What is a CT?
Robert Harris
A CT (Conspiracy theorist) should not be defined as one who believes in
conspiracies. We ALL believe in numerous conspiracies, ranging from the
holocaust to Watergate, to countless acts of organized terrorism.
I think the correct definition as the term is most commonly used, is
much more derogatory. It is someone who frequently goes against the
grain, or contradicts the government. And almost without exception, it
refers to people who blame the government for pretty much everything,
from covering up UFOs to causing 9/11, to putting weird stuff in the
water.
Now, I am quite sure there are people like that amongst the large
majority of Americans who dispute the WC's findings. But my experience
has been that they are in a distinct minority.
In fact, I think most people who are critics of the WC do not match any
of the criteria we commonly associate with "CT".
First, the belief that Oswald did not act alone (or at all) is hardly a
minority opinion. It is supported by the large majority of people who
have studied the case.
Second, it is not at all in contradiction to the US government. In fact,
the last federal investigation concluded that the assassination was
indeed, a conspiracy. And the acoustics evidence is not the only reason
they came to that conclusion. The head of the HSCA and others on the
committee, were convinced that organized crime was involved in the
murder. Blakey went on to write an excellent book on the subject,
arguing that Carlos Marcello ordered the assassination, even before
Marcello admitted that he did exactly that.
In fact, I think a very good case can be made, that conspiracy in the
JFK case, is the status quo, and that the fringe position is the LN
theory.
And that brings me to the primary point of this article. Why do LN
advocates label everyone who disagrees with them as "CT's", when only a
few meet the criteria?
Many people in fact, do not even have a "theory". They simply don't
believe the WC's conclusions make sense, and are looking for answers.
Many more believe the mafia was responsible, based on little things
like, the mob's admission that they were.
Others think Russia or Cuba was responsible.
But only a relatively small percentage of WC critics and doubters
believe in the "cast of thousands" theory that LN advocates have such an
easy time bashing.
So, what is the real reason people around here stereotype their
adversaries this way??
Could it be for the same reason that bigots everywhere call their
adversaries names and ridicule them for beliefs they don't really hold??
Could it be that calling their adversaries names which imply that they
are mentally deficient, relieves them of having to deal with legitimate
evidence and analysis? After all, we aren't obligated to refute
arguments made by lunatics, are we:-)
Now, I don't expect for an instant that this insulting and demeaning
form of name-calling will be restricted by the "moderators". But I do
hope that people will be aware that when they or someone else is called
a "CT", they are listening to someone substituting an ad hominem attack
for honest analysis and evidence.
For forty years, WC doubters were labelled as "critics". If we must use
labels, what is wrong with that? Or better yet, why bother with labels
at all? Why aren't we all infinitely more interested in the case and the
evidence, than we are, each other??
Robert Harris
Bud
> A CT (Conspiracy theorist) should not be defined as one who believes in
> conspiracies. We ALL believe in numerous conspiracies, ranging from the
> holocaust to Watergate, to countless acts of organized terrorism.
>
> I think the correct definition as the term is most commonly used, is
> much more derogatory. It is someone who frequently goes against the
> grain, or contradicts the government. And almost without exception, it
> refers to people who blame the government for pretty much everything,
> from covering up UFOs to causing 9/11, to putting weird stuff in the
> water.
>
> Now, I am quite sure there are people like that amongst the large
> majority of Americans who dispute the WC's findings. But my experience
> has been that they are in a distinct minority.
>
> In fact, I think most people who are critics of the WC do not match any
> of the criteria we commonly associate with "CT".
>
> First, the belief that Oswald did not act alone (or at all) is hardly a
> minority opinion. It is supported by the large majority of people who
> have studied the case.
How many people do you think have studied this case? I find the
average person I talk to to who profess a belief in conspiracy to be
largely ignorant of the case.
I`m not sure why the majority has bought into the idea of
conspiracy, they seem to have a vague idea that something fishy went
on and that all isn`t as it seems, but nothing really tangible or
specific. It could be that the smoke generated by conspirists have
convinced many that there must be a fire somewhere.
> Second, it is not at all in contradiction to the US government. In fact,
> the last federal investigation concluded that the assassination was
> indeed, a conspiracy. And the acoustics evidence is not the only reason
> they came to that conclusion.
Sure it is. They would not have concluded there was a conspiracy on
the strength of the other things they had. How could they?
>The head of the HSCA and others on the
> committee, were convinced that organized crime was involved in the
> murder. Blakey went on to write an excellent book on the subject,
> arguing that Carlos Marcello ordered the assassination, even before
> Marcello admitted that he did exactly that.
>
> In fact, I think a very good case can be made, that conspiracy in the
> JFK case, is the status quo, and that the fringe position is the LN
> theory.
Is this significant. What weight should be given to the opinions of
the largely ignorant of the case masses? If someone doesn`t know who
JD Tippit is, what does it matter what their opinions about the case
are?
> And that brings me to the primary point of this article. Why do LN
> advocates label everyone who disagrees with them as "CT's", when only a
> few meet the criteria?
>
> Many people in fact, do not even have a "theory". They simply don't
> believe the WC's conclusions make sense, and are looking for answers.
Yah, who would think that the person seen in photos holding the
murder weapon, owner of the murder weapon, seen shooting, seen
shooting a cop, and attacking arresting officers could be guilty?
Anyone who looks past all that is not looking for answers or sense,
they are looking for a reality that suits them.
> Many more believe the mafia was responsible, based on little things
> like, the mob's admission that they were.
> Others think Russia or Cuba was responsible.
>
> But only a relatively small percentage of WC critics and doubters
> believe in the "cast of thousands" theory that LN advocates have such an
> easy time bashing.
If what is in evidence is reliable, than Oswald is guilty. If it
isn`t reliable, it took the efforts of many, many people to make it
appear so. CTers seem to like to pretend that there is another option
available, but they don`t produce it.
> So, what is the real reason people around here stereotype their
> adversaries this way??
>
> Could it be for the same reason that bigots everywhere call their
> adversaries names and ridicule them for beliefs they don't really hold??
>
> Could it be that calling their adversaries names which imply that they
> are mentally deficient, relieves them of having to deal with legitimate
> evidence and analysis? After all, we aren't obligated to refute
> arguments made by lunatics, are we:-)
Who could? By their nature lunatics would be beyond reasoning with.
> Now, I don't expect for an instant that this insulting and demeaning
> form of name-calling will be restricted by the "moderators". But I do
> hope that people will be aware that when they or someone else is called
> a "CT", they are listening to someone substituting an ad hominem attack
> for honest analysis and evidence.
<snicker> I know I would consider it an insult if someone called me
one.
> For forty years, WC doubters were labelled as "critics". If we must use
> labels, what is wrong with that?
It isn`t meaningful. Many LN are critical of the WC. No
investigation could be immune to criticism, especially one that
returned findings that many are loath to accept.
> Or better yet, why bother with labels
> at all? Why aren't we all infinitely more interested in the case and the
> evidence, than we are, each other??
Grouping like things has it purposes.
> Robert Harris
Chuck Schuyler
> A CT (Conspiracy theorist) should not be defined as one who believes in
> conspiracies. We ALL believe in numerous conspiracies, ranging from the
> holocaust to Watergate, to countless acts of organized terrorism.
You're off to a rip-roarin' start, Harris. A CT shouldn't be defined
as someone who believes in conspiracy theories??? Gee, let's define
them as someone who DOESN'T believe in conspiracies---that makes
sense.
>
> I think the correct definition as the term is most commonly used, is
> much more derogatory. It is someone who frequently goes against the
> grain, or contradicts the government. And almost without exception, it
> refers to people who blame the government for pretty much everything,
> from covering up UFOs to causing 9/11, to putting weird stuff in the
> water.
Harris once again envisions himself as the tough-guy Mickey Spillane
character gumshoe...bravely ferreting out JFK's killers by boldly
going against the grain...googling and YouTubing his way towards
solving the Crime of the 20th Century.
>
> Now, I am quite sure there are people like that amongst the large
> majority of Americans who dispute the WC's findings. But my experience
> has been that they are in a distinct minority.
C'mon, Bob...the vast majority of people have no idea what in hell the
Warren Commission was. Most people don't know the name of the current
VP or the name of their Senator or who we fought in WW2. Most people
can't tell you what the Bill of Rights is. What little bit the average
person knows about the JFK assassination comes from Oliver Stone's
movie. Most people think JFK was this guy who had a lot of money and
f*cked a bunch of bitchin' babes from the 60's.
You primarily only travel in CT circles so of course you have a
limited viewpoint.
>
> In fact, I think most people who are critics of the WC do not match any
> of the criteria we commonly associate with "CT".
>
> First, the belief that Oswald did not act alone (or at all) is hardly a
> minority opinion. It is supported by the large majority of people who
> have studied the case.
So what? Tom Rossley has "studied" the case? Rob Caprio? Walt
Cakebread? Tell me how any reasonable person can study the case and
believe the Z film was faked? (I know you've argued correctly that it
is, of course, authentic.)
>
> Second, it is not at all in contradiction to the US government. In fact,
> the last federal investigation concluded that the assassination was
> indeed, a conspiracy.
That's a cheap trick to use findings that you overwhelmingly disagree
with to support your position---which the HSCA disagrees with. Oswald
fired the shots was their conclusion. No forged/faked evidence, etc.
Oh, and some unknown guy fired a shot from the knoll (not the sewer as
you allege) and MISSED EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING.
And the acoustics evidence is not the only reason
> they came to that conclusion.
I think you're wrong. The acoustics "evidence" is the only reason they
concluded conspriracy. All of the major findings of the WC were
reiterated.
The head of the HSCA and others on the
> committee, were convinced that organized crime was involved in the
> murder.
Is that what they officially concluded?
Blakey went on to write an excellent book on the subject,
> arguing that Carlos Marcello ordered the assassination, even before
> Marcello admitted that he did exactly that.
Blakey also has famously said that if you could invalidate the
acoustics evidence (and it has been utterly demolished) you change the
HSCA finding of conspiracy. Blakey leaned toward the mob theory
epsecially hard AFTER they had their so-called acoustics evidence
showing a conspiracy.
>
> In fact, I think a very good case can be made, that conspiracy in the
> JFK case, is the status quo, and that the fringe position is the LN
> theory.
>
> And that brings me to the primary point of this article. Why do LN
> advocates label everyone who disagrees with them as "CT's", when only a
> few meet the criteria?
Huh???
>
> Many people in fact, do not even have a "theory". They simply don't
> believe the WC's conclusions make sense, and are looking for answers.
It's easier to type "CT" than "conspiracists without a working theory
on who killed JFK."
>
> Many more believe the mafia was responsible, based on little things
> like, the mob's admission that they were.
>
> Others think Russia or Cuba was responsible.
>
> But only a relatively small percentage of WC critics and doubters
> believe in the "cast of thousands" theory that LN advocates have such an
> easy time bashing.
By default, you all believe a "cast of thousands" was involved--
whether you have the intellectual honesty to admit it or not. You all
believe portions of the government were involved. Many of you believe
the DPD were involved. The Mob. The CIA. It's a big list, and most of
you believe the cover-up has continued for decades. Literally
thousands of people would need to be involved to pull something like
this off, when the easiest thing to do would've been to wait 11 months
to see if he even got reelected--or simply poison his clam chowder the
next time he was sailing off of Martha's Vineyard.
> So, what is the real reason people around here stereotype their
> adversaries this way??
Because it's fun.
>
> Could it be for the same reason that bigots everywhere call their
> adversaries names and ridicule them for beliefs they don't really hold??
Awww...poor little Bubsie Harris turns from tough guy/fearless
researcher to a blubbering baby. It's okay for Harris to accuse
innocent people of murder, but no one better call him names or
ridicule his belief that a guy in a sewer fired a shot at JFK!
>
> Could it be that calling their adversaries names which imply that they
> are mentally deficient, relieves them of having to deal with legitimate
> evidence and analysis? After all, we aren't obligated to refute
> arguments made by lunatics, are we:-)
The major investigations all conclude that Oswald shot JFK. No name
calling. You weren't there, you're not an expert, and no one agrees
with your Z film analysis.
> Now, I don't expect for an instant that this insulting and demeaning
> form of name-calling will be restricted by the "moderators". But I do
> hope that people will be aware that when they or someone else is called
> a "CT", they are listening to someone substituting an ad hominem attack
> for honest analysis and evidence.
But Bubsie can call people bigots and that's not ad hominem?
Hilarious.
>
> For forty years, WC doubters were labelled as "critics". If we must use
> labels, what is wrong with that? Or better yet, why bother with labels
> at all? Why aren't we all infinitely more interested in the case and the
> evidence, than we are, each other?
If evidence was of interest to you, you'd support the Oswald alone
viewpoint. It's the only rational, sane conclusion.
I think the label "kooks" is pretty appropriate for most of your
"side"...and you're not nearly as bad as some of the acj. losers--like
Holmes and Healy and Rossley and Caprio.
>
> Robert Harris
cdddraftsman
>
>
> For forty years, WC doubters were labelled as "critics". If we must use
> labels, what is wrong with that? Or better yet, why bother with labels
> at all? Why aren't we all infinitely more interested in the case and the
> evidence, than we are, each other??
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
I kind of always looked at it like a person with out a theory waiting
for a assassintion or disaster to happen .
tl
Walt
I believe the government controlled media has derided WC critics since day
one..... Labeling them as kooks and weirdos.......I suspect that many of
those "kooks" and "weirdos" were actually government agents posing as a
"critic" with a far out theory that the government knew would be seen as
nutty by rational people. Since nobody wants to be allied with a nut,
most rational people have taken a low profile approach when voicing any
opinion about the crime of the century..... Just what the government
wanted.
Thalia
I personally think many Lone Nutters are in this for the sport, not
the evidence.
Chuck Schuyler
>
> I believe the government controlled media has derided WC critics since day
> one..... Labeling them as kooks and weirdos.......I suspect that many of
> those "kooks" and "weirdos" were actually government agents posing as a
> "critic" with a far out theory that the government knew would be seen as
> nutty by rational people. Since nobody wants to be allied with a nut,
> most rational people have taken a low profile approach when voicing any
> opinion about the crime of the century..... Just what the government
> wanted.
>
Robert Harris
<d2b2c7dc-b55f-44bd...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 5:14�pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A CT (Conspiracy theorist) should not be defined as one who believes in
> > conspiracies. We ALL believe in numerous conspiracies, ranging from the
> > holocaust to Watergate, to countless acts of organized terrorism.
>
> You're off to a rip-roarin' start, Harris. A CT shouldn't be defined
> as someone who believes in conspiracy theories??? Gee, let's define
> them as someone who DOESN'T believe in conspiracies---that makes
> sense.
Ok, so do you believe there was a conspiracy in Germany by its
government, to murder millions of its own people?
Do you believe that Watergate was a conspiracy?
If so, then by your own definition, you are a conspiracy theorist.
I do hope however, that you change your mind and join back up with your
fellow nutcases.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "A CT (Conspiracy theorist) should not be defined as one who believes in conspiracies." <<<
Yeah, I guess they should be called "basket weavers" instead.
Walt
Oh really...... You think I'm paranoid??.... well I gues that's
fair, because I think you're a gutless coward with his head up his ass
because he's too cowardly to face the FACTS.
So you apparently believe that our government is pure as the newly
fallen snow...and they wouldn't ever lie to you when something like
"national security" is at stake.
Humor me for just a moment and accept that JFK was murdered by Hoover
and Johnson.... Would you still follow your government leaders ( obey
the laws imposed on you) if they now (after 45 years ) laughingly told
you.... "Hey Chuck, it was all just a joke.....We knew all along that
Hoover and Johnson had JFK murdered, but we also knew that to disclose
that to the American people would likely have ripped the country
apart, so we lied to you"
OK, Thank you for humoring me ......... now tuck your head back safely
in your ass and pretend the Warren Report is gospel.
Gil Jesus
That doesn 't mean that I believe in UFOs, 9/11, or any other
conspiracies.
While I've seen enough evidence to cast doubt on the official version
of the JFK murder, in the other "conspiracies" I have not.
Therefore, I consider myself a CT ONLY as far as the JFK case is
concerned.
To stereotype Warren Commission critics as "conspracy kooks" shows the
narrow mindedness and prejudice that comes only from the LN side.
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
Well stated.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <bd29fdd7-8f94-4f1e-ac2a-52977cdad...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> Gil Jesus says...
>
>
>
> >I believe that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy.
> >That doesn 't mean that I believe in UFOs, 9/11, or any other
> >conspiracies.
>
> >While I've seen enough evidence to cast doubt on the official version
> >of the JFK murder, in the other "conspiracies" I have not.
>
> >Therefore, I consider myself a CT ONLY as far as the JFK case is
> >concerned.
