In article <44a1ec3e.5707...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 27 Jun 2006 22:40:18 -0400, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com>Well, we seem to have a choice here.
> >> Gary Aguilar claims to have examined the testimony of 46 witnesses to
> >> So does Gary have 44 "back of the head" witnesses? And are his 46
> >> Let's take one example:
> >> The following quotes from Aguilar are taken from:
> >> <Quote on>-------------------------------
> >> 3) SECRET SERVICE AGENT WILLIAM GREER was asked by Arlen Specter for
> >> <Quote off>------------------------------
> >> It's puzzling indeed why Aguilar included Greer as a "back of the
> >Yes, it would have been "puzzling" indeed, if that was what Aguilar had
> >"With the exception of Adolph Giesecke, MD, the Parkland witnesses were
> >Of course, Greer's statement was a perfect match with that.
> No, Bob.
> The "upper" part is a huge problem for Aguilar, and all the Back of
We can either go with what the man actually said, or go with your
"With the exception of Adolph Giesecke, MD, the Parkland witnesses were
You seem to be talking about Specters description, not Greer's.
> Greer's description is nearer to the Dox drawing that to the
What exactly are you labeling as "blather"??
> >BTW, why do you continue to evade the fact that we can see massive
> >Is your goal here, to get to the truth, or is it to distort your
> Cut the silly blather, Bob.
Even your fellow LNT types have acknowledged this damage. Why are you
And why is it that when I challenged you on this, you labelled my post
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.