> Number 13,796 that he will run from supporting...
> "How silly! The over-riding majority of witnesses pointed to one or
> the other location... very few pointed to both.
> That's merely historical fact.
> A fact that you can't give a credible and non-conspiratorial
> explanation for.
> Knowing, as I do, that the evidence shows a conspiracy, it's *EASY*
> to account for the evidence."
> This raises two questions...
> What is Ben`s conspiratorial explanation that accounts for the
> evidence?
> And if the witnesses are reliable why are they indicating two
> separate locations for the origin of the shots?
Because the shots came from two different directions. The HSCA proved that. BTW, learn how to quote properly using UseNet protocol. Otherwise some people will quote your messages as indicating that you believe it was a conspiracy.
> Number 13,796 that he will run from supporting...
> "How silly! The over-riding majority of witnesses pointed to one or
> the other location... very few pointed to both.
> That's merely historical fact.
> A fact that you can't give a credible and non-conspiratorial
> explanation for.
> Knowing, as I do, that the evidence shows a conspiracy, it's *EASY*
> to account for the evidence."
> This raises two questions...
> What is Ben`s conspiratorial explanation that accounts for the
> evidence?
> And if the witnesses are reliable why are they indicating two
> separate locations for the origin of the shots?
Ben`s conspiratorial explains that supposedly accounts for the evidence is "multiple shooters".
Of course the only way that answer can be correct and the witnesses be correct is if 3 shots were fired from the knoll that the knoll witnesses heard (but were unheard by the TSBD witnesses) and there were three shots fired from the TSBD that the knoll witnesses didn`t hear. Unless he believes this his answer does not satisfy the evidence.
In answer to my question...
"And if the witnesses are reliable why are they indicating two
separate locations for the origin of the shots?"
Ben elected to erect the strawman that my question predisposes a
single location for the shots. The fact is that some witnesses
indicating all shots shots came from one place and others saying all
the shots came from another place *rules out* reliability. Ben elects
to read "either/or" as both. He even gives this example that other
helps to illustrate his error...
"Sorta like the eyewitnesses to an accident on Hwy 5 - "And if the witnesses are reliable why are they indicating auto traffic going both North *AND* South?" Maybe because traffic *does* go both directions???"
What he doesn`t seem to understand is that applied to the assassination you have one group of witnesses saying *ALL* the traffic was going north, and another large group of witnesses saying *ALL* the traffic was going south. For traffic going both ways *BOTH* groups have to be wrong.
> > Number 13,796 that he will run from supporting...
> > "How silly! The over-riding majority of witnesses pointed to one or
> > the other location... very few pointed to both.
> > That's merely historical fact.
> > A fact that you can't give a credible and non-conspiratorial
> > explanation for.
> > Knowing, as I do, that the evidence shows a conspiracy, it's *EASY*
> > to account for the evidence."
> > This raises two questions...
> > What is Ben`s conspiratorial explanation that accounts for the
> > evidence?
> > And if the witnesses are reliable why are they indicating two
> > separate locations for the origin of the shots?
> Because the shots came from two different directions.
Only a very small portion of the witnesses indicated that.
Ben takes the position that he witnesses are reliable. He then
states that the witnesses indicate two separate locations for the
origin of all the shots. He then claims he has an answer that
satisfies this set of facts. The answer he gives ignores the very
facts of the situation he outlines. He says...
"How silly! The over-riding majority of witnesses pointed to one
or the other location... very few pointed to both."
Then he provides an answer that satisfies "both", but not "one or
the other".
>The HSCA proved
> that. BTW, learn how to quote properly using UseNet protocol. Otherwise
> some people will quote your messages as indicating that you believe it was
> a conspiracy.
I`d be glad to engage Ben on this here or at the nuthouse, but alas
he avoids that. The insults included in our dialog prevent the whole
discussion to be quoted verbatim here, so I just paste the portions I
want to address. I included the links so people could follow the
discussion in context.
Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> Number 13,796 that he will run from supporting...
> "How silly! The over-riding majority of witnesses pointed to one or
> the other location... very few pointed to both.
> That's merely historical fact.
> A fact that you can't give a credible and non-conspiratorial
> explanation for.
> Knowing, as I do, that the evidence shows a conspiracy, it's *EASY*
> to account for the evidence."
> This raises two questions...
> What is Ben`s conspiratorial explanation that accounts for the
> evidence?
> And if the witnesses are reliable why are they indicating two
> separate locations for the origin of the shots?
The HSCA concluded that the likely reason that so many only described a single direction, was that the question was phrased in a way that provoked that response.
