For Bob Harris...
Chuck Schuyler
> Chuck, you need to change your schtick. It hasn't changed since your
> first post to this newsgroup.
>
> As always, you don't post a single piece of evidence, testimony, or
> reason. You simply assert that all the evidence supports your theory,
> with no justification whatsoever.
>
> Promotion is indeed, my weak point however. I will give you that. For
> the first time, I am working on it.
>
> Robert Harris
This is what is EXASPERATING about dealing with people like yourself,
Bob.
I make no pretense about being a "JFK Researcher", like you do. In
fact, I'll go so far as to state that I have no special insights on
the case or special knowledge about the case. You can run rings around
me in terms of your overall education about arcane trivia about the
events on/surrounding 11/22/63.
The difference between the two of us is that I KNOW I have nothing
further to add to understanding 11/22/63, and you, wrapped in your own
grandiosity of being a "JFK researcher", are under the DELUSION that
YOU have something further to add to 11/22/63. You don't. You're just
a guy with a computer, access to YouTube, and too much time on your
hands, apparently.
I'm comfortable that all of the major investigations got this right. I
can add nothing to what the FBI and Warren Commission, DPD, etc. did
to reach a conclusion of Oswald's guilt. A simple reading of the WCR
is enough to figure out who killed JFK. It isn't perfect, but its
pretty darn good.
You may think I'm too trusting of the government-I'm not. But I'm
smart enough to know that what happened on 11/22/63 was, at its core,
simple. One bullet missed. One bullet tore through JFK and struck
Connally, and one bullet blew JFK's brains out.
I'm a big picture guy, meaning that I know evidence, especially
eyewitness evidence, which is notoriously poor and predominately
comprises your 'case' for conspiracy, isn't going to precisely jibe.
The physical evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Oswald as the
shooter that day. One needs to invent alternative scenarios, and claim
all of the evidence is planted, forged, altered, destroyed, covered-
up, and so on, to exonerate Oswald.
As acj. poster Bud has said, it's either Oswald alone, or thousands
trying to make it look like Oswald alone. Take your pick.
As far as posting links to evidence, etc. I certainly have done so.
I've looked up Warren Commission testimony or linked to different bits
of information in my posts to bolster a point, but it really is rather
fruitless. People like you and Rossley or Gil Jesus or David Healy or
whomever all think the whole case is a falsified/phony-baloney
whitewash, and everyone was 'in' on 'it'. It does no good to point out
what some witness said to the WC when your side claims the FBI
intimidated witnesses and altered their testimony. It does no good to
link to tests that have shown that firing three shots in the time most
people agree comprised of the shooting sequence is easily feasible,
when your side doesn't even believe Oswald fired all the shots, or any
shots, or that shots were fired from the knoll, sewer, Dal-Tex
building, limo (Gil Jesus implies that Governor Connally shot JFK)
etc.
David Von Pein just schooled you on JFK's back wound by linking to
some HSCA evidence. Did it change your mind? I doubt it. Why? It
doesn't fit in with your preconceived notion of what happened.
This is going to sound mighty simplistic, but here are a few final
points:
1.) If there was a big conspiracy on 11/22/63 that the government
participated in or tried to cover up, we'd have known about it-in
detail-by now. People blab. It's that simple. As Bugliosi is fond of
saying, three people can keep a secret-but only if two of them are
dead.
2.) If there was a small conspiracy on 11/22/63, say Oswald was the
shooter but a few people or a group put him up to it, we'd know about
that also...the USG would've ruthlessly ferreted this conspiracy out,
and heads would've literally rolled.
3.) Killing the POTUS with the cast of characters allegedly involved
on 11/22/63 is ridiculous on its face. Trying to coordinate a
"triangulation of fire" from the grassy knoll, altering evidence-I
could name a thousand things that could go wrong-is absurd. JFK's
morning coffee could've been poisoned instead, or a scandal could've
been leaked to try and weaken him politically or force him from
office. At the very least, the conspirators could've waited 11 months
to even see if he'd have won his reelection attempt.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you have this
proof of conspiracy, you should be able to get the case reopened. You
have nothing. Your theories are laughed at by all sane people that
post here.
I post here because its silly and fun to see how out-to-lunch some of
you people are with your wacky, goofball theories-your theory that a
guy was hiding in the sewer along the motorcade route is hilarious.
Healy's theory that Abraham Zapruder was actually impersonated is
nutty beyond belief. Gil Jesus and his implication that Connally
whipped out a pistol and fired a shot at JFK is so beyond the pale
absurd that it defies all reason. It's interesting to me how
otherwise sane people with families, jobs, budgets to balance,
mortgage payments to make and the like, can live in this world so
clueless about simple truth. Occam's Razor. Sh*t happens, even if you
are President of the United States. Random, senseless violence with no
real meaning.
Bottom line? A man in a building shot a man (men) in a car.
Sadly, people like you have ruined the legacy JFK tried to leave. When
people think of JFK, they automatically think about his brains being
blown all over Dealey Plaza and all of the wigged-out, weird theories
behind his death. It gets connected to UFO's, the assassination of
Bhutto, 9/11/01...it's an incredibly bewildering circus of theories,
shooters, connections, etc.
You certainly don't need to 'earn' my respect, nor are you attempting
to gain it, but after 44 years, it's time for you to take a fresh look
at this. Regardless about your feelings about a guy hidden in the
sewer firing at JFK, you need some real proof. You don't have it. If
you did, you could get the case reopened.
You're not a researcher, you are a hobbyist. Nothing wrong with that,
its just time you grew up and realized it. Maybe it's time to stop
inflicting the senseless pain on the Kennedy family legacy that people
of your ilk have been guilty of.
I know every word I've just written is utterly unconvincing to you. As
I said, your 'belief' in conspiracy is probably the overriding
constant in your life. You've built friendships around it. Posted
YouTube videos about it. You've come to see yourself as smarter than
the rest of us because of your special abilities to see what all of
the crooked politicians and FBI agents tried to suppress.
The JFK assassination is your church. I'd have an easier time
convincing a Muslim that Mohammad invented Islam than convincing you
that you live in a great country that honored JFK by accurately
getting to the bottom about who assassinated him.
Bud
Now thats a good response...
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Excellent post Chuck....they all should read it and pay attention.
Unfortunately, now we'll have to sit back and see the idiots post
ridiculous questions and ask for proof that their wrong. It's a never
ending circle jerk. They keep jerking each other off.
johni...@aol.com
---> Outstanding, simply outstanding. Thank you for injecting some
common sense and sanity into the discussion. Too bad some will
probably rally against you and what you wrote instead of stepping back
and considering what they are doing ... and why. Truth seekers are
rarely so angry, despairing and disgruntled.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Logic and the Killing
Of John Kennedy
By Gary Sumner ©2002
There is not the slightest chance on earth that a conspiracy was
involved in the assassination of President John Kennedy.
While such a bold statement may shock and infuriate true believers in
the Kennedy conspiracy, I intend to support it with what I believe is
a new approach: an appeal to reason. (I believe it’s a new approach,
but considering that more than 2,000 books and God knows how many
articles have been written on the assassination, I can’t possibly know
that for sure.)
Anyone acquainted with the real evidence in the case knows that it all
points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. Beyond question, he
shot Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository
as the presidential motorcade moved down Elm Street below him. And he
was the only shooter. However, I’m not going to deal with evidence in
this analysis. The evidence is there, it is overwhelming, and it has
already been massively written up. That hasn’t prevented unscrupulous
(or misguided) writers and at least one movie maker from trying to
convince people that Kennedy’s death was the result of a mysterious
conspiracy. Probably more nonsense has been written about the Kennedy
assassination in the past 40 years than on any other subject.
There is something as important as evidence—as long as it is not
contradicted by it—and that is reason. Was there a group of men who
planned and carried out the murder? (Excuse me, ladies, I don’t think
any women would have been involved in those days.) By following out
certain logical processes, we should be able to determine the
likelihood of that. Don’t underestimate reason. It can be a powerful
tool in uncovering the truth. Evidence is certainly vital and in some
situations can make a conclusive case all by itself. But evidence can
also be manufactured, distorted and misinterpreted—which it certainly
has been in the Kennedy case—while reason is pure. It’s right there in
front of us and it can’t be faked or twisted.
At the outset let’s be clear that there is a large difference between
a lone assassin and a group of conspirators. The lone killer will
generally have an irrational motive that appeals only to him. John W.
Hinckley Jr. shot President Reagan in 1981 with the bizarre notion
that actress Jody Foster would admire him and even fall in love with
him because of it.(1) Arthur Bremer shot presidential candidate
George Wallace in 1972 to make a name for himself and also because he
thought it would be a riotously fun thing to do.(2) (Wallace was
permanently paralyzed from the waist down.) Sirhan Sirhan, a
Palestinian immigrant, fatally shot Sen. Robert Kennedy in 1968 in a
Los Angeles hotel because of the senator’s backing of Israel in its
conflicts with its Arab neighbors.(3) Oswald, who was himself shot to
death two days after the Kennedy assassination, never explained his
motive, but it’s known that he was a communist who was filled with
hatred of the United States and who had defected temporarily to the
Soviet Union. He was also an antisocial loner in a bad marriage and a
dead-end job who had nothing to lose.