>
> >To stereotype Warren Commission critics as "conspracy kooks" shows the
> >narrow mindedness and prejudice that comes only from the LN side.
>
> Well stated.
This from a man who LABELS ANYONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE HIS LIES AS A
KOOK!
LOL!!!
robcap...@netscape.com
So you don't believe that RFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy?
OR MLK??
Just wondering.
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bd29fdd7-8f94-4f1e...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
The real KOOKS are those who believe in the Single Bullet Theory ! ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
LN's do NOT believe the Holocaust Conspiracy ever happened
Sandy McCroskey
Lone Nutters have all the evidence on their side, and eliminating
conspiracy theories is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Not much sport to it, but what can we do...
/sm
claviger
From what I can tell CTs are proud of that handle. They refer to LNs
as "Nutters". I don't see any LNs complaining. Of the two, Nutter
sounds somewhat pejorative. LA (Lone Assassin) is more applicable,
because we don't know what his state of mind was. LHO acted calm and
cool after his arrest and played the poor little patsy very well. He
obviously enjoyed being the center of worldwide attention. Our gut
reaction is LHO must be a mental case to murder a man he had no grudge
against, although that too is disputed. At some point he decided to
become a martyr, as the only way to make an impact on the society he
despised. While this may or may not be true, it is an instinctive
reaction in our culture to assume that anyone who would murder the
leader of our democracy is either a paid assassin or mentally
unstable.
claviger
> I personally think many Lone Nutters are in this for the sport, not
> the evidence.
No way, because that definition would make you a Lone Nutter! And we
know that ain't right!!
David Von Pein
>>> "I personally think many Lone Nutters are in this for the sport, not
the evidence." <<<
The above quote by "Thalia" is now nominated for the "Pot/Kettle
Statement Of The Year".
Make room on the mantel, Thalia.
bigdog
>
The physical evidence is ALL on the LN side. The only evidence of a shot
from the GK is earwitness testimony which is contradicted by other
earwitness testimony. There is no physical evidence of a shot from
anywhere except the TSBD. The medical evidence indicates the shots were
fired from the rear. The ballistic evidence indicates the shots were fired
from the rear. The pattern of the blood and brain splatter scene in the
Z-film indicates the head shot was fired from the rear. A paper trail
clearly establishes Oswald as the owner of the murder weapon. Fiber
evidence links the shirt he was wearing when arrested to the murder
weapon. An eyewitness identified Oswald as the shooter. The evidence
clearly establishes Oswald's guilt and there is no evidence that indicates
he was acting on behalf of anyone except himself. Now do you care to list
the evidence that Oswald was not acting alone.
cdddraftsman
BTW since you don't have a unified tenative / working hypothesis let
alone a theory , it can be defined as "one who frequently" argues from
a disavantageous position , which has gotten worse as the years have
passed . Hoax's have a tendency to do that .
tl
robcap...@netscape.com
The bottom line is this -- IF you don't accept and profess the
government's (or controlling faction's point of view) you will always be
ostracized by being called a "kook", "nutcase" or a "CTer" to name just a
few.
Labels are designed to keep everyone in harmony with the lie or point of
view of the controlling power (and in many cases these points of views are
lies) by making it so painful to express different views. Humans basically
want to be accepted, not outcasted and they use this to their advantage.
IF simple words or labels don't work they move to more serious measures
and some of the early CT authors in the JFK case can enlighten you on some
of these tactics better than I can.
It is all about control and power.
Bud
> Gil Jesus says...
>
>
>
> >I believe that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy.
> >That doesn 't mean that I believe in UFOs, 9/11, or any other
> >conspiracies.
>
> >While I've seen enough evidence to cast doubt on the official version
> >of the JFK murder, in the other "conspiracies" I have not.
>
> >Therefore, I consider myself a CT ONLY as far as the JFK case is
> >concerned.
>
> >To stereotype Warren Commission critics as "conspracy kooks" shows the
> >narrow mindedness and prejudice that comes only from the LN side.
>
> Well stated.
By the LN side.
Bud
> In article
> <d2b2c7dc-b55f-44bd-a83a-b98fd0e98...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 5:14 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > A CT (Conspiracy theorist) should not be defined as one who believes in
> > > conspiracies. We ALL believe in numerous conspiracies, ranging from the
> > > holocaust to Watergate, to countless acts of organized terrorism.
>
> > You're off to a rip-roarin' start, Harris. A CT shouldn't be defined
> > as someone who believes in conspiracy theories??? Gee, let's define
> > them as someone who DOESN'T believe in conspiracies---that makes
> > sense.
>
> Ok, so do you believe there was a conspiracy in Germany by its
> government, to murder millions of its own people?
Your position is more akin to holocaust denial than ours. A fully
supported idea is put on the table (Oswald as lone assassin), but you
don`t like it, so you go into denial about it.
> Do you believe that Watergate was a conspiracy?
It has been shown to be one. Despite tremendous effort, you can only
show conspiracy to the satisfaction of those desperate for there to
have been a conspiracy.
> If so, then by your own definition, you are a conspiracy theorist.
>
> I do hope however, that you change your mind and join back up with your
> fellow nutcases.
Yah, it`s just insane to think that all those indications of
Oswald`s guilt might mean he is guilty.
> Robert Harris
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I cannot resist to throw in my two cents on this one.
The statement Robert made to start this thread speaks volumes: "A CT
(Conspiracy theorist) should not be defined as one who believes in
conspiracies"
All one needs to do is read this contradictory, illogical statement
and you have now entered the bizarro, nether-world known as
"Conspiracy America." A conspiracy theoriest believes virtually
ANYTHING they hear or read so long as it runs counter to the
"official" version. It makes litte difference how silly, stupid,
unsupported, or illogical their position is they still cling to it
like grim death. A CT never wants to bring REAL science and REAL
experts into the argument. For example, among the 9/11 coinspiracy
nuts there are NO structural engineers that side with the nutty claims
of a controlled demolition, only individuals with peripheral
background knowledge. Among the Kennedy conspiracy theorists who
champion the photographic evidence, they embrace proven nuts such as
Jack White, Robert Groden, and Tom Wilson, not ONE of whom is
recognized by real photographic experts as having one bit of formal
training or expertise. Of course CT have a rebuttal argument for this
lack of scientific experts. They discredit all real experts as shils
of the government or "yes-men" afraid to speak the truth. Of course
the truth is that there was a conspiracy, and if the so-cal;led
esperts don't concur then they are liars and crooks also.
This illustrates an interesting mindset of the CT. Virtually EVERY
PERSON in the country is involved in the conspiracy and cover-up
except them. Even I have been accused many times by these nuts as
being part of a government plot to spread disinformation in America to
keep the waters muddied. But the fact is that it has been the CT that
have dumped more garbage and more disinformation into the minds of
Americans than any other group of propagandists in American history.
CT are a vile bunch who waste their lives looking for misplaced
commas, peripheral comments that disagree with the "official" version
of events, and then struggle to create an argument.
But there is one thing that CT will NEVER EVER do. They will never
ever tell in detail what really happened. They won't tell how many
gunmen there were and where they were located and what happened to all
of the evidence. They will never name names or provide concrete
details of their imagined plots, because they know that they don't
know what happened. All they know is that the official version isn't
true. They are in it for the sport. They simply love to argue the
most obvious point until everyone is exhausted. For instance there is
no more clear point in this case than the single bullet conclusion.
There can be NO doubt in any educated mind that one bullet struck both
men and inflicted all the damage both men suffered. Yet the CT have
twisted and distorted this relatively simple explanation to make it
sound totally implausible.
Conspiracy theorists have no problem standing at the Equater at 12:00
noon, and staring straight at the sun and declare to the world that it
is midnight. They do it all the time. Serious scholars in recognized
academic institutions don't give the CT any credence at all. They are
a laughing stock and seen collectively as a bunch of nuts. No more
need be said.
Glenn Sarlitto
>
> - Show quoted text -
G'day Mate!
Regarding your post....
>
> I personally think many Lone Nutters are in this for the sport, not
> the evidence
Sport? Well, Tie Me Kangaroo Down!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPu-C5vvzU4&feature=related
As far as this Google Group is concerned, it sure seems at times to be a
Cyberspace Marathon of Literary Gymnastics.
Just think, one more year and people will be posting...
FOUR SCORE and SEVEN YEARS AGO!
Catch ya 'round !
Glenn Sarlitto
tomnln
Dallas Police Chief Disagrees with you ! ! !
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:61607581-b996-4383...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone
http://www.sott.net/signs/conspiracy_theorists.htm
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-865E0...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
cdddraftsman
wrote:
They sure can .
Roger Craig said that his car had a bomb in it .
No evidence , no tow bill , no police report , no medical report of
injuries .
No nutten !
tl
Robert Harris
<d2d01fd3-b939-45c1...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 1:19 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <d2b2c7dc-b55f-44bd-a83a-b98fd0e98...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 17, 5:14 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > A CT (Conspiracy theorist) should not be defined as one who believes in
> > > > conspiracies. We ALL believe in numerous conspiracies, ranging from the
> > > > holocaust to Watergate, to countless acts of organized terrorism.
> >
> > > You're off to a rip-roarin' start, Harris. A CT shouldn't be defined
> > > as someone who believes in conspiracy theories??? Gee, let's define
> > > them as someone who DOESN'T believe in conspiracies---that makes
> > > sense.
> >
> > Ok, so do you believe there was a conspiracy in Germany by its
> > government, to murder millions of its own people?
>
> Your position is more akin to holocaust denial than ours. A fully
> supported idea is put on the table (Oswald as lone assassin), but you
> don`t like it, so you go into denial about it.
What evidence have you seen that proves Oswald acted alone? Would you
list it by the number?
>
> > Do you believe that Watergate was a conspiracy?
>
> It has been shown to be one.
And I have shown you that Oswald could not have fired all the shots.
That proves conspiracy as clearly as anything in the Watergate scandal.
If you you dispute that I will challenge you for the umpteenth time, to
refute my arguments. Do you need the link again Bud?
Until you can do that, you have no business telling the lie that the
evidence supports a solitary assassin.
> Despite tremendous effort, you can only
> show conspiracy to the satisfaction of those desperate for there to
> have been a conspiracy.
LOL!! I love this coming from someone pitching a theory that is only
slightly more popular than the flat Earth theory.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<142f279b-e2b8-4d33...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Steve <sahi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Don't you "believe" in countless conspiracy theories, Steve? American
Law enforcement and the courts sure do.
Does that make you a CT, Steve?
If so, then I guess you are one of that, "vile bunch who waste their
lives looking for misplaced commas, peripheral comments that disagree
with the 'official' version of events, and then struggle to create an
argument."
I never thought of you that way Steve. I always thought you were only a
bigoted, stereotyping hater with a weak mind that permanently prevents
you from entertaining any thought that has not been approved by the
authorities.
Robert Harris
Steve
> In article
> <142f279b-e2b8-4d33-ad4d-42ca1dc55...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Robert, Robert, Robert you big dummy. You are as stupid today as you
were six months ago.
You are wrong. I DO believe in conspiracies when there is imperical
evidence to support them. For instance having studied history for 40
years I believe that Lincoln was assassinated as a result of a poorly-
organized conspiracy. It was immediately uncovered and evidence
supported the claims of conspiracy. I believe that the five Watergate
burglars were acting on orders of others higher than themselves. I
believe this because hard evidence supported it and it was uncovered
within 18 months of the crime taking place. I also believe that Lee
Harvey Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor
Connally because the story was uncovered within six months of the
assassination and the evidence supported that and only that
conclusion. The conspiracy claims did not have any hard evidence to
support them. The conspiracy nuts have failed to produce a name, a
single fingerprint, a single bullet or fragment belonging to any
weapon other than Oswald's, they have failed to produce a rifle, they
have failed to produce even one photograph supporting shots from
anywhere other than the TSBD, they have failed to explain Oswald's
behavior before, during, and after the assassination in a logical and
consistent manner. Therefore I discount claims by deluded conspiracy
nuts as silly, child-like, and without evidentiary support. YOU
certainly haven't produced any of the things I just mentioined have
you? If there was any substance to conspiracy claims they would have
come forth long before now.
Just as with the nutty conspiracy theorists Truth Movement. Their
claims are equally silly, disproven, non-scientific, and dishonest.
Just as with Kennedy conspiracy claims, the Truth movement's claims
have ALL been debunked.
End of story.
Robert Harris
<e58d5e7e-9f63-4ef3...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Sandy, the simple truth is that you have NO evidence on your side.
Oswald was certainly involved in the attack, in one way or another, but
show me a single piece of evidence that isolates him as the ONLY shooter??
I have asked this question more times than I can count, and have yet to be
shown that evidence.
If you want to talk about legitimate evidence, look at this video which
demonstrates that shots were fired, which could not have all come from
Oswald.
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
"Gerry Simone" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've posted this article on the subject in the past, cuz it's jolly good!
>
> http://www.sott.net/signs/conspiracy_theorists.htm
Hehe, good article.
I honestly don't know to what degree all this crap is planned, but a major
part of the smoke 'n mirrors is their effort to make people believe that
the LN theory is what normal people believe and that only kooks dispute
the WC.
The reality is that ONLY the evidence matters. That is the only factor
that anyone needs to consider.
Robert Harris
Bud
Walt is a walking illustration of what is wrong with conspiracy
kooks. They all think that there is no difference between what they
imagine goes on behind closed doors and what actually occurs behind
closed doors. They talk as if they are sitting in the room as these
things are discussed, that is how vivid their imaginations are. Yet
they can never show that things occur as they think they do, because
they really don`t.
Bud
> In article
> <d2d01fd3-b939-45c1-89eb-f6abf04f9...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 1:19 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <d2b2c7dc-b55f-44bd-a83a-b98fd0e98...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 17, 5:14 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > A CT (Conspiracy theorist) should not be defined as one who believes in
> > > > > conspiracies. We ALL believe in numerous conspiracies, ranging from the
> > > > > holocaust to Watergate, to countless acts of organized terrorism.
>
> > > > You're off to a rip-roarin' start, Harris. A CT shouldn't be defined
> > > > as someone who believes in conspiracy theories??? Gee, let's define
> > > > them as someone who DOESN'T believe in conspiracies---that makes
> > > > sense.
>
> > > Ok, so do you believe there was a conspiracy in Germany by its
> > > government, to murder millions of its own people?
>
> > Your position is more akin to holocaust denial than ours. A fully
> > supported idea is put on the table (Oswald as lone assassin), but you
> > don`t like it, so you go into denial about it.
>
> What evidence have you seen that proves Oswald acted alone? Would you
> list it by the number?
The proof is that despite your great effort, your side can`t show
Oswald plotting or working with anyone. Your side has great difficulty
even determining that Oswald was involved.
> > > Do you believe that Watergate was a conspiracy?
>
> > It has been shown to be one.
>
> And I have shown you that Oswald could not have fired all the shots.
You`ve done no such thing. You`ve convinced yourself, is all.
> That proves conspiracy as clearly as anything in the Watergate scandal.
>
> If you you dispute that I will challenge you for the umpteenth time, to
> refute my arguments.
The witnesses do that, Bob. They say the shots all came from one
direction. Is that your theory?
> Do you need the link again Bud?
You`ve constructed something you think is nifty. It goes "I say this
means this, which means this means this, which means this means this".
It is subjective every step of the way, and you are so wrapped up in
this creation that you can`t tell "Bob Harris says" from an actual
fact anymore.
> Until you can do that, you have no business telling the lie that the
> evidence supports a solitary assassin.
Occam supports a solitary shooter, no one else is needed. Oswald`s
personality supports a solitary shooter. Nobody can be shown to have
plotted with Oswald in this deed to this day.
> > Despite tremendous effort, you can only
> > show conspiracy to the satisfaction of those desperate for there to
> > have been a conspiracy.
>
> LOL!! I love this coming from someone pitching a theory that is only
> slightly more popular than the flat Earth theory.
I wouldn`t expect people to support an idea they are generally
ignorant of.
Chuck Schuyler
> In article
> Ok, so do you believe there was a conspiracy in Germany by its
> government, to murder millions of its own people?
Yes.
>
> Do you believe that Watergate was a conspiracy?
Yes.
>
> If so, then by your own definition, you are a conspiracy theorist.
Intellectually shallow "link" by Harris. 'CT' is the general term used
at JFK discussion boards to denote the lazy, jobless, shifty, pot-
smoking rabble that trot out their endless, always morphing, ever
expanding JFK assassination plots. 'LN' is the general term used at
JFK discussion boards to describe the clear-eyed, rational thinking
folks that are able to weigh evidence and come to a conclusion on
Oswald's sole guilt, and see through the silly hobby your side has
promoted for decades.
>I do hope however, that you change your mind and join back up with your
> fellow nutcases.
