How does it feel to be a Troll ?
Gil Jesus
Do you ever get sick and tired of being wrong ?
Do you ever troll newsgroups where you might actually KNOW something
about the subject matter ?
Have you ever written any articles to support your side ?
Have you ever made any contributions yourself to the debate ? Written
any books, any articles, set up any websites ?
Have you ever debated a subject where you DIDN'T have to include a
link to McAdams' or Rahn's sites ? In other words, have you ever
debated a subject and NOT have to depend on the work of others ?
Can you support your side without references to the Warren Commission,
Posner or Bugliosi ?
Why do you completely ignore the work of the House Select Committee on
assassinations ?
I expect my answers in typical troll fashion. With insults.
YoHarvey
Let's respond to EACH question:
Q. Do you ever get sick and tired of being wrong ?
This question comes from one who makes the
following claims:
1. JFK's body was switched at Parkland.
2. JFK was attempting the removal of a
bullet in his throat in the ZAP film.
A. Several thousand conspiracy theories exist
and he believes he has the answer! So my
response is: No, I'm never wrong. Why?
Quite simply because I rely on the known
evidence and am an expert on LHO and
his motivations.
Q. Do you ever troll newsgroups where you might actually KNOW
something
> about the subject matter
A. See question 1.
Q. Have you ever written any articles to support your side ?
A. Yes I have although I'm curious why this CT
feels writing articles proves anything. Writing
articles is no different than the 2000 + books
written by conspiracy authors.
Q. Have you ever made any contributions yourself to the debate ?
Written
> any books, any articles, set up any websites ?
A. Here Jesus AGAIN shows his stupidty by repeating
his question. Apparently Jesus believes because he's
capable of putting videos on Youtube he's a RESEARCHER.
His conspiracy forum had DIED and I believe most know
the reason.
Q. Have you ever debated a subject where you DIDN'T have to include a
> link to McAdams' or Rahn's sites ? In other words, have you ever
> debated a subject and NOT have to depend on the work of others ?
A. I have NEVER linked to McAdams or Rahn's site but would not
be hesitant to do so. They are both respected researchers.
Debra Conway of Lancer Forum although a CT is a respected
researcher. I have no problem whatsoever with CT's who present
a lucid thought. This however obviously does NOT include
Jesus, who is a joke.
Q. Can you support your side without references to the Warren
Commission,
> Posner or Bugliosi ?
A. Apparently Jesus believes coming up with theories
such as his are creative. Firstly, he stole the "throat"
theory from another researcher. Secondly, since the
WC report, although not perfect solved this case years
ago, I need not rebutt. I realize Jesus has no concept
of the scientific method (as he's shown on numerous
occassions) but the burden of proof rests with the
CT offering an alternative. I have asked Jesus a
dozen times to support (his word) his conclusions
about this theories. He has remained mum. No
surprise.
Q. Why do you completely ignore the work of the House Select
Committee on
> assassinations ?
A. I ignore the final conclusion of the HSCA simply because
as we know today, their final conclusion about a conspiracy
was purely based on the acoustical evidence which was
flawed. I do however concur with the 8 (out of 9) forensic
pathologists who did support the conclusions of the WC.
Now, I have questions for you:
1. Have you ever in any fashion discussed, interviewed
exchanged email with any of the central characters
in this case using anybody as a primary source?
2. Why will you not respond to questions about
how you RESEARCHED and reached your
conclusion about your throat theory?
3. Why have you chosen to ignore questions
about your body switching theory at Parkland
hospital?
There ya go, without insults! Let's see if you
have the balls to answer questions!
David Von Pein
THEORY........
==========================================================
>>> "Can you support your side without references to the Warren Commission, Posner or Bugliosi?" <<<
Why on Earth would ANY LNer ever even ATTEMPT to "support" their
"side" without references to the first (and, by far, best) report and
inquiry re. the whole case -- i.e., The Warren Commission Report?
Seems to me that that would be the same as trying to confirm how to
spell a particular word, but then deciding that a dictionary ISN'T the
best place to go to confirm it. .... Or hitting a home run, and not
bothering to touch any of the four bases. Just...silly.
The Warren Report is easily the best and most complete volume re. the
JFK case (inc. the 26 supporting volumes). It's not a perfect report,
no. And not every witness who could have been interrogated was
interrogated, true.
But the Warren Report reveals the very, very likely TRUTH re. the
events of 11/22/63. And it hasn't been undercut in any major (bottom-
line) fashion in all the years since its 1964 publication. (And it's
certainly not for lack of CTers trying to undercut its LN
conclusions.)