Each of these assassins had his own twisted motive that would appeal
only to him. As Jim Bishop, author of The Day Kennedy Was Shot,
observed, “A history of assassins is a glossary of persons sick and
obsessed.”
Nature of Conspiracies
But for a group of conspirators to come together to plot the death of
the president, there must be a rational motive, however evil and
immoral. The president’s death must result in some clear-cut,
practical benefit to all the members of the group. And the benefit
must be so great, the motive so powerful, that the conspirators are
willing to risk everything—imprisonment, death, disgrace, loss of
career and family—to reach their goal. These mysterious men in our
hypothetical conspiracy had to know that the odds were heavily against
them. In Lincoln’s day, presidential assassination was easy. But since
at least the middle of the Twentieth Century, it has been a task of
the most extreme difficulty. Getting away with it is probably
impossible. Men intelligent and capable enough to plan and carry out
an assassination would be aware of the odds against them. What would
drive them to undertake a mission that would almost certainly fail and
bring them to ruin? And whatever benefits they thought they would
obtain, wasn’t there some simpler, less risky path to the same goal?
Did they really have to kill the president? These questions would
apply as much to foreign conspirators acting for a government as to
domestic ones.
We could try to discover the motive by asking “cui bono,” who
benefited from the murder. You could say that Vice President Lyndon
Johnson benefited because Kennedy’s death vaulted him into the
presidency. And there have been suggestions that, indeed, Johnson was
the mastermind who plotted the assassination.
Let’s deal with that allegation. The mere fact that a man is in the
office of vice president when a president is assassinated hardly
constitutes evidence that he was involved in the killing. The last
president to be assassinated before Kennedy was William McKinley, in
1901. (Shot by another nutcase, an anarchist named Leon Czolgosz.)(4)
McKinley’s vice president, Theodore Roosevelt, succeeded to the
presidency. As far as I know, nobody has suggested that Roosevelt was
involved in the murder. And as for Johnson, was he so power crazed
that he couldn’t wait for the election of 1968, when he might well
have become president in his own right? The idea is supported by
neither evidence nor reason.
But for the sake of argument, let’s pursue it briefly. Any plot
masterminded by LBJ would have required the collusion of a great many
people. He couldn’t have pulled it off by himself or even with a
handful of loyal associates. Some of Kennedy’s closest advisers, in
fact, would have to have been involved in the plot. Kennedy’s entire
trip, including the motorcade route through Dallas, would have to have
been arranged so as to get the President in the gunman’s crosshairs.
At this point the whole idea of a Lyndon Johnson conspiracy collapses.
The theory that Johnson was part of some deep-cover network including
some of Kennedy’s own people who manipulated the president into going
to Dallas, where their assassin waited, is so silly that only a true
paranoiac could believe it. If there was massive evidence to support
it, of course we would have to accept it—but there isn’t any.
Motives and Men
Who are the other suspects that have been suggested by various
theorists as forming the deadly conspiracy? The FBI, the CIA, the
Secret Service, the U.S. military, the Mafia, anti-Castro Cubans,
Jews, the “Communist Conspiracy,” Big Oil men, the Dallas police, and
some combination of these. One writer even claimed that TV newsmen Dan
Rather and Robert MacNeil were involved.(5) It’s hard to imagine what
benefit the individual members of these groups thought they would
realize from attempting such an audacious undertaking as the
assassination of the President of the United States. They had to be
aware that the odds against them were close to prohibitive. Yet they
went ahead—and (if there really was a conspiracy) succeeded beyond
their imaginings.
The absence of a believable rational motive that couldn’t be satisfied
any other way than killing the president is itself a powerful argument
against the existence of a conspiracy. Various motives have been
suggested, and I have no intention of going down the list and refuting
them one by one. Some are fantastic and some merely mundane, but none
are believable. None describe a goal that couldn’t have been achieved
in far easier and less risky ways than killing a president.
And think about the men who planned this presidential assassination,
prevented any leaks, executed it to perfection, and escaped. They
would have to be highly intelligent, knowledgeable men of the world,
men who know how to kill, who know guns and explosives, who know
military and paramilitary operations, who know law enforcement and how
to evade it. They would be the cream, the smartest of the smart, the
toughest of the tough. Before proceeding, they would devise an
airtight plan that would ensure the success of their operation.
(Incidentally, some theorists hold that Oswald was part of the
conspiracy, but didn’t do the actual shooting, or that he did shoot,
along with one or more additional gunman, but that he was set up by
other members of the group to take the fall while they got away. Some
have even argued that Oswald was a patsy, a nice young man who had
nothing to do with the crime.)
A Double Objective
Now let’s consider the conspirators’ goals, which were twofold. One
was to kill the president—not wound him, not scare him, but kill him.
For whatever reason, they wanted Kennedy dead. The other goal was to
get away with the crime. We assume that this was not a suicide
mission. (After all, unless you count Oswald, the conspirators got
away, didn’t they?)
Now, when you set out to kill a president, you don’t want to try
something haphazard and hope for the best. What you want is something
close to a foolproof plan that will result in the success of your
mission and your escape. So what plan did these mysterious
conspirators come up with?
Let’s start with their choice of weapon, a gun. Is there anything
foolproof about the use of a gun? Hardly. A gun, in fact, is a very
unreliable means of killing a person. Certainly a gun will kill, and
sometimes one quick shot is all it takes. Many people have died that
way. But a gun will kill reliably only when the shooter is in a
controlled situation, has the victim cornered in some way and has the
time to shoot and shoot again until the person is unquestionably
dead.
Otherwise, especially in a public place where the gunman may have a
window of opportunity of only a few seconds, he is likely to miss his
target altogether. There are no statistics on how many people have
been shot at and missed, but the number must be huge. Second, even if
the gunman hits his target, the shot is most likely to be nonlethal.
As far as I have been able to determine, the FBI doesn’t keep
statistics comparing the number of people who are wounded by gunshots
with those who are shot fatally. However, all it takes is the daily
reading of a newspaper for several years to teach anyone the truth
that most gunshot victims recover from their wounds.
I think true believers in the Kennedy conspiracy—as opposed to those
who pretend to believe it for the sake of monetary gain—are people who
have had little or no experience with firearms, who have no idea how
difficult and tricky guns are to use in real life, especially at long
range. These people see cowboys and detectives on TV casually dropping
their victims with a single shot at a distance and it looks easy. All
you have to do is pull the trigger and, poof, your victim bites the
dust. You want to kill the president? Sure, just shoot him and he’s
gone.
In real life, the thing is somewhat more difficult. Hinckley’s
attempted assassination of Reagan perfectly illustrates the difficulty
of killing with a gun, especially in a public place. Actually,
Hinckley was lucky to get as close to the president as he did. Secret
Service agents are well trained to spot a concealed weapon and are
constantly running their eyes over a crowd. But there is always that
chance event that isn’t supposed to occur. Hinckley did get close, on
March 30, 1981, when Reagan was walking from the Washington Hilton
Hotel, where he had given a luncheon speech, to his limousine. The
President reached the car, turned, smiled and started to wave to the
crowd.
There was Hinckley’s window. It lasted perhaps three seconds.
He jerked out his .22-caliber revolver and began firing explosive
“Detonator” bullets. Presidential press secretary James Brady, Secret
Service agent Timothy McCarthy and Washington police officer Thomas
Delahanty were all wounded—Brady the most seriously—but all survived.
Of the six rounds Hinckley fired, only one hit the President, and that
was a ricochet from the limousine. The bullet ended up in Reagan’s
left lung and he was whisked away to George Washington Hospital.
Hinckley was wrestled to the ground and taken off to jail.(6)
The point here is that neither of our conspirators’ twin goals—
assassination and escape—was met. Reagan fully recovered from his
wound, was reelected by a landslide in 1984, and at this writing, 21
years after the attack, is still living. And Hinckley, far from
escaping, remains in custody. Of course, he wanted to be caught, or at
least identified. Otherwise he wouldn’t have become famous and in a
position to impress Jody Foster.
In fact, it’s typical of lone assassins that they don’t expect to get
away with their crime. Their motive may be to achieve notoriety, e.g.,
Hinckley and Bremer. Or they may be so fanatically devoted to their
cause that they are willing to trade their life or freedom for the
life of their victim, e.g., Sirhan. That’s why lone assassins aren’t
bothered by another disadvantage of using a gun—i.e., that the shooter
has to be close to his victim, making escape all but impossible. Even
a high-powered rifle with a telescopic sight requires the shooter to
be close enough to his target that detection of the marksman’s
location is certain and escape virtually impossible. So—wherever you
have a lone assassin with an irrational motive for killing a
president, there you can expect the absence of a getaway plan. And
there you have Lee Harvey Oswald.