Keep tilting at those windmills, Don Quixote.
>
> Robert Harris
Chuck Schuyler
> On Nov 17, 11:10 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 11:01 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > I believe the government controlled media has derided WC critics since day
> > > one..... Labeling them as kooks and weirdos.......I suspect that many of
> > > those "kooks" and "weirdos" were actually government agents posing as a
> > > "critic" with a far out theory that the government knew would be seen as
> > > nutty by rational people. Since nobody wants to be allied with a nut,
> > > most rational people have taken a low profile approach when voicing any
> > > opinion about the crime of the century..... Just what the government
> > > wanted.
>
> > P-A-R-A-N-O-I-D!!!!!!!
>
> Oh really...... You think I'm paranoid??.... well I gues that's
> fair, because I think you're a gutless coward with his head up his ass
> because he's too cowardly to face the FACTS.
One of the signs of true paranoia is the inability of the afflicted to
come to grips with---you guessed it---their own paranoia.
Face facts, Walt: You're P-A-R-A-N-O-I-D. No one in the nebulous
"government" gives a flying Rossley about the JFK assassination
anymore.
>
> So you apparently believe that our government is pure as the newly
> fallen snow...and they wouldn't ever lie to you when something like
> "national security" is at stake.
I profoundly disagree with my government on a host of issues,
including the alarming deficits we're racking up, trying terrorists
captured on battlefields as US citizens, nationalizing the health care
industry, taxing people under draconian cap-and-trade legislation for
the unscientific global warming concerns, etc.
>
> Humor me for just a moment and accept that JFK was murdered by Hoover
> and Johnson.... Would you still follow your government leaders ( obey
> the laws imposed on you) if they now (after 45 years ) laughingly told
> you.... "Hey Chuck, it was all just a joke.....We knew all along that
> Hoover and Johnson had JFK murdered, but we also knew that to disclose
> that to the American people would likely have ripped the country
> apart, so we lied to you"
I'd try the perps and if convicted, I'd vote to have 'em executed.
>
> OK, Thank you for humoring me ......... now tuck your head back safely
> in your ass and pretend the Warren Report is gospel.
I guess it's hard for the WC to compete with cardboard/LEGO/Elmer's
Glue/popcicle stick model of Dealey Plaza you constructed to solve the
Kennedy assassination. It's probably still in your basement collecting
dust.
Chuck Schuyler
wrote:
Poor robcap.
Even among fellow kooks he's considered a kook. There's a pecking
order in kookdom, and robcap is on the bottom of the pile. Again.
Walt
> On Nov 18, 7:32 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 11:10 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 17, 11:01 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I believe the government controlled media has derided WC critics since day
> > > > one..... Labeling them as kooks and weirdos.......I suspect that many of
> > > > those "kooks" and "weirdos" were actually government agents posing as a
> > > > "critic" with a far out theory that the government knew would be seen as
> > > > nutty by rational people. Since nobody wants to be allied with a nut,
> > > > most rational people have taken a low profile approach when voicing any
> > > > opinion about the crime of the century..... Just what the government
> > > > wanted.
>
> > > P-A-R-A-N-O-I-D!!!!!!!
>
> > Oh really...... You think I'm paranoid??.... well I gues that's
> > fair, because I think you're a gutless coward with his head up his ass
> > because he's too cowardly to face the FACTS.
>
> One of the signs of true paranoia is the inability of the afflicted to
> come to grips with---you guessed it---their own paranoia.
>
> Face facts, Walt: You're P-A-R-A-N-O-I-D. No one in the nebulous
> "government" gives a flying Rossley about the JFK assassination
> anymore.
Schmuck wrote:..."No one in the nebulous "government" gives a flying
Rossley about the JFK assassination anymore."
How naive you are...... The assassination controversy is still very
much alive.... because people don't believe the government's story.
Our government is still hiding secrets from us about events that
happened before WWII. If you think they don't care about the
assassination of President Kennedy you are a truey a real whacko.
>
>
>
> > So you apparently believe that our government is pure as the newly
> > fallen snow...and they wouldn't ever lie to you when something like
> > "national security" is at stake.
>
> I profoundly disagree with my government on a host of issues,
> including the alarming deficits we're racking up, trying terrorists
> captured on battlefields as US citizens, nationalizing the health care
> industry, taxing people under draconian cap-and-trade legislation for
> the unscientific global warming concerns, etc.
>
>
>
> > Humor me for just a moment and accept that JFK was murdered by Hoover
> > and Johnson.... Would you still follow your government leaders ( obey
> > the laws imposed on you) if they now (after 45 years ) laughingly told
> > you.... "Hey Chuck, it was all just a joke.....We knew all along that
> > Hoover and Johnson had JFK murdered, but we also knew that to disclose
> > that to the American people would likely have ripped the country
> > apart, so we lied to you"
>
> I'd try the perps and if convicted, I'd vote to have 'em executed.
>
>
>
> > OK, Thank you for humoring me ......... now tuck your head back safely
> > in your ass and pretend the Warren Report is gospel.
>
> I guess it's hard for the WC to compete with cardboard/LEGO/Elmer's
> Glue/popcicle stick model of Dealey Plaza you constructed to solve the
> Kennedy assassination. It's probably still in your basement collecting
> dust.
Hmmm...I must have struck a sore place......and all you can do is
resort to ad hominem attacks.
Thank you for displaying your cowardice.
Robert Harris
<411a8e85-add0-46f5...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 12:19�am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
>
> > Ok, so do you believe there was a conspiracy in Germany by its
> > government, to murder millions of its own people?
>
> Yes.
> >
> > Do you believe that Watergate was a conspiracy?
>
> Yes.
> >
> > If so, then by your own definition, you are a conspiracy theorist.
>
> Intellectually shallow "link" by Harris. 'CT' is the general term used
> at JFK discussion boards to denote the lazy, jobless, shifty, pot-
> smoking rabble that trot out their endless, always morphing, ever
> expanding JFK assassination plots.
Yes, that's essentially, what I said.
So why did you dispute my claim that the term is not meant to define,
people who believe in conspiracy?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<a8f35f5d-288a-4823...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
I don't have a "side", Bud. And if I did, nothing we accomplished or
failed to accomplish, would constitute evidence.
The simple truth is, that you have no evidence to support your claim
that Oswald acted alone.
>
> > > > Do you believe that Watergate was a conspiracy?
> >
> > > It has been shown to be one.
Since you also believe in conspiracies then, why did you dispute my
claim that CT should not be defined as people who believe in conspiracy?
> >
> > And I have shown you that Oswald could not have fired all the shots.
>
> You`ve done no such thing. You`ve convinced yourself, is all.
Then post a rebuttal and show me where I went wrong.
Please be very specific.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<f97f80bd-fafd-46fa...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Steve <sahi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 5:48�ｿｽpm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <142f279b-e2b8-4d33-ad4d-42ca1dc55...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > �ｿｽSteve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 18, 11:24�ｿｽam, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 18, 1:19 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <d2b2c7dc-b55f-44bd-a83a-b98fd0e98...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > �ｿｽChuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Nov 17, 5:14 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > A CT (Conspiracy theorist) should not be defined as one who
> > > > > > > believes
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > conspiracies. We ALL believe in numerous conspiracies, ranging
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > holocaust to Watergate, to countless acts of organized terrorism.
> >
> > > > > > You're off to a rip-roarin' start, Harris. A CT shouldn't be
> > > > > > defined
> > > > > > as someone who believes in conspiracy theories??? Gee, let's define
> > > > > > them as someone who DOESN'T believe in conspiracies---that makes
> > > > > > sense.
> >
> > > > > Ok, so do you believe there was a conspiracy in Germany by its
> > > > > government, to murder millions of its own people?
> >
> > > > �ｿｽ Your position is more akin to holocaust denial than ours. A fully
> > > > supported idea is put on the table (Oswald as lone assassin), but you
> > > > don`t like it, so you go into denial about it.
> >
> > > > > Do you believe that Watergate was a conspiracy?
> >
> > > > �ｿｽ It has been shown to be one. Despite tremendous effort, you can only
> > > > show conspiracy to the satisfaction of those desperate for there to
> > > > have been a conspiracy.
> >
> > > > > If so, then by your own definition, you are a conspiracy theorist.
> >
> > > > > I do hope however, that you change your mind and join back up with
> > > > > your
> > > > > fellow nutcases.
> >
> > > > �ｿｽ Yah, it`s just insane to think that all those indications of
> > > > Oswald`s guilt might mean he is guilty.
> >
> > > > > Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > I cannot resist to throw in my two cents on this one.
> >
> > > The statement Robert made to start this thread speaks volumes: �ｿｽ"A CT
> > > (Conspiracy theorist) should not be defined as one who believes in
> > > conspiracies"
> >
> > > All one needs to do is read this contradictory, illogical statement
> >
> > Don't you "believe" in countless conspiracy theories, Steve? American
> > Law enforcement and the courts sure do.
> >
> > Does that make you a CT, Steve?
> >
> > If so, then I guess you are one of that, �ｿｽ"vile bunch who waste their
> > lives looking for misplaced commas, peripheral comments that disagree
> > with the 'official' version of events, and then struggle to create an
> > argument."
> >
> > I never thought of you that way Steve. I always thought you were only a
> > bigoted, stereotyping hater with a weak mind that permanently prevents
> > you from entertaining any thought that has not been approved by the
> > authorities.
> >
> > Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Robert, Robert, Robert you big dummy. You are as stupid today as you
> were six months ago.
I probably am Steve. I never trusted those Mensa tests anyway.
>
> You are wrong.
No I'm not Steve and you're about to prove it.
> I DO believe in conspiracies when there is imperical
> evidence to support them.
Good for you Steve!
Then, by your definition, you are a CT.
Do you intend too make a public statement?
Robert Harris
(drivel snipped)
Bud
Sure you do. You are on the side that rejects the official
explanation.
>And if I did, nothing we accomplished or
> failed to accomplish, would constitute evidence.
Certainly what you think you see in the z-film.
> The simple truth is, that you have no evidence to support your claim
> that Oswald acted alone.
The person who saw him shooting didn`t say he saw someone with
Oswald.
> > > > > Do you believe that Watergate was a conspiracy?
>
> > > > It has been shown to be one.
>
> Since you also believe in conspiracies then, why did you dispute my
> claim that CT should not be defined as people who believe in conspiracy?
I never defined them that way. I define them as kooks who are
unsatisfied with reality and want to create their own.
> > > And I have shown you that Oswald could not have fired all the shots.
>
> > You`ve done no such thing. You`ve convinced yourself, is all.
>
> Then post a rebuttal and show me where I went wrong.
>
> Please be very specific.
You want to do this again? Ok, the witnesses largely reported
hearing three shots. What z-frame was the first shot they heard? Just
the z-frame, please, not an avalanche of "he-said, she-said".
Robert Harris
<b7d72eaf-42e5-4c04...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
The official explanation is that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy.
And I realize that you dispute the government's conclusion but that's to
be expected from paranoid CT's like you!!
>
> >And if I did, nothing we accomplished or
> > failed to accomplish, would constitute evidence.
>
> Certainly what you think you see in the z-film.
We are talking about your failure to produce evidence to support your
theory.
You have ZERO evidence which isolates Oswald as the only shooter.
>
> > The simple truth is, that you have no evidence to support your claim
> > that Oswald acted alone.
>
> The person who saw him shooting didn`t say he saw someone with
> Oswald.
IC, and exactly how many possible locations did he examine?
There were more witnesses who saw other people on the sixth floor than
who identified Oswald, Bud. Why don't you want to listen to them?
>
> > > > > > Do you believe that Watergate was a conspiracy?
> >
> > > > > It has been shown to be one.
> >
> > Since you also believe in conspiracies then, why did you dispute my
> > claim that CT should not be defined as people who believe in conspiracy?
>
> I never defined them that way. I define them as kooks who are
> unsatisfied with reality and want to create their own.
Yes, and that is exactly what I said the common definition is.
Please answer the question.
You said, "You're off to a rip-roarin' start, Harris. A CT shouldn't be
defined as someone who believes in conspiracy theories???"
Why did you try to ridicule my statement, when you were in complete
agreement with it?
>
> > > > And I have shown you that Oswald could not have fired all the shots.
> >
> > > You`ve done no such thing. You`ve convinced yourself, is all.
> >
> > Then post a rebuttal and show me where I went wrong.
> >
> > Please be very specific.
>
> You want to do this again? Ok, the witnesses largely reported
> hearing three shots. What z-frame was the first shot they heard? Just
> the z-frame, please, not an avalanche of "he-said, she-said".
The first noise was heard prior to frame 160. But that has nothing to do
with the shot at 285.
Is this what you call a rebuttal??
>
> > Robert Harris
> >
> >
> >
> > > > That proves conspiracy as clearly as anything in the Watergate scandal.
> >
> > > > If you you dispute that I will challenge you for the umpteenth time, to
> > > > refute my arguments.
> >
> > > The witnesses do that, Bob. They say the shots all came from one
> > > direction. Is that your theory?
No, the witnesses said the shots came from two directions, Bud. That's
exactly what I have been saying for a long time.
If the shots had indeed, all came from the east, then all or almost all
the witnesses would have said so.
But that is hardly a refutation to the shot at 285, since that shot
almost certainly came from the rear anyway.
And why would you care what the witnesses said, Bud - when you've made a
career out of telling us how worthless they are??
> >
> > > > Do you need the link again Bud?
> >
> > > You`ve constructed something you think is nifty.
Obviously, you do too or you would have tried to refute me.
> > > It goes "I say this
> > > means this, which means this means this, which means this means this".
> > > It is subjective every step of the way,
Really?
Why don't you send a paper to the Journal of American Physics, so that
they can throw out Alvarez's silly, "subjective" analysis?
And have you told Larry Sturdevan he was full of crap, for agreeing that
every nonvictim in the limo reacted within the same 1/6th of a second of
each other and Abraham Zapruder.
That's not subjective, Bud, It is verifiable and falsifiable.
And so are Mrs. Connally's and Mrs. Kennedy's statements, describing
exactly when, in a very specific series of events, they heard the shot
that they believed, wounded their respective spouses.
Mrs. Connally for example said,
1. She saw JFK reacting to being hit.
2. Her husband turned to the rear.
3. Her husband turned back toward the front.
4. She heard the shot.
5. She turned back toward JBC and pulled him toward her.
Look at the film. Her statements read like a narration, and you know it
as well as I do.
And you will never refute that or even come close.
Robert Harris
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Robert, Robert, Robert you big dummy. You talk of being a CT as if it
were an all inclusive term. It isn't. I believe in conspiracies when
there is evidence to support such a belief, and conversely, I DON'T
believe in conspiracies when there is a lack of forensic evidence
supporting one.
There, you have my public statement. As soon as the Kennedy CT come
up with a rifle, a bullet, a fingerprint, a photograph, a film, a
credible witness whose statements are backed by evidence I will switch
sides. After 46 years I'm still waiting. YOU certainly haven't
produced any of these.
Robert Harris
<27479a9a-bcd1-4a57...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
claviger <histori...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert,
>
> From what I can tell CTs are proud of that handle. They refer to LNs
> as "Nutters". I don't see any LNs complaining.
Well, actually, they did. In fact, for awhile, mcadams banned the use of
that term.
> Of the two, Nutter
> sounds somewhat pejorative. LA (Lone Assassin)
Well, technically, that sounds like we are accusing them of murder:-)
But, why do we need labels at all?
LN advocates can never prove that Oswald acted alone. Therefore, they
cannot with integrity, ever assume a more certain position than that of
agnostic.
So, if you must have a label, why not something like, "Somebody looking
for the answers"??
That way, I could at least think that I had some company on "my side" :-)
Robert Harris
Chuck Schuyler
> So why did you dispute my claim that the term is not meant to define,
> people who believe in conspiracy?
>
> Robert Harris-
Umm, that's not what you first wrote...you just added the word
''meant'.
At acj/aaj and the general world of discussing the JFK assassination
(presumably our interest here), the term 'conspiracy theorist' is used
to define those that believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy.
And the CTers here at acj are kooks.
You're not even fit to understand something this simple, and yet you
are deluded with the idea that you can unravel the mysteries of the so-
called JFK assassination conspiracy. Pathetic.
Robert Harris
<1e109c28-bf29-4760...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Steve <sahi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
ROFLMAO!! Steve, you are simply echoing what I said.
I don't think you are really grasping what is going on here. Perhaps,
one of your LN buds can help you out:-)
Robert Harris
Sandy McCroskey
There you go with Nellie Connally again! You don't remember what I said
last time you hauled out this video? (Or one just like it?) No, I don't
want to talk about "legitimate evidence" or anything else with you, as
it's clearly like talking to a wall.
