, what did CTs expect her to say? "I'm sorry. I was lying"?

No, she expanded her lies, and and when confronted with her earlier claims, she claimed that her Warren Commission testimony was 'a fabrication from start to finish' (you may have seen this in the Oliver Stone's movie "JFK").

But there is more evidence than her Warren Commission testimony.

She was on the radio and on television on 11/22/63 within an hour of the shooting. She said then she saw no shooter. She only heard the shots, she said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b0YcMYmweo
(1:05 into the interview)

Here's a neat compilation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w63v9Y_KOk

And a later interview where she claims her Warren Commission testimony was a lie (8:48) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCNwKnjUFz8

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

No, I’m saying that most of the ASKED witnesses thought they heard shot/s comming from the knoll.

This in turn is as strong or stronger witness support of shot/s from the knoll than from the TSBD. A far cry from ”13% of the witness said they heard shot/s from the knoll”.

THAT is my claim.

This seems not to relate to how you discerned which railways lines the chap was referring to.

You can't show the answer isn't ambiguous.

Also: Can you spot the statistical red flag in your argument?
Why do you think more people claim shots are coming from the knoll if that is what they are specifically asked?
Why do you believe open questions are statistically more significant?

 

[RoboTimbo]

No. It means that there is always smoke, more or less, depending on rifle and ammo. The shooter could have loaded his own ammo with more gunpowder, etc.

Your ignorance of firearms exceeds your ignorance of the assassination.

No matter what, witnesses thought that they saw smoke comming down the knoll in connection to hearing shot/s comming from there.

You are claiming a civil war musket was fired from the knoll then? Do you see yet how idiotic the idea of a large plume of smoke from the knoll would be?

If it was triggered/conditioned on them hearing shots from there, or not, it is additional witness support of the proposition that shot/s where fired from the knoll.

But you have admitted they were confused about the direction of gunfire.

You CTs can't seem to get any story straight. No wonder you were trying to avoid making any claims. You get your ass handed to you every time.

 

[RoboTimbo]

2. JFK’s head violently thrown backwards is evidence of a bullet fired from ... behind = head is violently moving AGAINST the bullets transfered momentum.

You be a good lad and show on the Z film where the exit wound is.

 

[abaddon]

No. It means that there is always smoke, more or less, depending on rifle and ammo. The shooter could have loaded his own ammo with more gunpowder, etc.

wow. just wow.

So now your imaginary knoll shooter is making his own ammo too.

I actually cried laughing.

No matter what, witnesses thought that they saw smoke comming down the knoll in connection to hearing shot/s comming from there.

Sure, the CIA prefers to carry out assassinations with muskets and home made ammo. Does that seem plausible to you?

You have unwittingly fallen into the inflationary theory of conspiracy theories as expounded by Ryan Mackey. Every time a claim is challenged you make up a more bizarre claim.

You now have to explain muskets and home made ammo with evidence. You have explained nothing and have added to your personal evidence deficit.

As we stand, you claim a shooter on the grassy knoll with a musket and home made ammo. Have you evidence of such? Of course not. It is a fiction invented out of whole cloth in order to wriggle out of your own inconsistencies. Your problem is that ...
A. Everyone sees that for what it is.
B. Everyone here is far more informed than you
C. You feel constrained to cover up a faux pas at all cost.

An honest poster would simply acknowledge any error. And that is the yardstick that is used. Are you an honest poster? That yardstick suggests that you are not.

The "gunsmoke" crapton of bollocks has been pointed out over and over and over. Yet you persist in raising it as though it was important.

If it was triggered/conditioned on them hearing shots from there, or not, it is additional witness support of the proposition that shot/s where fired from the knoll.

Or they could be mistaken.

 

[RoboTimbo]

What’s expected of us?

Idiotic and dishonest arguments cribbed from CT websites. I keep hoping one of you will be different.