Yeah, well you guys all seem to Sieg Heil to the same propaganda.
Godwin's Law. This is the closest we'll ever get to a retraction and apology from you, Robert. You admit your error, yet choose to do so in an odious and insulting way. But it is
your error. You mischaracterized the argument against you and misattributed it. And based on those egregious errors of reading comprehension, you tried to accuse others of changing the subject. These are glaring mistakes everyone can see. You could have been gracious and saved face, but instead you have chosen childish name-calling and further entrenchment.
This is a running gag with you. You cannot address your critics; you have to rewrite their arguments as ludicrous parodies of what actually was said. You have to put your outrageous words into your critics' mouths. Then and only then do they become demonized enough in your eyes to dismiss them with your signature bluster.
I think it's cute that you believe this tactic works. Among all those who reported in polls that they consider it possible someone else besides Oswald was involved, do you think that belief arose because you called the opposing view Nazi propaganda?
But you used the word "nonsense". Your post: " Nobody could possibly believe the nonsense he's posting and he knows that."
Yes, there is a concerted opinion here that what you're posting is nonsense. "What you're posting" refers to your arguments in favor of some particular conspiracy theory, not merely a statement of vague disbelief as is referenced in the various polls you've cited. Hence the poll results do not apply to your nonsense.
All I"ve basically done is to refer to the testimony of 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses. Is that what you refer to as "nonsense"?? Explain.
No, you've alluded to far more than just alleged medical testimony. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim to Brian Mee's expertise -- but we all know you're desperately trying to let that slip under the rug. You've tried to discuss photographic evidence, but you simply can't hold up against knowledgeable critics. Your photographic claims are nonsense, and the pseudo-experts you've cited in support of your claim similarly spout nonsense.
You have not simply "referred" to medical testimony; you've insinuated that it supports your claim of a fatal shot from the front. In many cases it's patently nonsense because the witnesses themselves don't believe their testimony supports that finding. In other cases you've applied your intuitive interpretation to the witness statement, which interpretation is later shown to be nonsense. And when the reliability or accuracy of a witness is questioned, you don't address the merit of the disputation. Instead you launch invective at your critics for the mere act of examining the witness! That tactic is clearly nonsense; you have no clue how eyewitness testimony is considered by responsible researchers and authors.