But if I did, we'd be discussing *physical* evidence, not one person's
recollection of an overwhelmingly terrifying event. The notion that one
witness's testimony is proof of anything at all is ridiculously
fallacious.
I repeat, there is no evidence whatsoever that shows that Oswald had any
help, let alone that there was a second shooter.
/sandy
claviger
Robert,
That is a good thought. Just because we all have different ideas doesn't
mean we can't be on the same team. Problem is this case generates more
than curiosity. It has evolved into a competitive debating society where
politics and emotion get involved. If you don't believe in at least one of
several conspiracy theories then you must be a political enemy of JFK.
From what I can tell a number of LNs admit to being CTs at first. They are
now LNs only because their cognitive function overcame emotional gut
reaction. Just because of an initial visceral reaction they did not unplug
their brain. Some CTs seem to motor on along down the highway with nothing
but intuition, no matter how many signs to the contrary, like so many
billboards they would rather not look at. It's the old "I've already made
up my mind, so don't confuse me with the facts!" syndrome.
I can easily believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy but I need facts. It
is logical someone might be planning a way to get rid of the Kennedys
because Jack and Bobby had some powerful enemies. There is motive aplenty,
but where are the facts? Suspicion is a normal human instinct, but from a
scientific, legal, and intellectual standpoint facts must either confirm
or disprove suspicion. So far there are no facts to confirm numerous
suspicions. Logic says you can't prove a negative, so it may be impossible
to prove there was not a conspiracy afoot. All we can say is there is no
evidence LHO was part of a team effort. Maybe he was but went solo. If
true, then technically the conspirators are not guilty. Even if someone
like a good friend planted the idea in his head and channeled LHO's
frustration and resentment toward an authority figure like the President
or the Governor, I'm not sure they could even be prosecuted. It LHO acted
alone only he can be held responsible.
Ben Holmes
claviger says...
>
>On Nov 19, 5:17=A0pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <27479a9a-bcd1-4a57-ba03-ffae6c1f0...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> > Robert,
>>
>> > From what I can tell CTs are proud of that handle. They refer to LNs
>> > as "Nutters". I don't see any LNs complaining.
>>
>> Well, actually, they did. In fact, for awhile, mcadams banned the use of
>> that term.
>>
>> > Of the two, Nutter
>> > sounds somewhat pejorative. LA (Lone Assassin)
>>
>> Well, technically, that sounds like we are accusing them of murder:-)
>>
>> But, why do we need labels at all?
>>
>> LN advocates can never prove that Oswald acted alone. Therefore, they
>> cannot with integrity, ever assume a more certain position than that of
>> agnostic.
>>
>> So, if you must have a label, why not something like, "Somebody looking
>> for the answers"??
>>
>> That way, I could at least think that I had some company on "my side" :-)
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
>Robert,
>
>That is a good thought. Just because we all have different ideas doesn't
>mean we can't be on the same team. Problem is this case generates more
>than curiosity. It has evolved into a competitive debating society where
>politics and emotion get involved. If you don't believe in at least one of
>several conspiracy theories then you must be a political enemy of JFK.
Nonsense. I'm further to the right than Rush Limbaugh, and I recognize the
obviousness of a conspiracy in this case - as do up to 90% of Americans,
depending on what poll you look at.
>From what I can tell a number of LNs admit to being CTs at first. They are
>now LNs only because their cognitive function overcame emotional gut
>reaction. Just because of an initial visceral reaction they did not unplug
>their brain. Some CTs seem to motor on along down the highway with nothing
>but intuition, no matter how many signs to the contrary, like so many
>billboards they would rather not look at. It's the old "I've already made
>up my mind, so don't confuse me with the facts!" syndrome.
If such were true, why then do LNT'ers refuse to debate the evidence? Why do
LNT'ers refuse to explain how the evidence supports their faith?
>I can easily believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy but I need facts.
No, LNT'ers *don't* need facts, indeed, they run from them.
Tell us why the WC and the HSCA were forced to lie about their own evidence...
That should be an easy question to answer if "facts" are what you're truly
interested in.
Explain why over 40 medically trained eyewitnesses saw and described something
(to include the prosectors, by the way) which cannot be seen in an "autopsy
photo"... the famous BOH wound?
>It is logical someone might be planning a way to get rid of the Kennedys
>because Jack and Bobby had some powerful enemies. There is motive aplenty,
>but where are the facts?
All over the place. Why not start with the evidence, and go from there?
>Suspicion is a normal human instinct, but from a
>scientific, legal, and intellectual standpoint facts must either confirm
>or disprove suspicion. So far there are no facts to confirm numerous
>suspicions.
That's simply untrue. Indeed, depending on your knowledge of this case, it can
very well be an outright lie.
>Logic says you can't prove a negative, so it may be impossible
>to prove there was not a conspiracy afoot. All we can say is there is no
>evidence LHO was part of a team effort.
Again, simply untrue. Take, as merely one example; the description of the
assassin - IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OSWALD, the clothing doesn't match, and yet is
easily the most visible and least likely to be mistaken.
>Maybe he was but went solo. If
>true, then technically the conspirators are not guilty. Even if someone
>like a good friend planted the idea in his head and channeled LHO's
>frustration and resentment toward an authority figure like the President
>or the Governor,
Speculation such as that in the face of overwhelming evidence that Oswald felt
no "frustration" or "resentment" toward Kennedy is at best, spin. At worst,
another outright lie. When you present remarks that are totally contrary to the
known evidence, you illustrate that you're speaking of faith, not knowledge
based on facts.
>I'm not sure they could even be prosecuted. It LHO acted
>alone only he can be held responsible.
How silly! One only need look to such famous prosecutions as Charles Manson to
see a counter-example that makes your assertion nonsense.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Bud
Just the kind of intellectual dishonesty I`ve come to expect from
the conspiracy crowd.
> And I realize that you dispute the government's conclusion but that's to
> be expected from paranoid CT's like you!!
Both the WC and HSCA found Oswald responsible for all the wounds
inflicted on the occupants of the limo.
> > >And if I did, nothing we accomplished or
> > > failed to accomplish, would constitute evidence.
>
> > Certainly what you think you see in the z-film.
>
> We are talking about your failure to produce evidence to support your
> theory.
>
> You have ZERO evidence which isolates Oswald as the only shooter.
Thats goes for just about every shooting, doesn`t it? Can I rule out
that there was someone else shooting at Reagan at the same time
Hinkley was? Or that someone else was shooting at Lennon when Chapman
was?
> > > The simple truth is, that you have no evidence to support your claim
> > > that Oswald acted alone.
>
> > The person who saw him shooting didn`t say he saw someone with
> > Oswald.
>
> IC, and exactly how many possible locations did he examine?
He wasn`t checking sewers, if thats what you mean.
> There were more witnesses who saw other people on the sixth floor than
> who identified Oswald, Bud. Why don't you want to listen to them?
What would I hear that would cast doubt on Oswald`s culpability?
> > > > > > > Do you believe that Watergate was a conspiracy?
>
> > > > > > It has been shown to be one.
>
> > > Since you also believe in conspiracies then, why did you dispute my
> > > claim that CT should not be defined as people who believe in conspiracy?
>
> > I never defined them that way. I define them as kooks who are
> > unsatisfied with reality and want to create their own.
>
> Yes, and that is exactly what I said the common definition is.
>
> Please answer the question.
>
> You said, "You're off to a rip-roarin' start, Harris. A CT shouldn't be
> defined as someone who believes in conspiracy theories???"
No, that wasn`t me. I think it was Steve or Chuck.
> Why did you try to ridicule my statement, when you were in complete
> agreement with it?
>
>
>
> > > > > And I have shown you that Oswald could not have fired all the shots.
>
> > > > You`ve done no such thing. You`ve convinced yourself, is all.
>
> > > Then post a rebuttal and show me where I went wrong.
>
> > > Please be very specific.
>
> > You want to do this again? Ok, the witnesses largely reported
> > hearing three shots. What z-frame was the first shot they heard? Just
> > the z-frame, please, not an avalanche of "he-said, she-said".
>
> The first noise was heard prior to frame 160. But that has nothing to do
> with the shot at 285.
>
> Is this what you call a rebuttal??
No, it`s an evasion, you know it`s an evasion, and then you have the
guts to call yourself an honest man .Now i have to reword it in such a
way as you can`t squirm out of answering. How about "When (z-frame)
did the witnesses hear the first of the three noises they counted as
shots?"
> > > Robert Harris
>
> > > > > That proves conspiracy as clearly as anything in the Watergate scandal.
>
> > > > > If you you dispute that I will challenge you for the umpteenth time, to
> > > > > refute my arguments.
>
> > > > The witnesses do that, Bob. They say the shots all came from one
> > > > direction. Is that your theory?
>
> No, the witnesses said the shots came from two directions, Bud. That's
> exactly what I have been saying for a long time.
Bullshit. They say no such thing.
> If the shots had indeed, all came from the east, then all or almost all
> the witnesses would have said so.
If they would have thought the shots came from multiple directions,
they would have said so. They don`t (except for a few), and you are a
liar if you say they do.
> But that is hardly a refutation to the shot at 285, since that shot
> almost certainly came from the rear anyway.
I didn`t say anything about "rear". I asked if the witnesses
indicated multiple directions for the shots.
> And why would you care what the witnesses said, Bud - when you've made a
> career out of telling us how worthless they are??
No, there are some things witnesses do better at than others. This
is one of many realities that conspiracy kooks tend to ignore.
> > > > > Do you need the link again Bud?
>
> > > > You`ve constructed something you think is nifty.
>
> Obviously, you do too or you would have tried to refute me.
You think it is admiration that prevents me? You are deluded.
> > > > It goes "I say this
> > > > means this, which means this means this, which means this means this".
> > > > It is subjective every step of the way,
>
> Really?
>
> Why don't you send a paper to the Journal of American Physics, so that
> they can throw out Alvarez's silly, "subjective" analysis?
>
> And have you told Larry Sturdevan he was full of crap, for agreeing that
> every nonvictim in the limo reacted within the same 1/6th of a second of
> each other and Abraham Zapruder.
>
> That's not subjective, Bud, It is verifiable and falsifiable.
You can`t verify they are reacting to a sonic boom. The z-film has
no sound.
> And so are Mrs. Connally's and Mrs. Kennedy's statements, describing
> exactly when, in a very specific series of events, they heard the shot
> that they believed, wounded their respective spouses.
>
> Mrs. Connally for example said,
>
> 1. She saw JFK reacting to being hit.
No, you can`t even get this right. (1) should be that she heard a
shot. Then (2) She saw JFK reacting to being hit. Then (3), She heard
another shot. Then (4) She saw her husband reacting to being hit.
Gerry Simone
question, that's supposed to be crazy.
Poppycock!
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-06CED...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
Robert Harris
<9f4c2a47-e16a-41c4...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Hehe, I don't think you do either, unless you were using a different
alias then - at least that's what Google says.
Why don't you post a link to that message?
> (Or one just like it?) No, I don't
> want to talk about "legitimate evidence" or anything else with you, as
> it's clearly like talking to a wall.
I don't think so Sandy. I think there is a much different reason why you
won't discuss the evidence:-)
>
> But if I did, we'd be discussing *physical* evidence, not one person's
> recollection of an overwhelmingly terrifying event. The notion that one
> witness's testimony is proof of anything at all is ridiculously
> fallacious.
I totally agree with that. But what does that have to do with the shot
at 285?
It sounds like you are a bit confused Sandy. Are you thinking about
someone else and a totally different topic? Take a look at that video.
It is hardly about "one person's recollection".
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov
>
> I repeat, there is no evidence whatsoever that shows that Oswald had any
> help, let alone that there was a second shooter.
Sandy, don't you really mean that you refuse to look at evidence that
proves there were other shooters??
I will tell you a secret though. Once you have it right, you will never
again have to be afraid of ANY question or ANY evidence. You will never
again have to dodge another question with phony, lame excuses.
That alone, should make it worth your while to examine this evidence.
Robert Harris
>
> /sandy
WhiskyJoe
Hello Bud
> I`m not sure why the majority has bought
> into the idea of conspiracy, they seem to
> have a vague idea that something fishy
> went on and that all isn`t as it seems,
> but nothing really tangible or specific.
> It could be that the smoke generated by
> conspirists have convinced many that
> there must be a fire somewhere.
I think the side with the more interesting
story has an advantage. The CT stories are
just flat out better stories than the
depressing truth, that Oswald opened the
newspaper one day and saw a chance to become
a historical person, as others had done
before him and since.
The Apollo Landing Hoaxes have a tougher go
of it simply because the truth is a pretty
interesting story, a bunch of determined
and smart people overcame all the challenges
and managed to land a man on the moon before
the decade was out.
But also, some CTers, perhaps through trial and
error, have discovered effective arguments.
In general, the easily disproven lies, seem
to be the most effective. It they were not,
they would not use them.
* The Anti SBT diagrams which show a bullet
through JFK's neck wounds missing Connally
entirely.
* Claiming Oswald couldn't possibly get from
the sixth floor window to the second floor
lunchroom in time to be confronted by
Officer Baker when in truth, Baker had
farther to travel. Arguing Baker did not
have enough time to reach the lunchroom to
confront anyone there would make more
sense than claiming Oswald did not have
enough time.
* Claiming the Warren Report concluded that
all three shots were definitely fired within
5.6 seconds and that is impossible with that
kind of rifle, an obvious lie on both accounts.
Logically, one would think CTers would stick
with harder to disprove lies, like no bullet
could wound JFK and Connally and come out
pristine. One would have to own a rifle
and do some experiments to prove or
disprove that.
But the easily disprovable lies are their
most effective lies precisely because they
are obvious lies. We can intuitively judge
if a claim, if false, is easily disprovable.
And so we tend to accept as true these claims.
The Big Lie is just a very effective technique.
For most people, getting them convinced of
an overall theory is all important. Yes,
it is useful to get people to believe the
SBT is impossible because of the positions
of JFK and Connally. But the real value is
that this claim gets people convinced that
the Warren Commission was lying and there
definitely were multiple shooters.
Later, when they find out the CTers were
lying, it doesn't effect them much. They
just figure that these lies are just a
quirk. What really matters is that they
"know" the Warren Commission was lying
and there were multiple shooters.
Typically, when I tell people that the
diagram in the JFK movie is a big lie,
they don't react by saying "I see. You
don't have to tell me any more. I know
what it means when people lie." Instead,
they say, "Well, what about this or that."
Learning prominent CTers felt compelled to
use obviously false Anti SBT diagrams time
and time again has little effect on them.
This victory in convincing the majority has
taught CTers some valuable lessons. With the
9/11 CTs, they quickly figured out that,
in general, the more spectacular lies
work the best.
Occasionally this strategy hurts them.
Saying the telephone calls from the planes
were faked did not work. I think the key
was that these telephone calls are a pretty
interesting detail of 9/11. The stories of
these phone calls were not just true, but
compelling and really touch people's
hearts.
But, in general, the Big Lies have worked
well for 9/11 truthers, just as they did
for the JFK CTers.
Bud
> HelloBud
Hello Joe...
Yah, the conspiracy folks are shooting fish in a barrel by attacking the
WC, and the public isn`t looking that closely at the fish to see whether
they are hitting them or not.
> Later, when they find out the CTers were
> lying, it doesn't effect them much. They
> just figure that these lies are just a
> quirk. What really matters is that they
> "know" the Warren Commission was lying
> and there were multiple shooters.
>
> Typically, when I tell people that the
> diagram in the JFK movie is a big lie,
> they don't react by saying "I see. You
> don't have to tell me any more. I know
> what it means when people lie." Instead,
> they say, "Well, what about this or that."
It`s the mythical hydra, you cut off one head, another bites at you.
Eventually the ones you cut off grow back.
> Learning prominent CTers felt compelled to
> use obviously false Anti SBT diagrams time
> and time again has little effect on them.
You`d think using a false sales pitch would hurt their credibility, but
you are right, it doesn`t seem to. Once suspicion is aroused, it`s hard to
put it back to sleep. that was the daunting task of the WC, but it doesn`t
seem likely they ever had a chance (no more chance than the 9-11
investigation had of stopping the suspicions of people in that event).
Perhaps the government should not even bother trying to convince the
public of the truth, just say "think whatever you want".
> This victory in convincing the majority has
> taught CTers some valuable lessons. With the
> 9/11 CTs, they quickly figured out that,
> in general, the more spectacular lies
> work the best.
>
> Occasionally this strategy hurts them.
> Saying the telephone calls from the planes
> were faked did not work. I think the key
> was that these telephone calls are a pretty
> interesting detail of 9/11. The stories of
> these phone calls were not just true, but
> compelling and really touch people's
> hearts.