One more point about guns before we analyze our conspirators’ plan: A
moving target, even a slowly moving one, is much harder to hit than a
stationary one. The gunman has to lead the target the exact right
amount so that victim and bullet converge on the same point
simultaneously. Oswald didn’t have to concern himself with much, if
any, lead because the presidential limousine would be moving almost
directly away from him as he looked down from the sixth floor of the
school-book depository. (The car may have been trending very slightly
to his right.)
If there were additional gunmen, however, such as the one that has
been claimed to have shot at the oncoming president from the infamous
“grassy knoll,” they would have been obliged to calculate lead—
probably a good bit. They would have to have been positioned some
distance to either the side of the street rather than being directly
in front of or behind the president’s car. Furthermore, any gunman at
ground level would have faced the difficulty of shooting at precisely
the right moment, to coordinate with the shots from the depository,
while keeping himself concealed from the numerous spectators lining
the motorcade route—an impossible task.
Some authors have theorized that there were assassins in other
buildings as well as on the ground. One writer of a popular book said
there were three shooters, each of whom fired a “volley” at the
limousine.(7) Another claimed that there were nine gunmen.(8)
Imagine it! Nine men out there banging away at the president in full
view of the public and nobody saw anybody but Oswald leaning out the
window of the book depository with a rifle.
To sum up what we’ve discussed so far. A rational motive for killing
President Kennedy that would produce enormous benefits for a group of
conspirators cannot be found. A gun is an unreliable means of killing
a person. And the use of one requires the shooter to be so close to
his victim that—especially if the victim happens to be president—
escape is all but impossible. (I leave it to the reader to determine
what would be a reliable means of killing a president and getting away
with it. Probably there isn’t one.)
The Master Plan
Now let’s consider the plot. On November 22, 1963, President Kennedy
was going to be riding through Dallas in a convertible and he would be
visible from about the chest up—a small, moving target, with other
people in the car. Huge crowds would be watching—the Secret Service,
the press, the public, with TV cameras set up along the way. So what
brilliant plan did our conspirators come up with? The plan was to
shoot Kennedy as the motorcade passed by. Oh, of course. That way his
death would be certain and the conspirators would all get away with
it.
Such a plot seems more likely to be concocted by the Three Stooges—
perhaps working with Bozo the Clown—than a coldly intelligent,
knowledgeable group of men. Yet one thing nobody can deny: if there
was a plot, that was it. And on that hard rock all the conspiracy
theories must sink. Nothing else matters. Bullet trajectories, the
number of seconds that elapsed during the shooting, the supposed puff
of smoke from the grassy knoll, the three tramps supposedly running
down the railroad tracks, the fact that Jack Ruby murdered Oswald
“before he could talk.” None of it matters. The plot—to fatally shoot
Kennedy in a moving car out there in front of the whole world and get
away with it—is so laughable that nobody with an IQ above the moron
level would believe it would work. Certainly no group of worldly men
would gamble their lives and careers on such a preposterous scheme.
But an individual might try it, if he was a hate-filled loner with
nothing to lose and a practiced marksman who discovered that the
president was going to cruise right by the building where he worked.
No complicated planning would be necessary, no coordination with
others, no concern about somebody with a loose tongue giving away the
plot in advance. All that would be required would be a high-powered
rifle and a reasonably secure place to shoot from. What the hell, fire
off a few rounds at the presidential limousine and see what happens.
You might get lucky and suddenly be transformed from a nobody into the
most prominent personage in the world, the Man Who Killed the
President of the United States.
Perfection Achieved
Now let’s apply reason to two additional aspects of the Kennedy
assassination: the perfection of the operation and the unbroken
silence of the killers. According to well-known Murphy’s Law, if
anything can go wrong, it will. Imagine all the things that could have
gone wrong in attempting a difficult, dangerous operation such as
killing the President of the United States. Considering the idiotic
nature of the plan, the slightest mishap, the tiniest unforeseen
circumstance, could have brought the operation to ruin. But nothing
went wrong. The killers achieved perfection.
And since then they have successfully resisted the urge to talk about
it. Various authors have postulated anywhere from a couple of dozen
conspirators to several hundred. At this writing the assassination
took place 40 years ago, yet no conspirator has talked. Not one has
gotten drunk and revealed the murder to his wife or mistress, who has
then gone to the authorities or the media. Not one has made a death-
bed confession. Not one has left behind a letter of explanation in his
lawyer’s safe to be opened after his death.
Think about it. These mysterious men, many of whom must not even have
known one another before the plot was hatched, got together, planned
and carried out the crime of the ages, in public and on television,
then vanished ghostlike into history. Nobody saw them and they didn’t
make any mistakes. None of them ever talked. They committed the
perfect crime, using the stupidest plan imaginable, and got away with
it. (All except poor Oswald, who of course was set up by the others.)
Now, reason may not tell us that such a flawless operation is
impossible, but it does tell us that the odds against it are millions
to one. Reason, in fact, tells us that it never happened.
The principle in logic known as Occam’s Razor holds that in choosing
among the possible solutions to a mystery, the simplest one—if it is
in accord with the facts—is most likely to be correct. The simplest
solution to this “mystery”—and in fact there is no mystery—is that Lee
Oswald shot John Kennedy with his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from a
sixth-floor window of the school-book depository and that he acted
alone.
The Judgment of Reason
The contribution I have tried to make to the Kennedy assassination
saga in this essay has been to apply reason to it rather than
quibbling over evidentiary minutiae. Using this technique, I believe I
have made a strong case that there was no conspiracy. The truth of the
following four statements I consider to be certain:
· No believable motive powerful enough to lead a group of
rational men to kill the president can be produced.
· Intelligent, knowledgeable men determined to kill wouldn’t
have chosen an unreliable weapon such as a gun.
· Having made that bad choice, they wouldn’t have compounded it
by planning to hit a small, moving target.
· They wouldn’t have planned to assassinate the president in
full view of a huge crowd, including a television audience, and
expected to get away with it.
The truth of the final two statements, if not certain, I consider to
be of the highest probability:
· The conspirators would have made mistakes, or encountered
unexpected situations, that would have caused their operation to fail,
or at least would have led to their apprehension.
· In all the years that have gone by, at least one of them
would have talked or left behind a confession at death.
This concludes my application of reason to the Kennedy assassination.
I have tried to create a framework of logic showing that, in the
circumstances, a conspiracy could not have been responsible for the
murder. I believe the logic is impeccable and I challenge anyone to
refute it. If you want to refute it, don’t start talking about
evidence. What you need to do is explain how a bunch of imbeciles,
operating with the silliest plan on record, could have brought off a
presidential assassination without a hitch and gotten away with it.
Also explain how they were able to make themselves invisible. After
you have pinned down these two points, then you can start telling me
about the evidence.
I know that many people will not be satisfied with logic, no matter
how irrefutable. They have been exposed to so many lies and half-
truths about the assassination that they can be forgiven for believing
vaguely that there must have been a conspiracy. Otherwise, why would
all these accusations keep circulating on the Internet and elsewhere
on an almost daily basis? People who have been subjected to this brain-
washing naturally want certain questions answered. For example:
· Was there a bullet (the “magic bullet”) that had to change
directions three or four times to accomplish what was attributed to it
in the assassination?
· Was the well-known photograph of Oswald holding the
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle faked?
· Was Oswald’s mini-biography accidentally leaked to the press
before he was even charged with a crime?
· Was Oswald photographed standing in front of the depository
when he was supposed to be up on the sixth floor shooting a rifle out
the window?
· Did a mysterious man finger Oswald for the police in Texas
Theater, then vanish?
· Did Jack Ruby kill Oswald to keep him from talking?
· Was Ruby himself murdered in jail?
· Have numerous men who seemed to have a connection to the
assassination, and might have revealed the conspiracy, died
mysteriously?
The answer to all these questions is NO and I can do no better than to
refer you to the book that proves it, Gerald Posner’s masterly Case
Closed. If you want evidence, the real evidence, this is where you
will find it. Other good and true books have been written about the
Kennedy assassination—notably two by David Belin—but one of the great
values of the Posner book is that it was published 31 years after the
murder, in 1993. By then, all the lies, distortions, rumors, errors
and myths had had time to surface and circulate, and Posner demolishes
them all.
Whatever conspiracy theories you hold about the Kennedy assassination,
they will not be able to stand up under Posner’s relentless assaults.
Read his book if you dare. Or if you’re afraid, hide from it and sneer
at it. If you don’t want to read all 499 pages (including the
appendix), go to the index and find the subjects you want to check.
They are all there. Many libraries have the book and all bookstores
can order it.
