Goofy LN arguments #2 (where is the evidence?)
Robert Harris
Ordinarily, it is a perfectly good idea to demand that one's adversaries
provide evidence to support their arguments. But there is a catch.. it
only makes sense when the adversary has indeed, failed to present
evidence.
Sadly, some LNers use this tactic for exactly the opposite reason. When
they encounter large quantities of evidence and particularly, evidence
which they have no hope of rebutting, they simply respond, even to long
lists of evidence, by blithely demanding, "where's the evidence?".
This is indeed, a marvelous labor saving device, since the "debunker"
doesn't have to go to the trouble of trying to debunk anything.
But as with many other denial tactics, this one is only effective with
folks who are analytically challenged or so hopelessly biased that they
will applaud anything the seems to support the long discredited belief
that this crime was carried out by a solitary assassin.
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes
Robert Harris says...
>
>
>Ordinarily, it is a perfectly good idea to demand that one's adversaries
>provide evidence to support their arguments.
Indeed it is. Something that I'm a big fan of.
>But there is a catch.. it
>only makes sense when the adversary has indeed, failed to present
>evidence.
Is this anything like someone who asserts that "Govt. covered up the crime, but
the the mob carried it out. ALL relevant evidence points to them." - yet refuses
to list this "relevant evidence", or rebut examples of relevant evidence that
doesn't point to the Mafia?
Or is this simple evasion?
>Sadly, some LNers use this tactic for exactly the opposite reason. When
>they encounter large quantities of evidence and particularly, evidence
>which they have no hope of rebutting, they simply respond, even to long
>lists of evidence, by blithely demanding, "where's the evidence?".
>
>This is indeed, a marvelous labor saving device, since the "debunker"
>doesn't have to go to the trouble of trying to debunk anything.
>
>But as with many other denial tactics, this one is only effective with
>folks who are analytically challenged or so hopelessly biased that they
>will applaud anything the seems to support the long discredited belief
>that this crime was carried out by a solitary assassin.
>
>
>
>
>
>Robert Harris
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Robert Harris
LOL! You really are bonkers aren't you?
I have no idea what questions you are talking about Ben and I really
don't care.
Robert Harris
In article <glu06...@drn.newsguy.com>,
Ben Holmes
Robert Harris says...
>
>
>
>LOL! You really are bonkers aren't you?
Why? Even *YOU* insist that it's a "perfectly good idea" to demand that others
support their arguments with evidence.
Do you presume to argue "Do what I say, not what I do?"
>I have no idea what questions you are talking about Ben and I really
>don't care.
Of *course* you know, Robert - you lied about answering the post, then you've
been ducking for a number of reposts now. (Don't worry, I'll repost it again)
You certainly *do* know that it's a simple fact that not all the "relevant
evidence" points to the Mafia - and you cannot support that silly assertion. You
refuse to offer evidence to support it, and you refuse to rebut the simple
illustration that your assertion isn't true.
So you run away... which makes your comment about not being able to wrap your
mind around "evasion" rather hypocritical, doesn't it?
You can't "wrap your mind" around other people's evasions - but you are provably
capable of evading with the best of the LNT'ers, aren't you Robert?
Robert Harris
Well, I guess you got me Ben.
I am such a damned liar and a coward that I am going to killfile you.
Have a great life and don't forget your meds:-)
Robert Harris
In article <glv5s...@drn.newsguy.com>,
Ben Holmes
Robert Harris says...
>
>
>
>Well, I guess you got me Ben.
>
>I am such a damned liar and a coward that I am going to killfile you.
Feel free to do so.
Everyone can see that when you're asked to support your own words, you not only
duck and run, but you refuse to even read.
>Have a great life and don't forget your meds:-)
What "meds" are needed when I'm only doing exactly what *YOU* suggested is a
good idea?
After all, it was you who stated that it's a good idea to ask someone to be able
to support their arguments with evidence.
But when someone does it to you - you killfile 'em?
Don't worry, if *you* refuse to respond, it answers the questions just as well
as if you tried to answer them.
For your assertion that ALL the relevant evidence points to the Mafia is shown
to be an assertion with no evidence.
Embarrassing... isn't it?
David Von Pein
>>> "When they [LNers] encounter large quantities of evidence and particularly, evidence which they have no hope of rebutting, they simply respond, even to long lists of evidence, by blithely demanding, "where's the evidence?"." <<<
Is your "Z285" theory amongst the "long lists of evidence" that we
LNers "have no hope of rebutting"?
IOW -- Is purely subjective "evidence" (like your Z285 evidence)
really and truly to be considered evidence that lone-assassin
believers have "no hope" of shooting down or reasonably dismissing?
I have a feeling that Robert Harris' definition of "large quantities
of evidence" for the CT side is vastly different from that of many
other (reasonable) people.
For instance -- a lot of CTers (not necessarily Bob Harris in
particular) still regard the "Doorway Man" and the "Mauser vs.
Carcano" debates to be pretty strong "evidence" that a conspiracy
existed in Dallas on 11/22/63.