The simple truth is that if all the shots came from the east, then all or almost all witnesses would have said so.
Posner's argument that roughly half of the witnesses claiming shots came from the west somehow proves that they all came from the east, has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard, related to this case. And I have heard some pretty stupid things over the years :-)
This video goes into great detail about the shooting, from beginning to end. It covers this issue and many others.
> In article
> <c367bc1f-d300-46d7-ba09-2baabc39f...@v9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Number 13,796 that he will run from supporting...
> > "How silly! The over-riding majority of witnesses pointed to one or
> > the other location... very few pointed to both.
> > That's merely historical fact.
> > A fact that you can't give a credible and non-conspiratorial
> > explanation for.
> > Knowing, as I do, that the evidence shows a conspiracy, it's *EASY*
> > to account for the evidence."
> > Thisraisestwoquestions...
> > What is Ben`s conspiratorial explanation that accounts for the
> > evidence?
> > And if the witnesses are reliable why are they indicatingtwo
> > separate locations for the origin of the shots?
> The HSCA concluded that the likely reason that so many only described a
> single direction, was that the question was phrased in a way that provoked
> that response.
Their mistake was thinking the dictabelt was providing them
scientific evidence.
> The simple truth is that if all the shots came from the east, then all or
> almost all witnesses would have said so.
Huh? How do you arrive at this "simple truth"?
> Posner's argument that roughly half of the witnesses claiming shots came
> from the west somehow proves that they all came from the east, has to be
> the stupidest thing I have ever heard, related to this case. And I have
> heard some pretty stupid things over the years :-)
> On Jul 1, 5:30 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <c367bc1f-d300-46d7-ba09-2baabc39f...@v9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>> Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>> Number 13,796 that he will run from supporting...
>>> "How silly! The over-riding majority of witnesses pointed to one or
>>> the other location... very few pointed to both.
>>> That's merely historical fact.
>>> A fact that you can't give a credible and non-conspiratorial
>>> explanation for.
>>> Knowing, as I do, that the evidence shows a conspiracy, it's *EASY*
>>> to account for the evidence."
>>> Thisraisestwoquestions...
>>> What is Ben`s conspiratorial explanation that accounts for the
>>> evidence?
>>> And if the witnesses are reliable why are they indicatingtwo
>>> separate locations for the origin of the shots?
>> The HSCA concluded that the likely reason that so many only described a
>> single direction, was that the question was phrased in a way that provoked
>> that response.
> Their mistake was thinking the dictabelt was providing them
> scientific evidence.
>> The simple truth is that if all the shots came from the east, then all or
>> almost all witnesses would have said so.
> Huh? How do you arrive at this "simple truth"?
>> Posner's argument that roughly half of the witnesses claiming shots came
>> from the west somehow proves that they all came from the east, has to be
>> the stupidest thing I have ever heard, related to this case. And I have
>> heard some pretty stupid things over the years :-)
> > On Jul 1, 5:30 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <c367bc1f-d300-46d7-ba09-2baabc39f...@v9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >>> Number 13,796 that he will run from supporting...
> >>> "How silly! The over-riding majority of witnesses pointed to one or
> >>> the other location... very few pointed to both.
> >>> That's merely historical fact.
> >>> A fact that you can't give a credible and non-conspiratorial
> >>> explanation for.
> >>> Knowing, as I do, that the evidence shows a conspiracy, it's *EASY*
> >>> to account for the evidence."
> >>> Thisraisestwoquestions...
> >>> What is Ben`s conspiratorial explanation that accounts for the
> >>> evidence?
> >>> And if the witnesses are reliable why are they indicatingtwo
> >>> separate locations for the origin of the shots?
> >> The HSCA concluded that the likely reason that so many only described a
> >> single direction, was that the question was phrased in a way that provoked
> >> that response.
> > Their mistake was thinking the dictabelt was providing them
> > scientific evidence.
> >> The simple truth is that if all the shots came from the east, then all or
> >> almost all witnesses would have said so.
> > Huh? How do you arrive at this "simple truth"?
> >> Posner's argument that roughly half of the witnesses claiming shots came
> >> from the west somehow proves that they all came from the east, has to be
> >> the stupidest thing I have ever heard, related to this case. And I have
> >> heard some pretty stupid things over the years :-)
> > Are you representing his argument accurately?
> He is ridiculing Posner's logic.
He said "argument", Tony. Maybe you think "logic" and "argument" mean the same thing but that is just one more addition to the huge heap of things you are wrong about.