As much as I admire Posner, I want to make it clear that he did not
influence me in my use of reason to explode the idea of conspiracy.
That idea came to me about a year before Case Closed was published. I
had read a couple of other books, including one of Belin’s, and had
done a good deal of thinking about the assassination. I was already of
the opinion that there had been no conspiracy. Then one night in 1992
as I was watching a TV documentary on the 30th anniversary of the
assassination, all the circumstances surrounding it came together to
form a whole in my mind. And out of that whole there rose before me a
clear, pure logic by which I suddenly saw that Kennedy’s death was not
the result of a conspiracy and could not have been. The next year Case
Closed was published and I was gratified to see that all the evidence
supported my logic.
The case against Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin is as open and
shut as anything could possibly be. There is simply no reasonable
doubt about it. But there are those who will never accept this truth.
They want there to have been a conspiracy. I admit I felt the same way
when my interest in the assassination was rekindled during a trip to
Dallas in 1975, when I stood in Dealey Plaza and took pictures of the
school-book depository, Elm Street and the grassy knoll. I determined
to read up on the subject when I got back home, and I had visions of
encountering traces of a shadowy, mysterious conspiracy of evil
geniuses who had killed the president and were still lurking out
there. If Oswald did it by himself, that was boring. But if there was
a conspiracy, now that would be fascinating!
However, I finally realized, to my disappointment, that the whole
conspiracy idea was nothing but a fantasy. As for those who are
determined to believe in it, I sympathize with them. But there comes a
time when all little boys and girls must grow up and put away their
conspiracy theories, just as they gave up their bubble gum, comic
books and yo-yos when they were growing up the first time.
Notes
1. Deborah Hart Strober & Gerald S. Strober, Reagan, the Man and His
Presidency, p. 120. Also http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/HBIO.HTM
2. Arthur H. Bremer, An Assassin’s Diary.
3. Evan Thomas, Robert Kennedy, His Life, p. 386. Also
http://w.who2.com/sirhansirhan.html
4. Dictionary of American Biography, p. 109
5. www.skolnicksreport.com by Sherman Skolnick This material is hard
to find on the site now, but on 10/9/01 it read, in part: “With flimsy
excuses, several reputedly venal and for-sale reporters were right
there, available in the murder zone, to be later rewarded for false
reports, opening the way for their promotion to highly-lucrative TV
network status, such as Dan Rather, later CBS Network anchor face, and
Robert MacNeil, later PBS co-anchor and co-owner of his own network
program with Jim Lehrer.”
6. Lou Cannon, Reagan, pp. 403-404.
7. Jim Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy.
8. Penn Jones, author of four self-published books on the
assassination, cited by Posner, p. 483.
Sources
Belin, David W. November 22, 1963: You Are the Jury. New York:
Quadrangle/The New York Times Books, 1973.
_______. Final Disclosure, New York: Scribner’s, 1988.
Bishop, Jim. The Day Kennedy Was Shot. New York: Funk & Wagnalls,
1968.
Bremer, Arthur H. An Assassin’s Diary (Introduction by Harding Lemay).
New York: Harper’s Magazine Press; published in association with
Harper & Row, 1972, 1973.
Clarke, James W. American Assassins. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1982.
Cannon, Lou. Reagan. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1982.
Dictionary of American Biography
Volume VI
CR 1933, New York
Charles Scribner’s Sons
Marrs, Jim. Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy. New York: Carroll
& Graf, 1989, 1990.
Posner, Gerald. Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination
of JFK. New York: Random House, 1993.
Strober, Deborah Hart, and Strober, Gerald S. Reagan, the Man and His
Presidency. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998.
Thomas, Evan. Robert Kennedy, His Life. New York: Simon & Schuster,
2000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
johni...@aol.com says...
>
>On Jan 16, 3:47=EF=BF=BDpm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 16, 9:17 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Chuck, you need to change your schtick. It hasn't changed since your
>> > first post to this newsgroup.
>>
>> > As always, you don't post a single piece of evidence, testimony, or
>> > reason. You simply assert that all the evidence supports your theory,
>> > with no justification whatsoever.
>>
>> > Promotion is indeed, my weak point however. I will give you that. For
>> > the first time, I am working on it.
>>
>> > Robert Harris
>>
>> This is what is EXASPERATING about dealing with people like yourself,
>> Bob.
>>
>> I make no pretense about being a "JFK Researcher", like you do. In
>> fact, I'll go so far as to state that I have no special insights on
>> the case or special knowledge about the case. You can run rings around
>> me in terms of your overall education about arcane trivia about the
>> events on/surrounding 11/22/63.
No problem here... asserting that you aren't a scholar of evidential minutia is
not a problem.
>> The difference between the two of us is that I KNOW I have nothing
>> further to add to understanding 11/22/63, and you, wrapped in your own
>> grandiosity of being a "JFK researcher", are under the DELUSION that
>> YOU have something further to add to 11/22/63. You don't. You're just
>> a guy with a computer, access to YouTube, and too much time on your
>> hands, apparently.
>>
>> I'm comfortable that all of the major investigations got this right. I
>> can add nothing to what the FBI and Warren Commission, DPD, etc. did
>> to reach a conclusion of Oswald's guilt. A simple reading of the WCR
>> is enough to figure out who killed JFK. It isn't perfect, but its
>> pretty darn good.
Yet here's the problem... This troll has admitted that he's not conversant with
the evidence, then goes on to make the sweeping generalization that based on
what small part he does know - others who he ASSERTS knows more about the case
are wrong.
Sorta like saying, "Yeah, I'm not a practicing physician, but you're doing that
brain surgery all wrong!"
All you've really said is that you have faith in what little facts you know of
the case - and are unwilling to go any further to defend those facts.
>> You may think I'm too trusting of the government-I'm not. But I'm
>> smart enough to know that what happened on 11/22/63 was, at its core,
>> simple. One bullet missed. One bullet tore through JFK and struck
>> Connally, =EF=BF=BDand one bullet blew JFK's brains out.
Unfortunately, the evidence simply doesn't support this simplistic recreation.
Perhaps *that's* the reason you aren't interested in learning more of the
evidence... it simply doesn't fit your preconceived faith.
>> I'm a big picture guy, meaning that I know evidence, especially
>> eyewitness evidence, which is notoriously poor and predominately
>> comprises your 'case' for conspiracy, isn't going to precisely jibe.
Nor does the physical evidence.
>> The physical evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Oswald as the
>> shooter that day.
No, it isn't. The evidence that the WC was willing to *ADMIT* to - was indeed.
But burying contrary evidence, and pretending that it doesn't exist is a poor
way to deal with reality.
>> One needs to invent alternative scenarios, and claim
>> all of the evidence is planted, forged, altered, destroyed, covered-
>> up, and so on, to exonerate Oswald.
Not so.
>> As acj. poster Bud has said, it's either Oswald alone, or thousands
>> trying to make it look like Oswald alone. Take your pick.
Commonly known as a "strawman" argument.
>> As far as posting links to evidence, etc. I certainly have done so.
>> I've looked up Warren Commission testimony or linked to different bits
>> of information in my posts to bolster a point, but it really is rather
>> fruitless.
Citing the evidence is never fruitless... there are trolls that aren't willing
to admit the evidence... but lurkers pay attention.
>> People like you and Rossley or Gil Jesus or David Healy or
>> whomever all think the whole case is a falsified/phony-baloney
>> whitewash, and everyone was 'in' on 'it'.
Attributing such falsities to those who debate against you is, perhaps, good
"debating" technique, but poor honesty.
>> It does no good to point out
>> what some witness said to the WC when your side claims the FBI
>> intimidated witnesses and altered their testimony.
It does no good to continually repost THE EYEWITNESSES THEMSELVES CLAIMING
INTIMIDATION, when trolls such as Chuckie will run from it. (Toddy too, come to
think of it.)
>> It does no good to
>> link to tests that have shown that firing three shots in the time most
>> people agree comprised of the shooting sequence is easily feasible,
Yet couldn't be performed by vastly better qualified shooters utilizing the
Carcano...
>> when your side doesn't even believe Oswald fired all the shots, or any
>> shots, or that shots were fired from the knoll, sewer, Dal-Tex
>> building, limo (Gil Jesus implies that Governor Connally shot JFK)
>> etc.
>>
>> David Von Pein just schooled you on JFK's back wound by linking to
>> some HSCA evidence.
The idea of a troll "schooling" a CT'er on evidence is amusing!
>> Did it change your mind? I doubt it. Why? It
>> doesn't fit in with your preconceived notion of what happened.
>>
>> This is going to sound mighty simplistic, but here are a few final
>> points:
>>
>> 1.) If there was a big conspiracy on 11/22/63 that the government
>> participated in or tried to cover up, we'd have known about it-in
>> detail-by now.
We do. Many people have talked... tis that simple.
>> People blab. It's that simple.