==========================================================
>>> "Why do you completely ignore the work of the House Select Committee on Assassinations?" <<<
I'll readily admit right now, I don't have nearly as much knowledge
about the HSCA investigation as I probably should. (Probably due to
the HSCA's basic and repeated "LN" conclusions that were already
established by the WC. The acoustics debacle notwithstanding, of
course.)
But let me ask Gil this re. the HSCA......
Why do YOU completely ignore the pro-SBT conclusion of the HSCA panel?
You obviously DO reject both the HSCA's and the WC's "versions" of the
SBT, because you think a frontal shot hit JFK in the throat.
And why are conspiracy theorists so willing and eager to toss out all
of the "Oswald Was The Only Shooter Who Hit Anyone In The Limo With
Any Bullets" conclusion that was reached by BOTH the WC and the HSCA?
Why? ~cough~
Yes, I know that the two panels came to slightly different versions of
the SBT (with differing probable Z-Film frame numbers for the SBT
bullet strike).....but COMMON SENSE was being utilized by both of
those U.S. Government panels, because even though they wrestled with
the EXACT Z-Frame that equated to the "SBT" -- both panels realized
(based on the sum total of the evidence in the case that said they
were right to realize it) that a ZAPRUDER FILM FRAME WITH A SINGLE
BULLET TRAVELLING THROUGH BOTH VICTIMS *WAS* TO BE FOUND WITHIN THAT
26-SECOND AMATEUR MOTION PICTURE!
It's THERE! Positively. The HSCA and WC just had differing opinions as
to WHERE on the film it was exactly located (with, of course, that
damn freeway sign only serving to hinder both panels
significantly...and unfortunately).
But any reasonable researcher should be able to determine that a
single bullet IS, indeed, going through both victims at just about Z-
Frame #224. Film analysis is subjective, yes. And there's no large
black-lettered sign appearing on the screen during any Z-Frames
telling the world "THIS IS THE SBT FRAME, FOLKS!" -- but when
evaluating the evidence in favor of the SBT being true (vs. the
incredible and extraordinary things that must be accepted if the SBT
is UNTRUE), plus when examining Zapruder's movie....a reasonable
person has no choice, IMO, but to accept the Single-Bullet Theory as
the correct scenario for the double-man wounding on Dallas' Elm Street
in 1963.
THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IN ACTION:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bb22792c022c5a2e
==========================================================
And, of course, these 4 Qs of Gil's are really aimed at CTers, right?
(You can't fool me. These are questions for conspiracy believers
only...without a doubt.) ;) .....
cdddraftsman
answer
a decent question , but always has plenty of tears to shed , when his
whimsical Video's light up the screen and he gets criticised for
their lack of content , just thought I'd add this :
Does Gil think about what he thinks about ? :
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=48gc5f9
Is he just another Rossley who since childhood loved beaten on
things ? :
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=4cbe9ef
Or perhaps he's praying that if he steals someone else's product , he
can
modify it and become a real wannabe conspiracists ? :
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=3yh7yhz
Yes folks , you betcha Chico deserves it . Any person this
hypocritical , who
doesn't know diddle shit about a scientific method , for a approach on
how to
solve a problem and has the gall to post tripe as sour as his socks ,
truly is
goiing to be in it for a rough ride !
> >>> "Have you ever written any articles to support your side?"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
tomnln
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174541128.5...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174532540.1...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
muc...@gmail.com
> Do you ever get tired of trolling ?
>
> Do you ever get sick and tired of being wrong ?
Are you adressing LN or CT trolls here?
> Do you ever troll newsgroups where you might actually KNOW something
> about the subject matter ?
>
> Have you ever written any articles to support your side ?
>
> Have you ever made any contributions yourself to the debate ? Written
> any books, any articles, set up any websites ?
tomln has a website, so I guess you can't be talking to him.
> Have you ever debated a subject where you DIDN'T have to include a
> link to McAdams' or Rahn's sites ? In other words, have you ever
> debated a subject and NOT have to depend on the work of others ?
You don't seem to be addressing CT trolls here...
> Can you support your side without references to the Warren Commission,
> Posner or Bugliosi ?
...or here.
> Why do you completely ignore the work of the House Select Committee on
> assassinations ?
As long as you don't completely ignore the work of the HSCA, you can't
be considered a troll? That certainly rules out a lot of people. But
it's true that some of the committee's conclusions are controversial.
> I expect my answers in typical troll fashion. With insults.
-Mark