What always gets me is the complexity they add into the mix when they
advance these ideas. You need all kinds of people lying saying they got
the calls, plus whatever technical support, plus actors playing the parts
of the callers. They just casually throw in dozens of people into the
conspiracy, not once realizing that the more complex you make it, the less
likely the story you are telling can be true.
> But, in general, the Big Lies have worked
> well for 9/11 truthers, just as they did
> for the JFK CTers.
The JFK CTers paved the way.
Robert Harris
<aa5310ab-bea4-44cf...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
claviger <histori...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 5:17?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <27479a9a-bcd1-4a57-ba03-ffae6c1f0...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > ?claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Robert,
> >
> > > From what I can tell CTs are proud of that handle. They refer to LNs
> > > as "Nutters". I don't see any LNs complaining.
> >
> > Well, actually, they did. In fact, for awhile, mcadams banned the use of
> > that term.
> >
> > > Of the two, Nutter
> > > sounds somewhat pejorative. LA (Lone Assassin)
> >
> > Well, technically, that sounds like we are accusing them of murder:-)
> >
> > But, why do we need labels at all?
> >
> > LN advocates can never prove that Oswald acted alone. Therefore, they
> > cannot with integrity, ever assume a more certain position than that of
> > agnostic.
> >
> > So, if you must have a label, why not something like, "Somebody looking
> > for the answers"??
> >
> > That way, I could at least think that I had some company on "my side" :-)
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> Robert,
>
> That is a good thought. Just because we all have different ideas doesn't
> mean we can't be on the same team.
Well, I'm not even suggesting that we all have play nice or share group
hugs:-) I am only suggesting that there is no logical or honest
justification for an unyielding LN position.
That would still leave them free to tell the opposition that their
arguments and evidence sucks.
> Problem is this case generates more
> than curiosity. It has evolved into a competitive debating society where
> politics and emotion get involved. If you don't believe in at least one of
> several conspiracy theories then you must be a political enemy of JFK.
> From what I can tell a number of LNs admit to being CTs at first.
Hehe, that's usually not an admission. It's just part of the pitch.
> They are
> now LNs only because their cognitive function overcame emotional gut
> reaction.
Those who really did change their views undoubtedly did so because there
are so many old school conspiracy beliefs that really are crap. I can see
how someone who was conned by the "badgeman" theory or something like
that, got disgusted when he learned it was false and then decided that
Oswald must have done it alone.
But I think a lot of them then decided that if some conspiracy arguments
are false, then they must all be.
> Just because of an initial visceral reaction they did not unplug
> their brain. Some CTs seem to motor on along down the highway with nothing
> but intuition, no matter how many signs to the contrary, like so many
> billboards they would rather not look at. It's the old "I've already made
> up my mind, so don't confuse me with the facts!" syndrome.
Sadly, there are a lot of people like that on both sides of the debate.
>
> I can easily believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy but I need facts. It
> is logical someone might be planning a way to get rid of the Kennedys
> because Jack and Bobby had some powerful enemies. There is motive aplenty,
> but where are the facts?
The easiest way to approach this crime is to first determine if it was
possible for Oswald to have fired all the shots. Fortunately, it is
ridiculously easy to prove that he couldn't.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "The easiest way to approach this crime is to first determine if it was possible for Oswald to have fired all the shots." <<<
Yes, Robert Harris, I agree with you on this. That is a very good
starting point.
And a reasonable person, after considering all of the BEST AND MOST
RELIABLE EVIDENCE in the case, can only come to one logical conclusion
concerning that important starting point. And that conclusion is:
Yes, it definitely was possible for Lee Harvey Oswald to have
fired all of the shots that were fired at President Kennedy's car in
Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.
>>> "Fortunately, it is ridiculously easy to prove that he couldn't [fire all the shots]." <<<
Now Bob Harris goes off the "logic" rails by insisting that his unique
subjective analysis of the Zapruder Film (in conjunction with witness
statements) gives him the freedom and the luxury of declaring with
certainty that Oswald couldn't have fired all the shots.
This puts me in mind of another conspiracy theorist who is either
pulling the collective legs of everyone here at the ACJ newsgroup or
is genuinely retarded and/or crazy -- a certain Mr. "Nobody" -- who
insists that he has seen a photo taken at Love Field that actually
shows a bullet in mid-air after it supposedly went through JFK's body.
Yes, the kook known as "Nobody" actually claims that President Kennedy
was shot BEFORE HE LEFT LOVE FIELD! And "Nobody" also claims that
EVERY single photo and film that was taken after JFK left the airport
has been "altered".
That's how utterly insane some conspiracy theorists can be when
talking about the assassination of JFK. (Of course, it's quite likely
that Mr. "Nobody" is scamming everyone here and is merely pretending
to believe in something totally ridiculous in order to smear other
"CTers". But with some conspiracists, you just can never be sure if
they're serious or not when they dive off the CT diving board of
absurdity. So, who can know for sure?)
Robert Harris, however, isn't nearly as insane and nutty as Mr.
"Nobody", of course. But I just wanted to point out the parallel
concerning "subjective analysis", which is the type of analysis on
which Mr. Harris is basing his determination that a gunshot was fired
at Zapruder Film frame #285 (a determination that Harris says, in
effect, is "ridiculously easy to prove").
I'm guessing that Mr. "Nobody" would probably say the same thing about
his analysis of a particular photograph taken at Love Field, which is
a photo "Nobody" claims depicts a "bullet exiting [JFK's] neck...the
bullet is shown in midair about two inches from his neck" ["Nobody";
11/20/09].
Such is the difficulty with analysis that is wholly subjective. Such
conclusions about a "BULLET IN MIDAIR" [fired at Love Field] or a
gunshot at Z285 that is "RIDICULOUSLY EASY TO PROVE" are conclusions
that can easily be dismissed by other JFK researchers as being
nonsense for a variety of logical reasons.
============================================
"Looks like Brian David Andersen (the kook who believes that JFK
was wearing a "pyrotechnics device" on his head on 11/22/63) has
competition for "Conspiracy Retard Of The Year" here in 2009." -- DVP;
11/20/09
============================================
BATTLING ROBERT HARRIS (AGAIN) [A RECENT 6-PART SERIES]:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8b7ebb42d9f5d0c6
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a1b7257f83d3570f
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9e32a8d6550ab3b5
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/26bb6edba1209122
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c35b8c60d20fe979
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/560f8f0ea1ab8734
============================================
Nobody
>
> ============================================
>
> BATTLING ROBERT HARRIS (AGAIN) [A RECENT 6-PART SERIES]:
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8b7ebb42d9f5d0c6
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a1b7257f83d3570f
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9e32a8d6550ab3b5
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/26bb6edba1209122
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c35b8c60d20fe979
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/560f8f0ea1ab8734
>
> ============================================
time
David Von Pein
>>> "I got your look bitch and I'm going to feed it to you a piece at a time." <<<
Gee, I can't wait for the next piece of the retarded pie that will be
served up by Mr. Imagination (aka: "Nobody"). But I'm confident it
will be delicious.
Maybe your next theory from Kookville can be to pretend that Mayor
Earle Cabell's wife shot JFK in the throat with a gun disguised as a
rose, with Mrs. Cabell firing this shot just before she handed the
weapon (i.e., the bouquet of roses) to First Lady Jackie Kennedy:
That should sound fairly logical and reasonable to a retard like you,
right "Nobody"?
BTW, is the following live Dallas TV footage supposedly "altered" too,
Mr. Nobody? Or do you think JFK was shot just a few seconds after
these TV cameras stopped rolling, but while Kennedy was still on the
grounds of Love Field?:
Sandy McCroskey
> In article
> <9f4c2a47-e16a-41c4-b426-5ba8b4588...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/2c3f0cb4ff457e76/29ce726de0d3d73d?lnk=raot&fwc=1
Google says it was Oct. 3 of this year that you posted this to me,
with the same utterly unjustified confidence you evince today:
« BTW, would you like to see very clear proof that Oswald could not
have been responsible for all the shots that were fired that day??
« I knew you would! Check this out, if you have the courage:-)
« http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s »
Yes, the URL is different, but it's the same video.
"JFK Assassination - the shot at frame 285."
Sorry, it's *still* worth diddly-squat as "evidence."
/sandy
Sandy McCroskey
I replied to you, that time, on October 6. Here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/2c3f0cb4ff457e76/021d452bef76749d
« Your video (eye/ear-witness testimony, years after the fact) doesn't
cut it. And you should know that by now!»
/sandy
Robert Harris
<b24c76ec-dfcb-4bd1...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
Bud, I didn't mean to be dishonest.
Would you mind citing the HSCA's conclusion that Oswald acted alone?
>
> > And I realize that you dispute the government's conclusion but that's to
> > be expected from paranoid CT's like you!!
>
> Both the WC and HSCA found Oswald responsible for all the wounds
> inflicted on the occupants of the limo.
Well, that's actually no possible. But that's not the issue at hand. The
issue is that the LN theory is outside the mainstream and is a fringe
belief.
>
> > > >And if I did, nothing we accomplished or
> > > > failed to accomplish, would constitute evidence.
> >
> > > Certainly what you think you see in the z-film.
> >
> > We are talking about your failure to produce evidence to support your
> > theory.
> >
> > You have ZERO evidence which isolates Oswald as the only shooter.
>
> Thats goes for just about every shooting, doesn`t it? Can I rule out
> that there was someone else shooting at Reagan at the same time
> Hinkley was? Or that someone else was shooting at Lennon when Chapman
> was?
Life isn't always fair, is it Bud?
But the sad fact is, that you cannot justify or support your claim that
Oswald acted alone, with even a single shred of evidence.
So, why are you forever claiming that you can??
>
> > > > The simple truth is, that you have no evidence to support your claim
> > > > that Oswald acted alone.
> >
> > > The person who saw him shooting didn`t say he saw someone with
> > > Oswald.
> >
> > IC, and exactly how many possible locations did he examine?
>
> He wasn`t checking sewers, if thats what you mean.
May I take that to be a concession that once again, you were dead wrong?
>
> > There were more witnesses who saw other people on the sixth floor than
> > who identified Oswald, Bud. Why don't you want to listen to them?
>
> What would I hear that would cast doubt on Oswald`s culpability?
Oswald may very well have been involved in the attack. But that's not
what's really important is it?
Don't you want to know who else was involved??
>
> > > > > > > > Do you believe that Watergate was a conspiracy?
> >
> > > > > > > It has been shown to be one.
> >
> > > > Since you also believe in conspiracies then, why did you dispute my
> > > > claim that CT should not be defined as people who believe in
> > > > conspiracy?
> >
> > > I never defined them that way. I define them as kooks who are
> > > unsatisfied with reality and want to create their own.
> >
> > Yes, and that is exactly what I said the common definition is.
> >
> > Please answer the question.
> >
> > You said, "You're off to a rip-roarin' start, Harris. A CT shouldn't be
> > defined as someone who believes in conspiracy theories???"
>
> No, that wasn`t me. I think it was Steve or Chuck.
Well, you all sound alike.
>
> > Why did you try to ridicule my statement, when you were in complete
> > agreement with it?
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > And I have shown you that Oswald could not have fired all the
> > > > > > shots.
> >
> > > > > You`ve done no such thing. You`ve convinced yourself, is all.
> >
> > > > Then post a rebuttal and show me where I went wrong.
> >
> > > > Please be very specific.
> >
> > > You want to do this again? Ok, the witnesses largely reported
> > > hearing three shots. What z-frame was the first shot they heard? Just
> > > the z-frame, please, not an avalanche of "he-said, she-said".
> >
> > The first noise was heard prior to frame 160. But that has nothing to do
> > with the shot at 285.
> >
> > Is this what you call a rebuttal??
>
> No, it`s an evasion,
WTF are you talking about?? You asked me what frame the witnesses heard
the first shot in and I answered.
> you know it`s an evasion, and then you have the
> guts to call yourself an honest man .Now i have to reword it in such a
> way as you can`t squirm out of answering. How about "When (z-frame)
> did the witnesses hear the first of the three noises they counted as
> shots?"
Bud, I think I already told you - around frame 160, although quite a few
witnesses further west thought the shot at 285 was the first, because
they never heard the one at 160.
I have no clue why you think that is evasive.
What is evasive is that you will not address the issues in my argument
for a shot at 285.
>
> > > > Robert Harris
> >
> > > > > > That proves conspiracy as clearly as anything in the Watergate
> > > > > > scandal.
> >
> > > > > > If you you dispute that I will challenge you for the umpteenth
> > > > > > time, to
> > > > > > refute my arguments.
> >
> > > > > The witnesses do that, Bob. They say the shots all came from one
> > > > > direction. Is that your theory?
> >
> > No, the witnesses said the shots came from two directions, Bud. That's
> > exactly what I have been saying for a long time.
>
> Bullshit. They say no such thing.
>
> > If the shots had indeed, all came from the east, then all or almost all
> > the witnesses would have said so.
>
> If they would have thought the shots came from multiple directions,
A. Billy and Suzy heard jet planes in the sky but it was cloudy and they
couldnt see them.
B. Billy thought the sounds of the planes came from the east.
C. Suzy thought the sounds came from the west.
D. One or more planes came from the east.
Ergo, that is proof that all planes came from the east.
Would that answer get you an A in Logic 101 Bud?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<81db153d-7c85-4a94...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> � Your video (eye/ear-witness testimony, years after the fact) doesn't
> cut it. And you should know that by now!�
> /sandy
LOL!! Sandy, in that posting, you don't even address the issue of
whether Oswald could have fired all the shots. All you did was rant
about me, claiming that I am closed minded or whatever.
In fact, you never mentioned even a single piece of evidence or
testimony.
I think I can show you that it was not possible for Oswald to have fired
all the shots. And I can prove that to you, to your own satisfaction. Do
you have the courage and objectivity to listen and discuss the facts
without all the ad hominem bullshit??
Robert Harris
Bud
Sure you did, Harris.
> Would you mind citing the HSCA's conclusion that Oswald acted alone?
See, you know that conclusion was rendered null and void when the
acoustic evidence was found to be unreliable.
> > > And I realize that you dispute the government's conclusion but that's to
> > > be expected from paranoid CT's like you!!
>
> > Both the WC and HSCA found Oswald responsible for all the wounds
> > inflicted on the occupants of the limo.
>
> Well, that's actually no possible.
It was part of their findings.
> But that's not the issue at hand. The
> issue is that the LN theory is outside the mainstream and is a fringe
> belief.
Well, it never was that, but you can change it to that if you like.
When I was a kid, it was a fringe belief that it was ok to go
swimming right after eating. I`m an atheist, a fringe belief even
among my fellow LNers. If the mainstream is ignorant of something,
than being outside of it is no big deal. And the mainstream is
ignorant of the evidence in this case.
> > > > >And if I did, nothing we accomplished or
> > > > > failed to accomplish, would constitute evidence.
>
> > > > Certainly what you think you see in the z-film.
>
> > > We are talking about your failure to produce evidence to support your
> > > theory.
>
> > > You have ZERO evidence which isolates Oswald as the only shooter.
>
> > Thats goes for just about every shooting, doesn`t it? Can I rule out
> > that there was someone else shooting at Reagan at the same time
> > Hinkley was? Or that someone else was shooting at Lennon when Chapman
> > was?
>
> Life isn't always fair, is it Bud?
It doesn`t have to be stupid, Harris. Using your criteria, a murder
could never be closed.
> But the sad fact is, that you cannot justify or support your claim that
> Oswald acted alone, with even a single shred of evidence.
It is well established that Oswald was a loner. That is support for
him acting alone.
> So, why are you forever claiming that you can??
It has been shown that Oswald was Kennedy`s murderer. It has not
been shown that he plotted with anyone else to commit that murder.
> > > > > The simple truth is, that you have no evidence to support your claim
> > > > > that Oswald acted alone.
>
> > > > The person who saw him shooting didn`t say he saw someone with
> > > > Oswald.
>
> > > IC, and exactly how many possible locations did he examine?
>
> > He wasn`t checking sewers, if thats what you mean.
>
> May I take that to be a concession that once again, you were dead wrong?
There is the possibility that when I am on the highway, every car on
the highway around me has a dead body in the trunk. Just because it is
true that the possibility exists doesn`t mean that it isn`t stupid to
believe that the cars around me on the highway have bodies in their
trunks.
> > > There were more witnesses who saw other people on the sixth floor than
> > > who identified Oswald, Bud. Why don't you want to listen to them?
>
> > What would I hear that would cast doubt on Oswald`s culpability?
>
> Oswald may very well have been involved in the attack. But that's not
> what's really important is it?
<snicker>
> Don't you want to know who else was involved??
The best place to start would be the known shooter. Go from there,
who did he hang around with, what groups, who did he plot with? There
is a huge void between Oswald and anyone else. Lets see you jump it.
> > > > > > > > > Do you believe that Watergate was a conspiracy?