Yep, it is. An entire book has been written on the people who *did* talk.
>> As Bugliosi is fond of
>> saying, three people can keep a secret-but only if two of them are
>> dead.
Is this the same Bugliosi who argued in court that JFK and RFK were
conspiracies?
>> 2.) If there was a small conspiracy on 11/22/63, say Oswald was the
>> shooter but a few people or a group put him up to it, we'd know about
>> that also...the USG would've ruthlessly ferreted this conspiracy out,
>> and heads would've literally rolled.
How could this have happened? Within a day or two, it was already officially
"decided" that one "lone nut" accomplished this murder. This, before any
testimony was taken, any physical evidence examined in detail... etc.
>> 3.) Killing the POTUS with the cast of characters allegedly involved
>> on 11/22/63 is ridiculous on its face.
Sadly, simply not true. History shows us *many* examples of coup de'etats...
>> Trying to coordinate a
>> "triangulation of fire" from the grassy knoll, altering evidence-I
>> could name a thousand things that could go wrong-is absurd.
Yet you can't refute the actual evidence... why is speculation your forte,
rather than the actual evidence?
>> JFK's
>> morning coffee could've been poisoned instead, or a scandal could've
>> been leaked to try and weaken him politically or force him from
>> office. At the very least, the conspirators could've waited 11 months
>> to even see if he'd have won his reelection attempt.
Or he could have had the wrong medication given, or he could have had a
helicopter malfunction right over his limo, or he could have "drowned" in his
bathtub. You can create these sorts of speculations endlessly.
But the evidence will still be staring you in the face at the end of the day.
>> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
What's "extraordinary" about conspiracies? Perhaps you should ask President
Lincoln about conspiracies.
>> If you have this
>> proof of conspiracy, you should be able to get the case reopened.
Ask those who covered it up to reopen the case? How silly!
>> You have nothing. Your theories are laughed at by all sane people that
>> post here.
Sadly, polls demonstrate otherwise.
>> I post here because its silly and fun to see how out-to-lunch some of
>> you people are with your wacky, goofball theories-your theory that a
>> guy was hiding in the sewer along the motorcade route is hilarious.
>> Healy's theory that Abraham Zapruder was actually impersonated is
>> nutty beyond belief. Gil Jesus and his implication that Connally
>> whipped out a pistol and fired a shot at JFK is so beyond the pale
>> absurd that it defies all reason. It's =EF=BF=BDinteresting to me how
>> otherwise sane people with families, jobs, budgets to balance,
>> mortgage payments to make and the like, can live in this world so
>> clueless about simple truth. Occam's Razor. Sh*t happens, even if you
>> are President of the United States. Random, senseless violence with no
>> real meaning.
>>
>> Bottom line? A man in a building shot a man (men) in a car.
Bottom line? Trolls and LNT'ers run from the evidence everyday...
>> Sadly, people like you have ruined the legacy JFK tried to leave. When
>> people think of JFK, they automatically think about his brains being
>> blown all over Dealey Plaza and all of the wigged-out, weird theories
>> behind his death. It gets connected to UFO's, the assassination of
>> Bhutto, 9/11/01...it's an incredibly bewildering circus of theories,
>> shooters, connections, etc.
Unfortunately for you and your truthfulness, most people, as polls show, who
*DO* believe in a conspiracy in the JFK case, are not believers in all the wacky
stuff you're trying to use to whitewash this case.
>> You certainly don't need to 'earn' my respect, nor are you attempting
>> to gain it, but after 44 years, it's time for you to take a fresh look
>> at this. Regardless about your feelings about a guy hidden in the
>> sewer firing at JFK, you need some real proof. You don't have it. If
>> you did, you could get the case reopened.
The "real proof" is being posted or cited here everyday. You run from it.
>> You're not a researcher, you are a hobbyist. Nothing wrong with that,
>> its just time you grew up and realized it. Maybe it's time to stop
>> inflicting the senseless pain on the Kennedy family legacy that people
>> of your ilk have been guilty of.
>>
>> I know every word I've just written is utterly unconvincing to you.
Of course it is! We know trolls and liars for what they are.
>> As I said, your 'belief' in conspiracy is probably the overriding
>> constant in your life. You've built friendships around it. Posted
>> YouTube videos about it. You've come to see yourself as smarter than
>> the rest of us because of your special abilities to see what all of
>> the crooked politicians and FBI agents tried to suppress.
>>
>> The JFK assassination is your church. I'd have an easier time
>> convincing a Muslim that Mohammad invented Islam than convincing you
>> that you live in a great country that honored JFK by accurately
>> getting to the bottom about who assassinated him.
Garbage...
>---> Outstanding, simply outstanding. Thank you for injecting some
>common sense and sanity into the discussion.
"common sense and sanity"... I note that LNT'ers & trolls are always referring
to 'CS & L', but never the evidence.
>Too bad some will
>probably rally against you and what you wrote instead of stepping back
>and considering what they are doing ... and why. Truth seekers are
>rarely so angry, despairing and disgruntled.
LOL!!! The "angry, dispairing, and disgruntled" are all trolls & LNT'ers...
We recognize liars when we see them.
Care to try responding to the actual evidence?
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <6c6f25fe-c422-4f56...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> johni...@aol.com says...
> >
> >On Jan 16, 3:47=EF=BF=BDpm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 16, 9:17 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Chuck, you need to change your schtick. It hasn't changed since your
> >> > first post to this newsgroup.
> >>
> >> > As always, you don't post a single piece of evidence, testimony, or
> >> > reason. You simply assert that all the evidence supports your theory,
> >> > with no justification whatsoever.
> >>
> >> > Promotion is indeed, my weak point however. I will give you that. For
> >> > the first time, I am working on it.
> >>
> >> > Robert Harris
> >>
> >> This is what is EXASPERATING about dealing with people like yourself,
> >> Bob.
> >>
> >> I make no pretense about being a "JFK Researcher", like you do. In
> >> fact, I'll go so far as to state that I have no special insights on
> >> the case or special knowledge about the case. You can run rings around
> >> me in terms of your overall education about arcane trivia about the
> >> events on/surrounding 11/22/63.
>
>
> No problem here... asserting that you aren't a scholar of evidential minutia is
> not a problem.
Especially when that minutia has precious little to do with
determining what occurred.
> >> The difference between the two of us is that I KNOW I have nothing
> >> further to add to understanding 11/22/63, and you, wrapped in your own
> >> grandiosity of being a "JFK researcher", are under the DELUSION that
> >> YOU have something further to add to 11/22/63. You don't. You're just
> >> a guy with a computer, access to YouTube, and too much time on your
> >> hands, apparently.
> >>
> >> I'm comfortable that all of the major investigations got this right. I
> >> can add nothing to what the FBI and Warren Commission, DPD, etc. did
> >> to reach a conclusion of Oswald's guilt. A simple reading of the WCR
> >> is enough to figure out who killed JFK. It isn't perfect, but its
> >> pretty darn good.
>
> Yet here's the problem... This troll has admitted that he's not conversant with
> the evidence,
Yah, this is the problem, you kooks misrepresenting information.
That is *not* what Chuck said, that it what you read into what he
wrote. His intention (as I read it), was that Bob Harris would
outscore him in a game of trivia about the event. That you read that
as an admission of ignorance illustrates the thinks the kook brain
does with information it get ahold of. It must twist, distort and
misrepresent information, it cannot honestly consider it.
> then goes on to make the sweeping generalization that based on
> what small part he does know - others who he ASSERTS knows more about the case
> are wrong.
Funny that Ben would constantly tout the opinions of the American
public, few of whom know as much about the case as Chuck does.
Consistency isn`t a kook long suit.
> Sorta like saying, "Yeah, I'm not a practicing physician, but you're doing that
> brain surgery all wrong!"
It may seem this way, after you misrepresent his intentions.
Otherwise, it`s just another fallacy by a kook.
> All you've really said is that you have faith in what little facts you know of
> the case - and are unwilling to go any further to defend those facts.
Not what he said at all, but what you read into what he wrote. You
can`t help it.
> >> You may think I'm too trusting of the government-I'm not. But I'm
> >> smart enough to know that what happened on 11/22/63 was, at its core,
> >> simple. One bullet missed. One bullet tore through JFK and struck
> >> Connally, =EF=BF=BDand one bullet blew JFK's brains out.
>
>
> Unfortunately, the evidence simply doesn't support this simplistic recreation.
Kook opinion.
> Perhaps *that's* the reason you aren't interested in learning more of the
> evidence... it simply doesn't fit your preconceived faith.
Kook opinion.
> >> I'm a big picture guy, meaning that I know evidence, especially
> >> eyewitness evidence, which is notoriously poor and predominately
> >> comprises your 'case' for conspiracy, isn't going to precisely jibe.
>
> Nor does the physical evidence.
Kook opinion.