But to a reasonable person who examines this "evidence", those things
don't come close to leading down Conspiracy Avenue (let alone PROVING
a conspiracy). Those things, and others like them, are nothing more
than ordinary, garden-variety, run-of-the-mill, non-conspiratorial
mistakes. And those are the type of errors and innocent
misidentifications that can be expected in virtually every phase of
life....including the investigation into the murder of a U.S.
President.
Addendum......
Just three days ago, conspiracist Anthony Marsh wrote the following
post to me:
"YOU [DVP] are living in a dream world where everything is
perfect and no one ever does anything wrong." -- T. Marsh; 01/27/09
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/146eba14dbb8a4fa
When thinking about that statement made by Tony, in conjunction with
what I just wrote to Robert Harris in this post concerning Doorway Man
and the Mauser/Carcano mix-up, it's fairly obvious that not only is
Tony Marsh wrong in his above remark....but he's REALLY, REALLY wrong
in that remark.
LNers like myself certainly don't have that type of "no one ever does
anything wrong" mindset suggested by Mr. Marsh. Because if we did,
then we would be forced to side with the outer-fringe conspiracy-
loving kooks who still to this day want to believe that Lee Oswald was
in the TSBD doorway when JFK was being shot, and also want to believe
that a Mauser rifle was found on the sixth floor of the Depository,
instead of the weapon that all reasonable people know for certain was
found there -- Oswald's Carcano.
If Tony's January 27th remark were true, then I would also be forced
to conclude that President Kennedy had a large hole in the BACK
(occipital region) of his head after he was shot, since there are many
witnesses who claimed to see such a wound.
But I, of course, prefer to rely on the much-stronger and much-more-
CONCLUSIVE evidence regarding the President's bullet wounds, with that
better evidence being: the autopsy report and the autopsy photos and X-
rays.
Bottom line:
Many people were "wrong" about many things pertaining to the murders
of JFK and J.D. Tippit. There's no doubt about that. But the totality
of all the evidence PROVES two things beyond all REASONABLE doubt (and
it always has proved these facts):
1.) John F. Kennedy was killed as a result of being hit by two and
only two bullets that were fired from a location above and behind JFK
when he was shot.
2.) Lee Harvey Oswald, beyond all reasonable doubt, is the one and
only person who shot and killed both President Kennedy and police
officer J.D. Tippit on 11/22/63.
Naturally, conspiracy devotees will deny the irrevocable truth that
exists in both #1 and #2 until the day they nail the box shut on them.
But, then again, what's new about that?
David Von Pein
January 30, 2009
Robert Harris
David, you have the sickness - the same mental disease that Holmes and
CD and YoHarvey and lots of others in this newsgroup have.
You are impervious to ALL contradictory evidence. When you lose your
objectivity, you cripple yourself. You become incapable of reason.
I used to be that way too, David. It took a good two months of self
brainwashing, to start over with a clean slate and a single, dedicated
agenda to get this thing right.
It was only after I forced myself to be fanatically objective, that I
started to figure this stuff out. I hope you can find a way to do that
for yourself, someday.
Robert Harris
In article
<d6abb5ba-0a46-4fb0...@v5g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein
Robert H.,
If I do the "2 Months Of Self Brainwashing" thing, does that mean that
I'll be able to see things that aren't really there, and pretend that
gunshots were fired at certain times based on Nellie's & Jackie's
reactions to their husbands being hit by a bullet at the exact same
time (therefore, Voila!, the ladies REACT AT THE SAME TIME TOO!)??
Sounds like fun.
Or:
I could just follow the popcorn trail left behind by Mr. Oswald.
Robert Harris
My "brainwashing" enabled me to understand that the SBT was correct
(sort of anyway), that the shot at 312 came from the rear, and that in
all likelihood, Oswald was guilty as hell, and probably fired the shot
that killed Kennedy.
Now, that isn't so scary, is it David?
There is a bit more that you will learn as well, but why not take that
kind of thing as it comes:-)
Robert Harris
In article
<3eecb8c4-0db4-4f49...@33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
Ben Holmes
Robert Harris says...
>
>
>My "brainwashing" enabled me to understand that the SBT was correct
>(sort of anyway), that the shot at 312 came from the rear, and that in
>all likelihood, Oswald was guilty as hell, and probably fired the shot
>that killed Kennedy.
This explains why Robert Harris is forced to killfile CT'ers who simply ask him
to support his assertions with the evidence.
>Now, that isn't so scary, is it David?
>
>There is a bit more that you will learn as well, but why not take that
>kind of thing as it comes:-)
>
>
>
>
>
>Robert Harris
>
>
>
>
>In article
><3eecb8c4-0db4-4f49...@33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Robert H.,
>>
>> If I do the "2 Months Of Self Brainwashing" thing, does that mean that
>> I'll be able to see things that aren't really there,
>> and pretend that
>> gunshots were fired at certain times based on Nellie's & Jackie's
>> reactions to their husbands being hit by a bullet at the exact same
>> time (therefore, Voila!, the ladies REACT AT THE SAME TIME TOO!)??
>>
>>
>>
>> Sounds like fun.
>>
>> Or:
>>
>> I could just follow the popcorn trail left behind by Mr. Oswald.