>
> > > > > > > > It has been shown to be one.
>
> > > > > Since you also believe in conspiracies then, why did you dispute my
> > > > > claim that CT should not be defined as people who believe in
> > > > > conspiracy?
>
> > > > I never defined them that way. I define them as kooks who are
> > > > unsatisfied with reality and want to create their own.
>
> > > Yes, and that is exactly what I said the common definition is.
>
> > > Please answer the question.
>
> > > You said, "You're off to a rip-roarin' start, Harris. A CT shouldn't be
> > > defined as someone who believes in conspiracy theories???"
>
> > No, that wasn`t me. I think it was Steve or Chuck.
>
> Well, you all sound alike.
Then perhaps reading the name is in order.
> > > Why did you try to ridicule my statement, when you were in complete
> > > agreement with it?
>
> > > > > > > And I have shown you that Oswald could not have fired all the
> > > > > > > shots.
>
> > > > > > You`ve done no such thing. You`ve convinced yourself, is all.
>
> > > > > Then post a rebuttal and show me where I went wrong.
>
> > > > > Please be very specific.
>
> > > > You want to do this again? Ok, the witnesses largely reported
> > > > hearing three shots. What z-frame was the first shot they heard? Just
> > > > the z-frame, please, not an avalanche of "he-said, she-said".
>
> > > The first noise was heard prior to frame 160. But that has nothing to do
> > > with the shot at 285.
>
> > > Is this what you call a rebuttal??
>
> > No, it`s an evasion,
>
> WTF are you talking about?? You asked me what frame the witnesses heard
> the first shot in and I answered.
No, you changed "shot" to "noise", and then answered.
> > you know it`s an evasion, and then you have the
> > guts to call yourself an honest man .Now i have to reword it in such a
> > way as you can`t squirm out of answering. How about "When (z-frame)
> > did the witnesses hear the first of the three noises they counted as
> > shots?"
>
> Bud, I think I already told you - around frame 160, although quite a few
> witnesses further west thought the shot at 285 was the first, because
> they never heard the one at 160.
But the ones to the east you have counting the one at z-160 should
have heard the later shots, and come up with "four" shots total,
right?
They couldn`t miss those loud sonic booms you have scaring the
occupants of the limo, could they?
And do you have any people who thought z-285 was the first shot
saying they saw Kennedy distressed (noticeably from z-224 onward)
before they heard a shot?
> I have no clue why you think that is evasive.
>
> What is evasive is that you will not address the issues in my argument
> for a shot at 285.
I prefer to pick my shots. If what you propose is true, it should
withstand scrutiny no matter which way I approach it. I select this
way because it is easiest on me, and hardest on you.
BTW, I`d love to see your breakdown of which witnesses counted z-160
as the first shot, and the ones who counted z-285 as the first shot.
> > > > > Robert Harris
>
> > > > > > > That proves conspiracy as clearly as anything in the Watergate
> > > > > > > scandal.
>
> > > > > > > If you you dispute that I will challenge you for the umpteenth
> > > > > > > time, to
> > > > > > > refute my arguments.
>
> > > > > > The witnesses do that, Bob. They say the shots all came from one
> > > > > > direction. Is that your theory?
>
> > > No, the witnesses said the shots came from two directions, Bud. That's
> > > exactly what I have been saying for a long time.
>
> > Bullshit. They say no such thing.
>
> > > If the shots had indeed, all came from the east, then all or almost all
> > > the witnesses would have said so.
>
> > If they would have thought the shots came from multiple directions,
>
> A. Billy and Suzy heard jet planes in the sky but it was cloudy and they
> couldnt see them.
> B. Billy thought the sounds of the planes came from the east.
>
> C. Suzy thought the sounds came from the west.
>
> D. One or more planes came from the east.
>
> Ergo, that is proof that all planes came from the east.
>
> Would that answer get you an A in Logic 101 Bud?
It isn`t logic, it`s physics. If you have people lining a street,
and shots come from their left and come from their right, they won`t
consistantly indicate that the shots all came from a single direction/
location.
Robert Harris
<c3aacd7e-4098-4408...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> ? BTW, would you like to see very clear proof that Oswald could not
> have been responsible for all the shots that were fired that day??
>
> ? I knew you would! Check this out, if you have the courage:-)
>
> ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s ?
>
> Yes, the URL is different, but it's the same video.
> "JFK Assassination - the shot at frame 285."
> Sorry, it's *still* worth diddly-squat as "evidence."
> /sandy
Yes, the URL is the same but you haven't watched the video. If you had,
you wouldn't have claimed that it was about "one person's" testimony.
It is about the analysis of Dr. Luis Alvarez, the simultaneous reactions
of five different people, all within the same 1/6th of a second. It's not
just about Nellie's testimony Sandy. It is about the fact that we can see
both her reaction and Mrs. Kennedy's, in perfect unison with each other
and the others, at exactly the same point in time in which they both
thought their respective husband's were hit.
And we can determine that point in time because they each described a
sequence of events prior to that shot, which we can also corroborate in
the film.
Sandy, if a witness said he stood up and scratched his head, you might
doubt him. But if you also have a movie of him standing up and scratching
his head, then wouldn't you be a bit more likely to believe him?
Go to John Mcadams website, Sandy. He has a rebuttal there to just about
every JFK conspiracy theory on the planet.
Except one.
Robert Harris
Walt
> > 0cb4ff457e76/021d452bef76749d
> > « Your video (eye/ear-witness testimony, years after the fact) doesn't
> > cut it. And you should know that by now!»
> > /sandy
>
> LOL!! Sandy, in that posting, you don't even address the issue of
> whether Oswald could have fired all the shots. All you did was rant
> about me, claiming that I am closed minded or whatever.
>
> In fact, you never mentioned even a single piece of evidence or
> testimony.
>
> I think I can show you that it was not possible for Oswald to have fired
> all the shots.
Oswald could NOT have fired the Mannlicher Carcano three times in 5.6
seconds......and hit a eight inch tatget. NOBODY can ACCURATELY fire a
Mannlicher Carcano at a moving target in 5.6 seconds. This is true
because the rifle cocks on the upstroke of the bolt......and this unusal
cocking action pulls the muzzle off target each time the bolt is opened to
eject the spent shell. This action requires the shooter to realign the
sights with the target and makes it impossible to fire the rifle
accurately at a moving target three times in 5.6 seconds.
The Mannlicher Carcano with a serial number that was tracable to Oswald
was hidden beneath a pile of heavy boxes of books BEFORE the
assassination. It was never fired that day!!
And I can prove that to you, to your own satisfaction. Do
> you have the courage and objectivity to listen and discuss the facts
> without all the ad hominem bullshit??
>
Sandy McCroskey
> > 0cb4ff457e76/021d452bef76749d
> > « Your video (eye/ear-witness testimony, years after the fact) doesn't
> > cut it. And you should know that by now!»
> > /sandy
>
> LOL!! Sandy, in that posting, you don't even address the issue of
> whether Oswald could have fired all the shots. All you did was rant
> about me, claiming that I am closed minded or whatever.
>
> In fact, you never mentioned even a single piece of evidence or
> testimony.
>
> I think I can show you that it was not possible for Oswald to have fired
> all the shots. And I can prove that to you, to your own satisfaction. Do
> you have the courage and objectivity to listen and discuss the facts
> without all the ad hominem bullshit??
>
> Robert Harris
You know, when you point your finger at me for "ad hominem" bullshit, your
other fingers are pointing back at you. I'm not refusing to look at
anything. It's just old hat, Harris. Seen it all before. How many times do
I need to see it?
Sandy
Robert Harris
<11bec28d-98da-43c4...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > ? Your video (eye/ear-witness testimony, years after the fact) doesn't
> > > cut it. And you should know that by now!?
> > > /sandy
> >
> > LOL!! Sandy, in that posting, you don't even address the issue of
> > whether Oswald could have fired all the shots. All you did was rant
> > about me, claiming that I am closed minded or whatever.
> >
> > In fact, you never mentioned even a single piece of evidence or
> > testimony.
> >
> > I think I can show you that it was not possible for Oswald to have fired
> > all the shots. And I can prove that to you, to your own satisfaction. Do
> > you have the courage and objectivity to listen and discuss the facts
> > without all the ad hominem bullshit??
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> You know, when you point your finger at me for "ad hominem" bullshit, your
> other fingers are pointing back at you. I'm not refusing to look at
> anything. It's just old hat, Harris. Seen it all before. How many times do
> I need to see it?
You couldn't have seen it or you wouldn't have claimed it was about one
witness's statements. And you would be prepared to tell us specifically,
why you rejected it.
But to do that, you would need to explain why five people all reacted
within the same 1/6th of a second.
You also wouldn't have claimed I was relying on testimony that was "years
after the fact". Every significant citation in the article (except
Alvarez's) was from the day of the assassination or during the WC
investigation.
I'm sure you are an honest fellow, so I have to assume that you were
thinking of someone else's video.
Why else would you say things like that?
Robert Harris
Sandy McCroskey
I was merely referring to Connally's witness testimony as an example of
the type of "evidence" the video presents. I gave the whole thing a
cursory look and realized that I'd heard all these fallacious arguments
before. Yes, it is indeed nothing new, just as you say.
/sandy
Sandy McCroskey
If you have proof that Oswald wasn't the only shooter in your little
video, Harris, why do you care what I think?
You're the man who's cracked the case, after so many years! All anybody
has to do is watch your video (which, clearly, I must not have done) and
they will be convinced. Therefore, your name will very soon be a household
word, and what a fool you will have made of me.
Ha ha.
Sandy
Robert Harris
<51d40865-d623-49de...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
What's the difference Bud? Most people agree that the WC is null and
void too. You want to have it both ways and you can't.
The simple fact is, that far more people believe this was a conspiracy
than believe what you do. Ergo, you are the minority and you are pushing
the fringe theory.
>
> > > > And I realize that you dispute the government's conclusion but that's
> > > > to
> > > > be expected from paranoid CT's like you!!
> >
> > > Both the WC and HSCA found Oswald responsible for all the wounds
> > > inflicted on the occupants of the limo.
> >
> > Well, that's actually no possible.
>
> It was part of their findings.
Bud, you treat this exactly as you do the witnesses. You cherry pick the
part of their findings that you like and reject the part you don't.
But the issue here is conspiracy. And the last govt sponsored, official
conclusion is that it was.
>
> > But that's not the issue at hand. The
> > issue is that the LN theory is outside the mainstream and is a fringe
> > belief.
>
> Well, it never was that, but you can change it to that if you like.
Look at the polls my friend. After you remove the undecideds, you
usually wind up with a single digit percentage.
That's fringe, by any reasonable definition.
>
> When I was a kid, it was a fringe belief that it was ok to go
> swimming right after eating. I`m an atheist, a fringe belief even
> among my fellow LNers. If the mainstream is ignorant of something,
> than being outside of it is no big deal. And the mainstream is
> ignorant of the evidence in this case.
Well, it's true that much of the reason why most people believe this was
a conspiracy, is wrong, but the same can be said about your position.
I'll bet those DC documentaries claiming that since the SBT was true,
Oswald must have acted alone, converted quite a few people - don't you
think?
And how about that brilliant documentary which proved that the fatal
headshot must have came from the rear? That certainly proved Oswald
acted alone, didn't it?
There is something about this case Bud, that causes brain activity in
just about everyone who studies it, (except me of course) to cease.
As a result, we have two sides, each presenting arguments that are
frequently illogical and ridiculously easy to refute. Perhaps, that is
why there is so much animosity between them.
Isn't it amazing how ridiculously simple it is, to bypass all this
bullshit and simply address the question of whether Oswald could have
fired all the shots?
Perhaps, it shouldn't be that easy, or that unexciting. Hell, the shot
didn't even hit anybody. But the shot at 285 puts the conspiracy
question to bed.
That is, why you refuse to talk about it, isn't it Bud?
Robert Harris
Bud
The difference between being honest and dishonest, Harris. If you
are unable to assess things honestly, why would anyone listen to you.
You know the facts about the HSCA findings, how they based their
conclusions on the faulty science telling them there were other shots
being fired. Why pretend otherwise?
>Most people agree that the WC is null and
> void too. You want to have it both ways and you can't.
You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some conclusions
were rendered null and void when the science leading to those
conclusions was refuted. But the conclusions not based on the faulty
science are not effected because they were not based on the faulty
information. You can have it both ways, as long as you aren`t stupid
about what you accept and what you disregard. CTers always pretend all
things are equal when they are not.
> The simple fact is, that far more people believe this was a conspiracy
> than believe what you do. Ergo, you are the minority and you are pushing
> the fringe theory.
What are the opinions of ignorant people worth?
> > > > > And I realize that you dispute the government's conclusion but that's
> > > > > to
> > > > > be expected from paranoid CT's like you!!
>
> > > > Both the WC and HSCA found Oswald responsible for all the wounds
> > > > inflicted on the occupants of the limo.
>
> > > Well, that's actually no possible.
>
> > It was part of their findings.
>
> Bud, you treat this exactly as you do the witnesses.
Exactly right, it is the proper way to access information. It is
never an "all or nothing" affair. I wouldn`t disregard a witness who
said they saw Oswald at the Tippit murder scene because they described
him wearing a different color jacket than he was. I wouldn`t disregard
the conclusion the HSCA made about who shot the bullets that hit
Kenndy because they concluded there was another bullet fired from
elsewhere based on information later shown to be faulty. That this
approach baffles CTers shows why they really are not qualified to be
doing any investigating at all.
> You cherry pick the
> part of their findings that you like and reject the part you don't.
I disregard the portion that was successfully refuted. I don`t
disregard the portion that hasn`t been sucessfully refuted.
> But the issue here is conspiracy. And the last govt sponsored, official
> conclusion is that it was.
Claim victory and go away then. An erroneous finding based on
faulty information is the best you can hope for.
> > > But that's not the issue at hand. The
> > > issue is that the LN theory is outside the mainstream and is a fringe
> > > belief.
>
> > Well, it never was that, but you can change it to that if you like.
>
> Look at the polls my friend. After you remove the undecideds, you
> usually wind up with a single digit percentage.
Probably about the same percentage of people who knows who JD Tippit
was.
And I`ve seen varying percentages. Depends on what is asked.
> That's fringe, by any reasonable definition.
The largely uniformed masses think something fishy went on. Is this
meaningful?
> > When I was a kid, it was a fringe belief that it was ok to go
> > swimming right after eating. I`m an atheist, a fringe belief even
> > among my fellow LNers. If the mainstream is ignorant of something,
> > than being outside of it is no big deal. And the mainstream is
> > ignorant of the evidence in this case.
>
> Well, it's true that much of the reason why most people believe this was
> a conspiracy, is wrong, but the same can be said about your position.
So it would pretty stupid for someone to portray the polls as
meaningful. Which is why it is commonly done by CTers, they are a
pretty stupid bunch.
> I'll bet those DC documentaries claiming that since the SBT was true,
> Oswald must have acted alone, converted quite a few people - don't you
> think?
It was only a matter on correcting the conspiracy kook myth that it
was impossible. Once the people were shown is wasn`t impossible, I
would hope removing the obstacle of claimed impossibility would lead
to a revision of thought.
> And how about that brilliant documentary which proved that the fatal
> headshot must have came from the rear? That certainly proved Oswald
> acted alone, didn't it?
How many people watched it?
And you don`t understand the nature of belief. Studies have been
done showing that there is no correlation between prayer and outcome.
Sick people who are not prayed for heal at the same rate as those who
aren`t prayed for. Has this information stopped people from praying
for results? Predisposed ideas are largely immune to enlightenment.
> There is something about this case Bud, that causes brain activity in
> just about everyone who studies it, (except me of course) to cease.
I`s say it caused kook imagination to run wild. Yours too, of
course.
> As a result, we have two sides, each presenting arguments that are
> frequently illogical and ridiculously easy to refute. Perhaps, that is
> why there is so much animosity between them.
The worst idea I`ve seen presented is that this is just two sides of
the same coin. It is not by a longshot. There is a rational side, and
an irrational side, as what is in evidence is only possible to be in
evidence if Oswald shot Kennedy. Anything else you want to believe is
fine by me, but if you can`t come to this simple, obvious conclusion,
the only reason can be that you are retarded.
> Isn't it amazing how ridiculously simple it is, to bypass all this
> bullshit and simply address the question of whether Oswald could have
> fired all the shots?
The bullets move much too fast to be caught on film.
> Perhaps, it shouldn't be that easy, or that unexciting. Hell, the shot
> didn't even hit anybody. But the shot at 285 puts the conspiracy
> question to bed.
>
> That is, why you refuse to talk about it, isn't it Bud?
Why are you ducking the issues about your theory I raised? I think
they show you to be full of shit as well as any other.