> >> The physical evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Oswald as the
> >> shooter that day.
>
> No, it isn't. The evidence that the WC was willing to *ADMIT* to - was indeed.
>
> But burying contrary evidence, and pretending that it doesn't exist is a poor
> way to deal with reality.
Kook opinion.
> >> One needs to invent alternative scenarios, and claim
> >> all of the evidence is planted, forged, altered, destroyed, covered-
> >> up, and so on, to exonerate Oswald.
>
> Not so.
<snicker> The kooks don`t *need* to do this, they just do.
> >> As acj. poster Bud has said, it's either Oswald alone, or thousands
> >> trying to make it look like Oswald alone. Take your pick.
>
>
> Commonly known as a "strawman" argument.
Kook opinion. Can`t blame you for not disputing the point though,
that Bud is pretty darn clever.
> >> As far as posting links to evidence, etc. I certainly have done so.
> >> I've looked up Warren Commission testimony or linked to different bits
> >> of information in my posts to bolster a point, but it really is rather
> >> fruitless.
>
> Citing the evidence is never fruitless... there are trolls that aren't willing
> to admit the evidence... but lurkers pay attention.
Kook opinion.
> >> People like you and Rossley or Gil Jesus or David Healy or
> >> whomever all think the whole case is a falsified/phony-baloney
> >> whitewash, and everyone was 'in' on 'it'.
>
> Attributing such falsities to those who debate against you is, perhaps, good
> "debating" technique, but poor honesty.
How can the truth be dishonest? Are you claiming the above
mentioned people don`t believe the whole case is a falsified/phoney
baloney whitewash? Seemed an accurate chracterization to me.
> >> It does no good to point out
> >> what some witness said to the WC when your side claims the FBI
> >> intimidated witnesses and altered their testimony.
>
> It does no good to continually repost THE EYEWITNESSES THEMSELVES CLAIMING
> INTIMIDATION, when trolls such as Chuckie will run from it. (Toddy too, come to
> think of it.)
But, as is the norm, what you present is not what you need. What
you need is support for what you kooks believe, that witnesses were
widely made to say things they knew to be untrue. Do you expect to
garner support for that premise any time soon?
> >> It does no good to
> >> link to tests that have shown that firing three shots in the time most
> >> people agree comprised of the shooting sequence is easily feasible,
>
>
> Yet couldn't be performed by vastly better qualified shooters utilizing the
> Carcano...
Did any of the test firers match the results of any of the other
test firers?
> >> when your side doesn't even believe Oswald fired all the shots, or any
> >> shots, or that shots were fired from the knoll, sewer, Dal-Tex
> >> building, limo (Gil Jesus implies that Governor Connally shot JFK)
> >> etc.
> >>
> >> David Von Pein just schooled you on JFK's back wound by linking to
> >> some HSCA evidence.
>
> The idea of a troll "schooling" a CT'er on evidence is amusing!
I enjoy it also.
> >> Did it change your mind? I doubt it. Why? It
> >> doesn't fit in with your preconceived notion of what happened.
> >>
> >> This is going to sound mighty simplistic, but here are a few final
> >> points:
> >>
> >> 1.) If there was a big conspiracy on 11/22/63 that the government
> >> participated in or tried to cover up, we'd have known about it-in
> >> detail-by now.
>
> We do. Many people have talked... tis that simple.
What did they say. Did they offer any leads that could be followed.
Were their stories corroborated by others? Talking isn`t uncommon in
high profile cases, it`s useful talking that is needed.
> >> People blab. It's that simple.
>
> Yep, it is. An entire book has been written on the people who *did* talk.
Apparently they had nothing to offer, as no breakthroughs resulted.
Where are the elves, the hands on conspiracy people the kooks see
signs of everywhere they look?
> >> As Bugliosi is fond of
> >> saying, three people can keep a secret-but only if two of them are
> >> dead.
>
>
> Is this the same Bugliosi who argued in court that JFK and RFK were
> conspiracies?
In court, a lawyer`s job is representing his client.
> >> 2.) If there was a small conspiracy on 11/22/63, say Oswald was the
> >> shooter but a few people or a group put him up to it, we'd know about
> >> that also...the USG would've ruthlessly ferreted this conspiracy out,
> >> and heads would've literally rolled.
>
>
> How could this have happened? Within a day or two, it was already officially
> "decided" that one "lone nut" accomplished this murder. This, before any
> testimony was taken, any physical evidence examined in detail... etc.
Oswald did the deciding, they only did the discovering and
determining.I think things became apparent to the investigation that
have baffled kooks for years, things like him killing a cop, trying to
kill the arresting officers, and just his general loner personality.
> >> 3.) Killing the POTUS with the cast of characters allegedly involved
> >> on 11/22/63 is ridiculous on its face.
>
> Sadly, simply not true. History shows us *many* examples of coup de'etats...
That doesn`t speak to this case, or Chuck`s point. The kooks
outline a huge conspiracy, but it never occurs to them that that is
what they are doing. It becomes absurd, yet the absurdity doesn`t
appear on kook radar. It`s not the elephant in the room, it`s the
large pile of elephants in the room.
> >> Trying to coordinate a
> >> "triangulation of fire" from the grassy knoll, altering evidence-I
> >> could name a thousand things that could go wrong-is absurd.
>
> Yet you can't refute the actual evidence... why is speculation your forte,
> rather than the actual evidence?
Because when kooks like yourself say "actual evidence", you really
mean kook misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the evidence. DVP
is arguing with Harris where the bullet hole is JFK`s back is. DVP
prefers where it really was, Harris prefers another location. Whats to
argue?
> >> JFK's
> >> morning coffee could've been poisoned instead, or a scandal could've
> >> been leaked to try and weaken him politically or force him from
> >> office. At the very least, the conspirators could've waited 11 months
> >> to even see if he'd have won his reelection attempt.
>
> Or he could have had the wrong medication given, or he could have had a
> helicopter malfunction right over his limo, or he could have "drowned" in his
> bathtub. You can create these sorts of speculations endlessly.
Why wouldn`t Hoover, who doubtlessly had dirt on JFK, just release
the dirt? A bullet in the press would have been just as lethal to his
career.
> But the evidence will still be staring you in the face at the end of the day.
That none of these easier methods were used was probably because
Oswald didn`t have the means to carry them out. Shooting from a
building did the trick for him.
> >> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
>
>
> What's "extraordinary" about conspiracies? Perhaps you should ask President
> Lincoln about conspiracies.
You notice that with real conspiracies, you can determine real
details about how the conspiractors met, where they plotted, thier
plans, even what they had for breakfast. It`s more difficult with
imaginary ones.
> >> If you have this
> >> proof of conspiracy, you should be able to get the case reopened.
>
>
> Ask those who covered it up to reopen the case? How silly!
There you have it, folks. Kooks are thwarted because the world is
against them.
> >> You have nothing. Your theories are laughed at by all sane people that
> >> post here.
>
>
> Sadly, polls demonstrate otherwise.
You`ve seem opinion polls taken about the theories you kooks present
here?
> >> I post here because its silly and fun to see how out-to-lunch some of
> >> you people are with your wacky, goofball theories-your theory that a
> >> guy was hiding in the sewer along the motorcade route is hilarious.
> >> Healy's theory that Abraham Zapruder was actually impersonated is
> >> nutty beyond belief. Gil Jesus and his implication that Connally
> >> whipped out a pistol and fired a shot at JFK is so beyond the pale
> >> absurd that it defies all reason. It's =EF=BF=BDinteresting to me how
> >> otherwise sane people with families, jobs, budgets to balance,
> >> mortgage payments to make and the like, can live in this world so
> >> clueless about simple truth. Occam's Razor. Sh*t happens, even if you
> >> are President of the United States. Random, senseless violence with no
> >> real meaning.
> >>
> >> Bottom line? A man in a building shot a man (men) in a car.
>
>
> Bottom line? Trolls and LNT'ers run from the evidence everyday...
Kooks run from the simple truth Chuck presented. "Anything but the
official version!" is the kook rallying cry.
> >> Sadly, people like you have ruined the legacy JFK tried to leave. When
> >> people think of JFK, they automatically think about his brains being
> >> blown all over Dealey Plaza and all of the wigged-out, weird theories
> >> behind his death. It gets connected to UFO's, the assassination of
> >> Bhutto, 9/11/01...it's an incredibly bewildering circus of theories,
> >> shooters, connections, etc.
>
>
> Unfortunately for you and your truthfulness, most people, as polls show, who
> *DO* believe in a conspiracy in the JFK case, are not believers in all the wacky
> stuff you're trying to use to whitewash this case.
I think you`d be hard pressed to find a person who believes in
UFOs, or a 9-11 conspiracy who doesn`t believe JFK was killed by a
conspiracy.
> >> You certainly don't need to 'earn' my respect, nor are you attempting
> >> to gain it, but after 44 years, it's time for you to take a fresh look
> >> at this. Regardless about your feelings about a guy hidden in the
> >> sewer firing at JFK, you need some real proof. You don't have it. If
> >> you did, you could get the case reopened.
>
>
> The "real proof" is being posted or cited here everyday. You run from it.
You hide from rebuttal. You won`t see my response here, unless a
bootlicking crack addict responds. You`re a pussy who makes claims you
refuse to support.
> >> You're not a researcher, you are a hobbyist. Nothing wrong with that,
> >> its just time you grew up and realized it. Maybe it's time to stop
> >> inflicting the senseless pain on the Kennedy family legacy that people
> >> of your ilk have been guilty of.
> >>
> >> I know every word I've just written is utterly unconvincing to you.
>
>
> Of course it is! We know trolls and liars for what they are.
>
>
> >> As I said, your 'belief' in conspiracy is probably the overriding
> >> constant in your life. You've built friendships around it. Posted
> >> YouTube videos about it. You've come to see yourself as smarter than
> >> the rest of us because of your special abilities to see what all of
> >> the crooked politicians and FBI agents tried to suppress.
> >>
> >> The JFK assassination is your church. I'd have an easier time
> >> convincing a Muslim that Mohammad invented Islam than convincing you
> >> that you live in a great country that honored JFK by accurately
> >> getting to the bottom about who assassinated him.
>
>
> Garbage...
That how the truth looks to kooks. Like garbage.
> >---> Outstanding, simply outstanding. Thank you for injecting some
> >common sense and sanity into the discussion.
>
> "common sense and sanity"... I note that LNT'ers & trolls are always referring
> to 'CS & L', but never the evidence.
The problems with this case aren`t in the evidence. They lie with
the kooks looking at the evidence.
> >Too bad some will
> >probably rally against you and what you wrote instead of stepping back
> >and considering what they are doing ... and why. Truth seekers are
> >rarely so angry, despairing and disgruntled.
>
> LOL!!! The "angry, dispairing, and disgruntled" are all trolls & LNT'ers...
Killfile them all, Ben.
> We recognize liars when we see them.
Like any good kook, you see things as lies that are not.
> Care to try responding to the actual evidence?
Are there any kooks capable of sustaining an honest discussion of
the evidence?
tomnln
Chuckie comes to "conclusions" Before gathering all of the Facts.
"Chuck Schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:e163c56a-41d9-4d02...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
On Jan 16, 11:35 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> TRANSLATION;
>
> Chuckie comes to "conclusions" Before gathering all of the Facts.
The standard is reasonable doubt.
Oswald would've been convicted after a shot trial.
Heck, you can't even admit that the infamous Three Tramps were just
tramps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunt's own son said it was Hunt.
Heck, you won't even address your own evidence/testimony>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
Tell us the Point of Origin that CE-399 was Found?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/john_connally.htm
Then tell us what happened to the Other 3 bullets found?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Schuyler
> Hunt's own son said it was Hunt.
> Heck, you won't even address your own evidence/testimony>>>
I thought you only included official evidence/testimony Rossley. Is
Hunt's son coming forward after his dad's death considered 'official'
evidence/testimony?
> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
>
> Tell us the Point of Origin that CE-399 was Found?>>>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/john_connally.htm
>
> Then tell us what happened to the Other 3 bullets found?
>
What in the world are you talking about? To listen to your side,
Connally was shedding bullets like candy from a Pez dispenser.
Are you actually so stupid as to argue that Connally was shot multiple
times?
You don't even have the most basic, elementary parts of the case down.
tomnln
*********************
Is this your Denial that JBC said the bullet fell out of his leg & picked up
by a nurse?
Is this your Denial that Nellie Said that the Dr.s "Extracted" the bullet
from JBC's leg?
Is this your Denial that the WC said it was a "Round Nosed bullet?
Is this your Denial that O P Wright said it was a "Pointed Nosed bullet"?
WHICHEVER one it Really "IS".....
WHERE are the OTHER THREE?????
This Proves that the WCR is a LIED.
Lying about a Murder is a Felony.
ALL statements are from Principals in the case
AND, You're Stuck with them.
WHY do you Repeatedly RUN from these official issues???
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
1 WC submitted CE-399
2 "Pointed bullet" handled by Parkland Parkland Security O. P. Wright
3 Bullet that fell on the floor of JBC's operating room
4 Bullet "EXTRACTED" by Dr from JBC's leg
ALL found HERE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/john_connally.htm
1 Do you wanna call Frazier a Liar?
2 Do you wanna call O P Wright a Liar?
3 Do you wanna call JBC a Liar?
4 Do you wanna call Nellie a Liar?
Are ALL of them Liars?
Are YOU a Liar?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Schuyler
> Is this your Denial that JBC said the bullet fell out of his leg & picked up
> by a nurse?
> Is this your Denial that Nellie Said that the Dr.s "Extracted" the bullet
> from JBC's leg?
> Is this your Denial that the WC said it was a "Round Nosed bullet?
> Is this your Denial that O P Wright said it was a "Pointed Nosed bullet"?
>
> WHICHEVER one it Really "IS".....
>
> WHERE are the OTHER THREE?????
>
> This Proves that the WCR is a LIED.
> Lying about a Murder is a Felony.
>
> ALL statements are from Principals in the case
> AND, You're Stuck with them.
>
> WHY do you Repeatedly RUN from these official issues???
I'm not running. I'm pointing out that you are asserting that
Connally, based on your insane interpretation of things, was shot
multiple times.
And that makes you look like an even bigger fool than you are, if
that's even possible.
Are you agreeing he was only shot one time and that there is a
discrepancy in the statements you listed? Answer the question.
C'mon, this isn't too tough-even for someone of your limited
abilities.
Man-up and give us an answer without referring us to your Kennedy
dishonoring, cheap, clownish website with the cartoon blood splatter
marks that I guess are supposed to represent JFK's head at Z313.
tomnln
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JBC's Dr. said he was hit by more than one bullet.
You FEAR your own evidence/testimony.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Harris
<e163c56a-41d9-4d02...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 9:17 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Chuck, you need to change your schtick. It hasn't changed since your
> > first post to this newsgroup.
> >
> > As always, you don't post a single piece of evidence, testimony, or
> > reason. You simply assert that all the evidence supports your theory,
> > with no justification whatsoever.
> >
> > Promotion is indeed, my weak point however. I will give you that. For
> > the first time, I am working on it.
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
>
> This is what is EXASPERATING about dealing with people like yourself,
> Bob.
I'm sorry you are exasperated, because I point out that you have not
supported your arguments with evidence or logic.
The solution to the problem, is NOT to give me another lecture. It is to
take a harder look at the evidence.
>
> I make no pretense about being a "JFK Researcher", like you do. In
> fact, I'll go so far as to state that I have no special insights on
> the case or special knowledge about the case. You can run rings around
> me in terms of your overall education about arcane trivia about the
> events on/surrounding 11/22/63.
I appreciate your admission, Chuck. But why don't you do a little more
research and learn more about the case? You don't need to memorize any
arcane facts or trivia, to do so.
Would you like me to suggest a couple of very simple projects that you
can do, which will take no more than an hour or two?
>
> The difference between the two of us is that I KNOW I have nothing
> further to add to understanding 11/22/63,
Well, of course you don't. You just said you have made no effort to
research the case.
> and you, wrapped in your own
> grandiosity of being a "JFK researcher", are under the DELUSION that
> YOU have something further to add to 11/22/63.
There is nothing grandiose about research, Chuck. I'm sure you know that
too, and you just used that verbiage to insult me, right:-)
> You don't. You're just
> a guy with a computer, access to YouTube, and too much time on your
> hands, apparently.
And of course, for the umpteenth dozenth time, you cannot produce a
single justification for your claim that you are right and I am wrong.
Is that correct?
>
> I'm comfortable that all of the major investigations got this right.
Really??
But how did you get "comfortable" with the HSCA's conclusion that JFK
was the victim of a conspiracy?
And how did you become convinced that they both got the shooting
scenario correct, when they disagreed on every shot that was fired that
day, except 312??
Chuck, tell us the truth. Didn't you just say that because you thought
it sounded nice:-)
> I
> can add nothing to what the FBI and Warren Commission, DPD, etc. did
> to reach a conclusion of Oswald's guilt. A simple reading of the WCR
> is enough to figure out who killed JFK. It isn't perfect, but its
> pretty darn good.
>
> You may think I'm too trusting of the government-
NO CHUCK!!
You got that dead wrong. The simple truth is, that I don't think about
you or your ilk at all.
Nor do I attempt to substitute ad hominem insults for an honest
assessment of this crime, as you do.
If I stopped to think about you at all, I would have to conclude that
you are the victim of your self-confessed ignorance about the case.
And I would suggest that if you are too fucking lazy to do the research,
you have no business lecturing those who are not.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
I know you were speaking to Chuck above, but I'm going to chime in
anyway (sue me).....