This had me thinking, what do you expect to surface that would get
your ideas legitimate enough to interest a prosecutor? I mean, what
you have is way too sketchy and incomplete to ever see the light of
day in court, and with most of the people involved dead, how do you
think enough information could be generated to rise to a level that it
could survive a legal test?
Robert Harris
<b0bafaf9-c3c8-405f...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
Migod, you are thick!!
We aren't talking about who is right. BOTH of them are full of shit.
We are talking about which side represents the mainline opinion in this
country, based on the government's and the people's opinion.
And conspiracy is the mainline, and status quo. The LN theory is the
minority, fringe opinion.
Live with it.
>
> >Most people agree that the WC is null and
> > void too. You want to have it both ways and you can't.
>
> You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I would, but how could I have talked to your mother 87 years ago?
> Some conclusions
> were rendered null and void when the science leading to those
> conclusions was refuted. But the conclusions not based on the faulty
> science are not effected because they were not based on the faulty
> information. You can have it both ways, as long as you aren`t stupid
> about what you accept and what you disregard. CTers always pretend all
> things are equal when they are not.
The acoustics evidence is still in dispute. And it doesn't matter what I
think because I am not an expert in that area. But you seem to think
there has been some kind of decree issued, declaring that the HSCA's
opinion was reversed. If you really believe that, then document it.
And furthermore, the evidence pointing to organized crime is and was
huge. The HSCA supoened Marcello and Blakey wrote a book stating that
they were behind the attack.
>
> > The simple fact is, that far more people believe this was a conspiracy
> > than believe what you do. Ergo, you are the minority and you are pushing
> > the fringe theory.
>
> What are the opinions of ignorant people worth?
The fact that you represent the minority, fringe opinion does not, by
itself, prove you are wrong. But that is not what the issue is here.
>
> > > > > > And I realize that you dispute the government's conclusion but
> > > > > > that's
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > be expected from paranoid CT's like you!!
> >
> > > > > Both the WC and HSCA found Oswald responsible for all the wounds
> > > > > inflicted on the occupants of the limo.
> >
> > > > Well, that's actually no possible.
> >
> > > It was part of their findings.
> >
> > Bud, you treat this exactly as you do the witnesses.
>
> Exactly right, it is the proper way to access information. It is
> never an "all or nothing" affair. I wouldn`t disregard a witness who
> said they saw Oswald at the Tippit murder scene because they described
> him wearing a different color jacket than he was. I wouldn`t disregard
> the conclusion the HSCA made about who shot the bullets that hit
> Kenndy because they concluded there was another bullet fired from
> elsewhere based on information later shown to be faulty. That this
> approach baffles CTers shows why they really are not qualified to be
> doing any investigating at all.
Ok, Charles Brehm said he heard three shots, beginning as the limo
passed before him.
Do you accept his statement or deny it?
Robert Harris
Bud
Then your work is done. Why are you still seeking an audience?
> > >Most people agree that the WC is null and
> > > void too. You want to have it both ways and you can't.
>
> > You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
>
> I would, but how could I have talked to your mother 87 years ago?
You couldn`t talk when you were nine?
> > Some conclusions
> > were rendered null and void when the science leading to those
> > conclusions was refuted. But the conclusions not based on the faulty
> > science are not effected because they were not based on the faulty
> > information. You can have it both ways, as long as you aren`t stupid
> > about what you accept and what you disregard. CTers always pretend all
> > things are equal when they are not.
>
> The acoustics evidence is still in dispute.
In which case it can`t support the conclusion that there was another
shot. And it was stupid to think in the first place, how could there
be a fourth shot that so many people missed yet was loud enough to be
captured on tape?
> And it doesn't matter what I
> think because I am not an expert in that area. But you seem to think
> there has been some kind of decree issued, declaring that the HSCA's
> opinion was reversed. If you really believe that, then document it.
You mean have another costly hearing to correct the previous costly
hearing? For what purpose?
> And furthermore, the evidence pointing to organized crime is and was
> huge. The HSCA supoened Marcello and Blakey wrote a book stating that
> they were behind the attack.
This is huge to you? What you can present couldn`t get past a
hearing.
> > > The simple fact is, that far more people believe this was a conspiracy
> > > than believe what you do. Ergo, you are the minority and you are pushing
> > > the fringe theory.
>
> > What are the opinions of ignorant people worth?
>
> The fact that you represent the minority, fringe opinion does not, by
> itself, prove you are wrong.
You figured that out, have you?
>But that is not what the issue is here.
What are you changing it to now?
> > > > > > > And I realize that you dispute the government's conclusion but
> > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > be expected from paranoid CT's like you!!
>
> > > > > > Both the WC and HSCA found Oswald responsible for all the wounds
> > > > > > inflicted on the occupants of the limo.
>
> > > > > Well, that's actually no possible.
>
> > > > It was part of their findings.
>
> > > Bud, you treat this exactly as you do the witnesses.
>
> > Exactly right, it is the proper way to access information. It is
> > never an "all or nothing" affair. I wouldn`t disregard a witness who
> > said they saw Oswald at the Tippit murder scene because they described
> > him wearing a different color jacket than he was. I wouldn`t disregard
> > the conclusion the HSCA made about who shot the bullets that hit
> > Kenndy because they concluded there was another bullet fired from
> > elsewhere based on information later shown to be faulty. That this
> > approach baffles CTers shows why they really are not qualified to be
> > doing any investigating at all.
>
> Ok, Charles Brehm said he heard three shots, beginning as the limo
> passed before him.
He said that when he heard the first shot, at the same time the
President "stiffened perceptibly". When does Kennedy first look
distressed?
> Do you accept his statement or deny it?
I don`t deny that is what he told the FBI.
Corrected "are not" to "are" here.
>.> prayed for heal at the same rate as those who
Robert Harris
<20211190-9561-4df6...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 4:07 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <b0bafaf9-c3c8-405f-9f05-aa266419c...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 23, 12:19 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <51d40865-d623-49de-902a-cecfb29a5...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 22, 2:13 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <b24c76ec-dfcb-4bd1-a6b3-268e7d53a...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > > > Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 19, 11:27 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <b7d72eaf-42e5-4c04-812c-592673df7...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.co
Because most of them believe for the wrong reasons and because there are
still too many people who don't realize that this was a conspiracy.
>
> > > >Most people agree that the WC is null and
> > > > void too. You want to have it both ways and you can't.
> >
> > > You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
> >
> > I would, but how could I have talked to your mother 87 years ago?
>
> You couldn`t talk when you were nine?
Yeah, but I wasn't allowed in brothels back then.
>
> > > Some conclusions
> > > were rendered null and void when the science leading to those
> > > conclusions was refuted. But the conclusions not based on the faulty
> > > science are not effected because they were not based on the faulty
> > > information. You can have it both ways, as long as you aren`t stupid
> > > about what you accept and what you disregard. CTers always pretend all
> > > things are equal when they are not.
> >
> > The acoustics evidence is still in dispute.
>
> In which case it can`t support the conclusion that there was another
> shot. And it was stupid to think in the first place, how could there
> be a fourth shot that so many people missed yet was loud enough to be
> captured on tape?
Damned if I know. Maybe you can get some of your tax money back.
>
> > And it doesn't matter what I
> > think because I am not an expert in that area. But you seem to think
> > there has been some kind of decree issued, declaring that the HSCA's
> > opinion was reversed. If you really believe that, then document it.
>
> You mean have another costly hearing to correct the previous costly
> hearing? For what purpose?
No, I mean post the documentation that convinced you that your opinion
is mainstream.
Or, you could try something new and admit that you were wrong and admit
that your theory is the minority, fringe opinion.
>
> > And furthermore, the evidence pointing to organized crime is and was
> > huge. The HSCA supoened Marcello and Blakey wrote a book stating that
> > they were behind the attack.
>
> This is huge to you? What you can present couldn`t get past a
> hearing.
OIC, you are now pretending that I said those two points were the only
evidence in the universe proving that the mob killed Kennedy.
Would you like me to suggest a few book you can read, to see another
hundred pieces of data?
>
> > > > The simple fact is, that far more people believe this was a conspiracy
> > > > than believe what you do. Ergo, you are the minority and you are
> > > > pushing
> > > > the fringe theory.
> >
> > > What are the opinions of ignorant people worth?
> >
> > The fact that you represent the minority, fringe opinion does not, by
> > itself, prove you are wrong.
>
> You figured that out, have you?
Bud, I just don't want you to feel any worse than you already do.
>
> >But that is not what the issue is here.
>
> What are you changing it to now?
Read the top of the thread Bud. I really don't feel up to cutting and
pasting it all over again for you.
>
> > > > > > > > And I realize that you dispute the government's conclusion but
> > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > be expected from paranoid CT's like you!!
> >
> > > > > > > Both the WC and HSCA found Oswald responsible for all the
> > > > > > > wounds
> > > > > > > inflicted on the occupants of the limo.
> >
> > > > > > Well, that's actually no possible.
> >
> > > > > It was part of their findings.
> >
> > > > Bud, you treat this exactly as you do the witnesses.
> >
> > > Exactly right, it is the proper way to access information. It is
> > > never an "all or nothing" affair. I wouldn`t disregard a witness who
> > > said they saw Oswald at the Tippit murder scene because they described
> > > him wearing a different color jacket than he was. I wouldn`t disregard
> > > the conclusion the HSCA made about who shot the bullets that hit
> > > Kenndy because they concluded there was another bullet fired from
> > > elsewhere based on information later shown to be faulty. That this
> > > approach baffles CTers shows why they really are not qualified to be
> > > doing any investigating at all.
> >
> > Ok, Charles Brehm said he heard three shots, beginning as the limo
> > passed before him.
>
> He said that when he heard the first shot, at the same time the
> President "stiffened perceptibly". When does Kennedy first look
> distressed?
It doesn't matter when he first looked distressed. What matters is when
Brehm first realized his distress.
He said the limo only travelled about 12 feet as those three shots were
fired. Does that give you a clue. Or does the fact that J Hill and
Moorman said essentially, the same thing?
Or Kellerman's "flurry of shells", or Greer's recollection that the
final shots were almost simultaneous?
Or would you like the talk about Jackie and Nellie, who both thought the
shot at 285 struck their respective husbands?
Robert Harris
Bud
Not because you crave an audience? You seemed impressed with
yourself when your utube video got a million plays.
> > > > >Most people agree that the WC is null and
> > > > > void too. You want to have it both ways and you can't.
>
> > > > You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
>
> > > I would, but how could I have talked to your mother 87 years ago?
>
> > You couldn`t talk when you were nine?
>
> Yeah, but I wasn't allowed in brothels back then.
Then you couldn`t talk to your mother or mine. And being so young,
you probably couldn`t even visit your father in prison.
> > > > Some conclusions
> > > > were rendered null and void when the science leading to those
> > > > conclusions was refuted. But the conclusions not based on the faulty
> > > > science are not effected because they were not based on the faulty
> > > > information. You can have it both ways, as long as you aren`t stupid
> > > > about what you accept and what you disregard. CTers always pretend all
> > > > things are equal when they are not.
>
> > > The acoustics evidence is still in dispute.
>
> > In which case it can`t support the conclusion that there was another
> > shot. And it was stupid to think in the first place, how could there
> > be a fourth shot that so many people missed yet was loud enough to be
> > captured on tape?
>
> Damned if I know.
Good answer.
>Maybe you can get some of your tax money back.
>
>
>
> > > And it doesn't matter what I
> > > think because I am not an expert in that area. But you seem to think
> > > there has been some kind of decree issued, declaring that the HSCA's
> > > opinion was reversed. If you really believe that, then document it.
>
> > You mean have another costly hearing to correct the previous costly
> > hearing? For what purpose?
>
> No, I mean post the documentation that convinced you that your opinion
> is mainstream.
Quote me saying my opinion on this matter is mainstream. Check the
header for the name before you do.
> Or, you could try something new and admit that you were wrong and admit
> that your theory is the minority, fringe opinion.
Have you been into Healy`s drugs? When did I say that my opinion was
in the majority?
> > > And furthermore, the evidence pointing to organized crime is and was
> > > huge. The HSCA supoened Marcello and Blakey wrote a book stating that
> > > they were behind the attack.
>
> > This is huge to you? What you can present couldn`t get past a
> > hearing.
>
> OIC, you are now pretending that I said those two points were the only
> evidence in the universe proving that the mob killed Kennedy.
Trouble reading Harris? You said "the evidence pointing to
organized crime". I took that to mean the evidence in total, not just
your two examples. I was referring to the evidence in total when I
said "what you can present couldn`t get past a hearing". A hearing is
a legal proceeding held to see whether what the prosecution can
present is enough to warrant going to court with (among other things).
What you have (in total, not just the two things you presented) would
not be enough to start legal proceedings against anyone (even if
Marcello was alive you couldn`t). Whereas with Oswald, there is
probably two or three times more than would be needed to convict him.
> Would you like me to suggest a few book you can read, to see another
> hundred pieces of data?
A hundred zeros still add up to zero, Harris. You have enough to
convince people like yourself, is all.
> > > > > The simple fact is, that far more people believe this was a conspiracy
> > > > > than believe what you do. Ergo, you are the minority and you are
> > > > > pushing
> > > > > the fringe theory.
>
> > > > What are the opinions of ignorant people worth?
>
> > > The fact that you represent the minority, fringe opinion does not, by
> > > itself, prove you are wrong.
>
> > You figured that out, have you?
>
> Bud, I just don't want you to feel any worse than you already do.
Perhaps I should delude myself into thinking that I am some sort of
crusader for truth. That seems to work for you.
> > >But that is not what the issue is here.
>
> > What are you changing it to now?
>
> Read the top of the thread Bud. I really don't feel up to cutting and
> pasting it all over again for you.
The topic is "What is a CT?". You changed that into something to do
with opinion polls. You think these two things are the same?
What matters is when Kennedy first showed signs of being shot. That
was at z-224, not z-285.
> He said the limo only travelled about 12 feet as those three shots were
> fired. Does that give you a clue. Or does the fact that J Hill and
> Moorman said essentially, the same thing?
>
> Or Kellerman's "flurry of shells", or Greer's recollection that the
> final shots were almost simultaneous?
>
> Or would you like the talk about Jackie and Nellie, who both thought the
> shot at 285 struck their respective husbands?
Why don`t we talk about the issues I brought up that you ducked?
Robert Harris
<8d14e6e4-c857-435e...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 7:58 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <20211190-9561-4df6-adf4-f43a687c3...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 23, 4:07 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <b0bafaf9-c3c8-405f-9f05-aa266419c...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 23, 12:19 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <51d40865-d623-49de-902a-cecfb29a5...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > > > Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 22, 2:13 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <b24c76ec-dfcb-4bd1-a6b3-268e7d53a...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.c
> > > > > > > > om>,
> >
> > > > > > > > Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 19, 11:27 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > <b7d72eaf-42e5-4c04-812c-592673df7...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroup
> > > > > > > > > > s.co
> > > > > > > > > > m>,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 19, 10:02 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > > <a8f35f5d-288a-4823-97c9-74032f603...@31g2000vbf.googleg
> > > > > > > > > > > > roup
> > > > > > > > > > > > s.co
> > > > > > > > > > > > m>,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 18, 8:38 pm, Robert Harris
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <reharr...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <d2d01fd3-b939-45c1-89eb-f6abf04f9...@h10g2000vbm.go
Naa, I just knew how much you guys would love to hear about it. And
there's nothing that warms my heart more than nutter tears.
>
> > > > > >Most people agree that the WC is null and
> > > > > > void too. You want to have it both ways and you can't.
> >
> > > > > You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
> >
> > > > I would, but how could I have talked to your mother 87 years ago?
> >
> > > You couldn`t talk when you were nine?
> >
> > Yeah, but I wasn't allowed in brothels back then.
>
> Then you couldn`t talk to your mother or mine. And being so young,
> you probably couldn`t even visit your father in prison.
Bud, you're gonna have to do better than this, or people will only be
tuning in when it's my turn.
Take another shot, and this time, try for less words and way more impact.
Robert Harris
Bud
What do I care, you didn`t waste my time, I wasn`t one of the
million.
> > > > > > >Most people agree that the WC is null and
> > > > > > > void too. You want to have it both ways and you can't.
>
> > > > > > You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
>
> > > > > I would, but how could I have talked to your mother 87 years ago?
>
> > > > You couldn`t talk when you were nine?
>
> > > Yeah, but I wasn't allowed in brothels back then.
>
> > Then you couldn`t talk to your mother or mine. And being so young,
> > you probably couldn`t even visit your father in prison.
>
> Bud, you're gonna have to do better than this, or people will only be
> tuning in when it's my turn.
>
> Take another shot, and this time, try for less words and way more impact.
Actually, I did edit it down. I originally had "With your childhood,
its a wonder you haven`t shot a President".
And maybe since you decided to duck the issues I raised about your
ideas, perhaps you will drop the usual "Why don`t you address my
theory" refrain you use every time I respond to something you write.
Robert Harris
<d653750a-4db4-42c0...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Sandy, you really don't need me for that, do you:-)
Robert Harris
Sandy McCroskey
Seriously, you sound like a man who is trying to convince himself more
than anybody else.
Robert Harris
<e74a5f05-0bc2-42f9...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 6:21?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <d653750a-4db4-42c0-8b48-3f7cbf24b...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> > ?Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 22, 7:08 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <11bec28d-98da-43c4-b940-09be37d3e...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > ?Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Nov 22, 9:31 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <81db153d-7c85-4a94-a164-402c0d279...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > ?Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Nov 20, 11:42 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <aa5310ab-bea4-44cf-8064-890416418...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.c
There is not even the tiniest shred of doubt in my mind that this crime
was a conspiracy. Oswald may have been involved but he could not have
acted alone.
And the ONLY way you can believe otherwise is to make a conscious effort
to evade the facts and evidence related to the gunshots.
Isn't that why you prefer to talk about me?
Robert Harris
Sandy McCroskey
I don't know you, so I can't talk about you, per se, I can only respond to
what you present here.
You very stridently insist that this video proves your point, and anybody
who can't see that must be hiding from the truth. Yet I just don't see,
sorry, how anybody can be so sure of anything as you claim to be, based on
the quality of the "evidence" you offer in that video. Which I *have*
looked at, believe it or not.
Witness accounts (e.g., "a flurry of shells") and yours and/or Alvarez's
subjective interpretations of what can be seen on the Z film do not amount
to "proof." You yourself, on the video, admit to speculating "what might
have happened."
So it seems to me that the most you can claim is that these are the
grounds on which you question the evidence that says Oswald did it alone,
which (the physical evidence) still seems to me much more solid. It is, at
any rate, simply wrong to say that anyone intellectually honest would be
compelled to believe your theory on such grounds.
Sandy
ShutterBun
about convincing OTHERS that they have NO DOUBT than they are about
prodiding justification for such doubt. Why? Because reasons for doubt
are so darn subjective, and they know it. Even the most die- hard CT'er
will not proclaim he has acual EVIDENCE of a conspiracy. It's all about
statements like "come on, it's obvious!" or "of course, how gullible are
you?"
When dealing with a CT'er, notice how reticent they are to any sort of
"definition of terms" or even "points we can agree on." (which, to me,
are cornerstones of ANY kind of scientific investigation.)
Before you even attempt to address a CTer, define your terms. He must
certainly fall into one of the three categories:
1. Oswald is 100% innocent of any wrongdoing related to the
assassination
2. Oswald was invovled, but did not shoot
2b. Oswald was the only shooter, but he had backers
3. Oswald was a shooter, but not the only one.
I have yet to hear a competent defense of ANY of these scenarios. Granted,
scenario 3 has gotten the most press, but can anyone convince me, or even
the average juror that this was the case?
Hate to bring up a sore subject, but the Warren Commission (who never
concluded there wasn't a conspiracy, by the way) was correct when they
said that they found "no evidence" of a conspiracy. Note to CT'ers: if
you think you have actual "evidence" of a conspiracy, I humbly submit that
you are mistaken.
Ben Holmes
ShutterBun says...
>
>Seems to me that conspiracy theorists (hereafter "CT's") are much more
>about convincing OTHERS that they have NO DOUBT than they are about
>prodiding justification for such doubt. Why? Because reasons for doubt
>are so darn subjective, and they know it. Even the most die- hard CT'er
>will not proclaim he has acual EVIDENCE of a conspiracy.
Untrue. There *IS* evidence for conspiracy. The bullet found in the grass in
DP for example... photo published. Bullet disappeared, no investigation.
The Harper fragment is another excellent proof of conspiracy, albeit secondary.
Most of the evidence is evidence of lies and coverup... but few LNT'ers are
willing to explain such.
>It's all about
>statements like "come on, it's obvious!" or "of course, how gullible are
>you?"
>
>When dealing with a CT'er, notice how reticent they are to any sort of
>"definition of terms" or even "points we can agree on." (which, to me,
>are cornerstones of ANY kind of scientific investigation.)
>
>Before you even attempt to address a CTer, define your terms. He must
>certainly fall into one of the three categories:
>
>1. Oswald is 100% innocent of any wrongdoing related to the
>assassination
>2. Oswald was invovled, but did not shoot
> 2b. Oswald was the only shooter, but he had backers
>3. Oswald was a shooter, but not the only one.
>
>I have yet to hear a competent defense of ANY of these scenarios.
I've yet to hear a competent defense of the EVIDENCE in this case as it
"supports" the WCR. Indeed, LNT'ers run from this.
>Granted,
>scenario 3 has gotten the most press, but can anyone convince me, or even
>the average juror that this was the case?
Faith cannot be changed by facts.
>Hate to bring up a sore subject, but the Warren Commission (who never
>concluded there wasn't a conspiracy, by the way) was correct when they
>said that they found "no evidence" of a conspiracy.
No, they lied. The evidence demonstrating this is their suppression of evidence
such as the NAA results of Oswald's cheek caste - ALONG WITH THE COMPARISON
TESTS THAT WERE MADE.
But such evidence couldn't be explained in terms of the theory they were
developing, so it disappeared...
>Note to CT'ers: if
>you think you have actual "evidence" of a conspiracy, I humbly submit that
>you are mistaken.
And I 'humbly' assert that you're a liar. If you really *did* want to deal with
the facts, then the 45 Questions await... or the "Provable Lies of the Warren
Commission".
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Bud
> In article <a39d76f5-29cd-48c8-8912-e438f499a...@g10g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> ShutterBun says...
>
>
>
> >Seems to me that conspiracy theorists (hereafter "CT's") are much more
> >about convincing OTHERS that they have NO DOUBT than they are about
> >prodiding justification for such doubt. Why? Because reasons for doubt
> >are so darn subjective, and they know it. Even the most die- hard CT'er
> >will not proclaim he has acual EVIDENCE of a conspiracy.
>
> Untrue. There *IS* evidence for conspiracy. The bullet found in the grass in
> DP for example... photo published.
A photo that doesn`t show a bullet.
>Bullet disappeared, no investigation.
As if they should investigate every piece of misinformation that
appeared in a newspaper.
> The Harper fragment is another excellent proof of conspiracy, albeit secondary.
>
> Most of the evidence is evidence of lies and coverup... but few LNT'ers are
> willing to explain such.
I`ll explain it. You are retarded. When you need this massive (and
impossible) effort for you ideas to be viable, the obvious answer is
that your ideas are not viable.
> >It's all about
> >statements like "come on, it's obvious!" or "of course, how gullible are
> >you?"
>
> >When dealing with a CT'er, notice how reticent they are to any sort of
> >"definition of terms" or even "points we can agree on." (which, to me,
> >are cornerstones of ANY kind of scientific investigation.)
>
> >Before you even attempt to address a CTer, define your terms. He must
> >certainly fall into one of the three categories:
>
> >1. Oswald is 100% innocent of any wrongdoing related to the
> >assassination
> >2. Oswald was invovled, but did not shoot
> > 2b. Oswald was the only shooter, but he had backers
> >3. Oswald was a shooter, but not the only one.
>
> >I have yet to hear a competent defense of ANY of these scenarios.
>
> I've yet to hear a competent defense of the EVIDENCE in this case as it
> "supports" the WCR. Indeed, LNT'ers run from this.
Retards think they need only imply a piece of evidence is
questionable for it to be render null and void. They also think
evidence they imagine exists (like the bullet Ben mentions) is more
real than the evidence in evidence.
> >Granted,
> >scenario 3 has gotten the most press, but can anyone convince me, or even
> >the average juror that this was the case?
>
> Faith cannot be changed by facts.
It`s only matter of faith that the government could do the things
required for there to be a conspiracy in this case.
> >Hate to bring up a sore subject, but the Warren Commission (who never
> >concluded there wasn't a conspiracy, by the way) was correct when they
> >said that they found "no evidence" of a conspiracy.
>
> No, they lied. The evidence demonstrating this is their suppression of evidence
> such as the NAA results of Oswald's cheek caste - ALONG WITH THE COMPARISON
> TESTS THAT WERE MADE.
<snicker> Ms Burb, ask Ben if he has ever seen these comparison
tests (he has me killfiled, so I cannot ask him directly).
> But such evidence couldn't be explained in terms of the theory they were
> developing, so it disappeared...
Actually, a conspiracy kook (Harold Weisburg) had the test results,
made claims about what they showed, but never produced them.
> >Note to CT'ers: if
> >you think you have actual "evidence" of a conspiracy, I humbly submit that
> >you are mistaken.
>
> And I 'humbly' assert that you're a liar. If you really *did* want to deal with
> the facts, then the 45 Questions await... or the "Provable Lies of the Warren
> Commission".
As usual, Ben confuses his ability to criticize an investigation
with establishing a conspiracy.
Bud
Probably felt that way from day one, right?
> Oswald may have been involved but he could not have
> acted alone.
<snicker> All the time you`ve devoted to this, and you can`t even
determine whether Oswald was involved for sure? You`re off the fucking
case, Harris.
> And the ONLY way you can believe otherwise is to make a conscious effort
> to evade the facts and evidence related to the gunshots.
You didn`t want to face the facts and evidence that conflicted with your
beliefs about the gunshots that I brought up. Why was that?
jas
I keep telling him to get his video to the DOJ toot sweet as he has
solved the case.
Funny how that never happens...
Robert Harris
<2a5168da-6c3e-4eff...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 10:47 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <e74a5f05-0bc2-42f9-a339-378f6ca6c...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 25, 6:21?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <d653750a-4db4-42c0-8b48-3f7cbf24b...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > ?Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Nov 22, 7:08 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <11bec28d-98da-43c4-b940-09be37d3e...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > ?Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Nov 22, 9:31 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <81db153d-7c85-4a94-a164-402c0d279...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.co
> > > > > > > > m>,
> > > > > > > > ?Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 20, 11:42 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > <aa5310ab-bea4-44cf-8064-890416418...@j24g2000yqa.googlegrou
Not really. Before I entered the old CompuServe forum in '94, I had just
finished reading Case Clased, and before that, "Conspiracy of One" by Jim
Moore. I had also read another nutter book by a WC member (can't remember
the title atm).
Prior to that, I had read several conspiracy books, but at that time, I
guess I was an agnostic, leaning slightly to the LN side.
>
> > Oswald may have been involved but he could not have
> > acted alone.
>
> <snicker> All the time you`ve devoted to this, and you can`t even
> determine whether Oswald was involved for sure? You`re off the fucking
> case, Harris.
Nope. But there is no shortage of people who will lie and tell you they
have.
>
> > And the ONLY way you can believe otherwise is to make a conscious effort
> > to evade the facts and evidence related to the gunshots.
>
> You didn`t want to face the facts and evidence that conflicted with your
> beliefs about the gunshots that I brought up. Why was that?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I quit the last thread I had with you when you failed to entertain me.
But if you think you have debunked me, then don't be shy. Post your
arguments in a new thread and let's talk about it. Post it in AAJ so you
will have plenty of allies:-)
Robert Harris
Bud
I`m not buying this for a second. That you read so many books on the
subject indicates you felt there was more below the surface.
> > > Oswald may have been involved but he could not have
> > > acted alone.
>
> > <snicker> All the time you`ve devoted to this, and you can`t even
> > determine whether Oswald was involved for sure? You`re off the fucking
> > case, Harris.
>
> Nope. But there is no shortage of people who will lie and tell you they
> have.
Have what?
> > > And the ONLY way you can believe otherwise is to make a conscious effort
> > > to evade the facts and evidence related to the gunshots.
>
> > You didn`t want to face the facts and evidence that conflicted with your
> > beliefs about the gunshots that I brought up. Why was that?
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about.
I brought up simple issues. I made simple points. I asked simple
questions. You don`t seem that stupid. You claim to honest. Help me
out Harris, where is the problem?
> I quit the last thread I had with you when you failed to entertain me.
Not many people find it amusing to be made a fool of.
> But if you think you have debunked me,
See, this was never my objective. You have a theory, and you want to
dwell on the evidence that seems to you to support it. I want to
discuss the evidence that your theory doesn`t satisfy. You are a lot
like Ben in that you want to fight on the ground of your choosing,
where you are strongest. This isn`t "King Of The Hill", you don`t
plant yourself on the high ground and challenge me to knock you off.
Your theory has to earn the high ground by clearing the hurdles I
decide to put in front of it. If it can`t do that, it isn`t much of a
theory, is it?
> then don't be shy. Post your
> arguments in a new thread and let's talk about it.
I don`t think you will ever address the issues I raise, Harris. You
are always going to try to misdirect the discussion to what Nellie
said, or what you think the z-film shows.
> Post it in AAJ so you
> will have plenty of allies:-)
<snicker> Looking to hide behind the moderation, Harris?
> Robert Harris
sean_smil...@yahoo.com
> >>> "The easiest way to approach this crime is to first determine if it was possible for Oswald to have fired all the shots." <<<
>
> starting point.
>
> And a reasonable person, after considering all of the BEST AND MOST
> RELIABLE EVIDENCE in the case, can only come to one logical conclusion
> concerning that important starting point. And that conclusion is:
>
> Yes, it definitely was possible for Lee Harvey Oswald to have
> fired all of the shots that were fired at President Kennedy's car in
> Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.
>
Yeah, and it was possible for Mandrake Farnum Birdwell to have fired
all six shots too!
> >>> "Fortunately, it is ridiculously easy to prove that he couldn't [fire all the shots]." <<<
>
> Now Bob Harris goes off the "logic" rails by insisting that his unique
> subjective analysis of the Zapruder Film (in conjunction with witness
> statements) gives him the freedom and the luxury of declaring with
> certainty that Oswald couldn't have fired all the shots.
>
> This puts me in mind of another conspiracy theorist who is either
> pulling the collective legs of everyone here at the ACJ newsgroup or
> is genuinely retarded and/or crazy -- a certain Mr. "Nobody" -- who
> insists that he has seen a photo taken at Love Field that actually
> shows a bullet in mid-air after it supposedly went through JFK's body.
>
> Yes, the kook known as "Nobody" actually claims that President Kennedy
> was shot BEFORE HE LEFT LOVE FIELD! And "Nobody" also claims that
> EVERY single photo and film that was taken after JFK left the airport
> has been "altered".
>
> That's how utterly insane some conspiracy theorists can be when
> talking about the assassination of JFK. (Of course, it's quite likely
> that Mr. "Nobody" is scamming everyone here and is merely pretending
> to believe in something totally ridiculous in order to smear other
> "CTers". But with some conspiracists, you just can never be sure if
> they're serious or not when they dive off the CT diving board of
> absurdity. So, who can know for sure?)
>
> Robert Harris, however, isn't nearly as insane and nutty as Mr.
> "Nobody", of course. But I just wanted to point out the parallel
> concerning "subjective analysis", which is the type of analysis on
> which Mr. Harris is basing his determination that a gunshot was fired
> at Zapruder Film frame #285 (a determination that Harris says, in
> effect, is "ridiculously easy to prove").
>
> I'm guessing that Mr. "Nobody" would probably say the same thing about
> his analysis of a particular photograph taken at Love Field, which is
> a photo "Nobody" claims depicts a "bullet exiting [JFK's] neck...the
> bullet is shown in midair about two inches from his neck" ["Nobody";
> 11/20/09].
>
> Such is the difficulty with analysis that is wholly subjective. Such
> conclusions about a "BULLET IN MIDAIR" [fired at Love Field] or a
> gunshot at Z285 that is "RIDICULOUSLY EASY TO PROVE" are conclusions
> that can easily be dismissed by other JFK researchers as being
> nonsense for a variety of logical reasons.
>
> ============================================
>
> "Looks like Brian David Andersen (the kook who believes that JFK
> was wearing a "pyrotechnics device" on his head on 11/22/63) has
> competition for "Conspiracy Retard Of The Year" here in 2009." -- DVP;
> 11/20/09
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/24033eb9...
>
> ============================================
>
> BATTLING ROBERT HARRIS (AGAIN) [A RECENT 6-PART SERIES]:
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8b7ebb42d9f5d0c6
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a1b7257f83d3570f
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9e32a8d6550ab3b5
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/26bb6edba1209122
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c35b8c60d20fe979
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/560f8f0ea1ab8734
>
> ============================================
David Von Pein
>>> "Yeah, and it was possible for Mandrake Farnum Birdwell to have fired all six shots too!" <<<
Since there were only half that many shots fired in Dealey Plaza, your
point is a moot one (even if Mandrake the Magician had been in Dealey
that day). ;)