I've got a question for Robert Harris:
At what point, in your opinion, should a person like Chuck or myself
(or anybody, really) say to themselves: "Enough is enough
already....the CTers have had 44 years to prove their case for
conspiracy and have failed to do so (miserably)....so, close the
book....Oswald did it by himself"??
Or is it the opinion of conspiracy theorists that the above position
should NEVER EVER be taken by anyone (no matter how many Brian David
Andersens or Dan Robertsons or Jim Garrisons or David Liftons or Bob
Harrises crop up in the future, peddling unsupportable theories about
the case)?
Just curious to know how many theories are TOO many in the "JFK
Conspiracy" world?
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> In article
> <e163c56a-41d9-4d02...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 16, 9:17 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Chuck, you need to change your schtick. It hasn't changed since your
> > > first post to this newsgroup.
> > >
> > > As always, you don't post a single piece of evidence, testimony, or
> > > reason. You simply assert that all the evidence supports your theory,
> > > with no justification whatsoever.
> > >
> > > Promotion is indeed, my weak point however. I will give you that. For
> > > the first time, I am working on it.
> > >
> > > Robert Harris
> >
> >
> > This is what is EXASPERATING about dealing with people like yourself,
> > Bob.
>
> I'm sorry you are exasperated, because I point out that you have not
> supported your arguments with evidence or logic.
>
> The solution to the problem, is NOT to give me another lecture. It is to
> take a harder look at the evidence.
The ancients looked so hard at the stars, they convinced themselves
they saw men and animals. You can convince yourself that things align
themselves into patterns by looking hard at them. You`d be hard
pressed to produce one photo or piece of evidence in this case that
the kooks can`t discern signs of conspiracy in. Even if there was a
onspiracy it would be unlikely to be contained in every aspect. That
it is seen in every aspect by kooks, yet the conspiracy remains
uncovered should be enough to convince a thinking person that the
conspiracy as outlined by the kooks could not exist.
> > I make no pretense about being a "JFK Researcher", like you do. In
> > fact, I'll go so far as to state that I have no special insights on
> > the case or special knowledge about the case. You can run rings around
> > me in terms of your overall education about arcane trivia about the
> > events on/surrounding 11/22/63.
>
> I appreciate your admission, Chuck. But why don't you do a little more
> research and learn more about the case? You don't need to memorize any
> arcane facts or trivia, to do so.
All you need to do is believe impossible things are commonplace,
even if they can`t be shown.
> Would you like me to suggest a couple of very simple projects that you
> can do, which will take no more than an hour or two?
With a few simple exercises, you can get your head up your own ass
like the kooks have done to thenselves.
> > The difference between the two of us is that I KNOW I have nothing
> > further to add to understanding 11/22/63,
>
> Well, of course you don't. You just said you have made no effort to
> research the case.
Actually, that goes a long way to explain how you arrive at the
places you get to. You totally misunderstand and misrepresent
information, and proceed off your own mistaken impressions. Chuck said
the exact opposite of what you are ascribing to him in this very post,
he says he has looked up WC testimony and evidence and linked to it.
In any case, it seems to me that what you are suggesting is that
the way to get to the bottom of this event is to give everyone a
general knowledge test given of the event, and the conclusions of the
person who scores the highest be accepted as what to what occurred.
What a strange approach.
> > and you, wrapped in your own
> > grandiosity of being a "JFK researcher", are under the DELUSION that
> > YOU have something further to add to 11/22/63.
>
> There is nothing grandiose about research, Chuck. I'm sure you know that
> too, and you just used that verbiage to insult me, right:-)
He used those words to make a point. Research can only uncover what
is contained in the evidential record. It`s what people do with that
information where the disputes lie. Two people can look at the same
evidence, say the photo of JFK`s back wound, and conclude different
things. Two people draw completely different conclusions about the
same evidence, and they support their positions by researching and
presenting different portions of the evidence. What has been
accomplished? And what does your opinion matter about this, you
weren`t appointed to investigate it. You can believe it isn`t a photo
of Kennedy`s back, or that the photo show two, or no bullet wounds if
you like. You are, as Chuck pointed out, a hobbyist operating
according to your own whims and amusement.
> > You don't. You're just
> > a guy with a computer, access to YouTube, and too much time on your
> > hands, apparently.
>
> And of course, for the umpteenth dozenth time, you cannot produce a
> single justification for your claim that you are right and I am wrong.
Do you see this as what he was trying to accomplish with this post?
> Is that correct?
>
> >
> > I'm comfortable that all of the major investigations got this right.
>
> Really??
>
> But how did you get "comfortable" with the HSCA's conclusion that JFK
> was the victim of a conspiracy?
I don`t know about Chuck, but I`m not uncomfortable with any
opinion that has Oz responsible for the shots that did the damage to
the occupants of the limo. If someone wants to believe someone else
fired and missed everything, like the HSCA concluded, I don`t have a
big problem with that. The person who believed such a thing would
merely be wrong, whereas anyone who thinks Oz didn`t shoot at the limo
is constructing a revisionist fantasy.
> And how did you become convinced that they both got the shooting
> scenario correct, when they disagreed on every shot that was fired that
> day, except 312??
Have you ever heard of a murder case where it was necessary to
determine the precise sixteenth of a second a bullet was fired?
> Chuck, tell us the truth. Didn't you just say that because you thought
> it sounded nice:-)
The truth is like that.
> > I
> > can add nothing to what the FBI and Warren Commission, DPD, etc. did
> > to reach a conclusion of Oswald's guilt. A simple reading of the WCR
> > is enough to figure out who killed JFK. It isn't perfect, but its
> > pretty darn good.
> >
> > You may think I'm too trusting of the government-
>
>
> NO CHUCK!!
>
> You got that dead wrong. The simple truth is, that I don't think about
> you or your ilk at all.
>
> Nor do I attempt to substitute ad hominem insults for an honest
> assessment of this crime, as you do.
>
> If I stopped to think about you at all, I would have to conclude that
> you are the victim of your self-confessed ignorance about the case.
>
> And I would suggest that if you are too fucking lazy to do the research,
> you have no business lecturing those who are not.
<snicker> Touchy, I guess Chuck stuck a nerve calling Bobbo a
hobbyist. Can`t that fool see he is really a Crusader for Truth?
Chuck Schuyler
On Jan 19, 9:05 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry you are exasperated, because I point out that you have not
> supported your arguments with evidence or logic.
You may have read what I wrote, but you certainly didn't do a very
good job comprehending it.
Every major investigation has concluded Oswald was the shooter. The
HSCA thought there was a fourth shot-and that it must have missed
everything and everyone. The acoustics study that led to that
conclusion has been debunked.
>
> The solution to the problem, is NOT to give me another lecture. It is to
> take a harder look at the evidence.
*sigh*
We know 99.9% about this case that we are going to know. Unless you
think there is some sort of smoking gun memo buried somewhere,
Oswald's guilt is definitive.
> > I make no pretense about being a "JFK Researcher", like you do. In
> > fact, I'll go so far as to state that I have no special insights on
> > the case or special knowledge about the case. You can run rings around
> > me in terms of your overall education about arcane trivia about the
> > events on/surrounding 11/22/63.
>
> I appreciate your admission, Chuck. But why don't you do a little more
> research and learn more about the case? You don't need to memorize any
> arcane facts or trivia, to do so.
So more 'research' is the answer, huh? The problem with kooks is that
they just can't get it through their skulls that finding a rifle
belonging to someone, and bullets that wounded the victims and match
the rifle is usually enough "research" to convict. Of course, this is
just a fraction of the evidence arrayed against Oswald. Together, it
is so powerful that kooks need to imagine Mausers, planted palmprints,
planted paperbags with fibers consistent with the blanket the rifle
was wrapped in, etc.
>
> Would you like me to suggest a couple of very simple projects that you
> can do, which will take no more than an hour or two?
If you're going to tell me to go to Dallas and crouch in that sewer,
the answer is no. Otherwise, suggest away. You emailed me a video you
narrated a few years ago, and I wasn't convinced of a Z285 shot.
Sorry.
> > The difference between the two of us is that I KNOW I have nothing
> > further to add to understanding 11/22/63,
>
> Well, of course you don't. You just said you have made no effort to
> research the case.
That isn't what I said, but you are a CT'er, so you'll read your own
insights into it.
>
> > and you, wrapped in your own
> > grandiosity of being a "JFK researcher", are under the DELUSION that
> > YOU have something further to add to 11/22/63.
>
> There is nothing grandiose about research, Chuck. I'm sure you know that
> too, and you just used that verbiage to insult me, right:-)
That isn't what I said (again). I said you are wrapped in your own
grandiosity of being a "JFK researcher".
Research is wonderful. You haven't done any. If you had, and if it
were convincing, you'd get the case reopened. You are a guy who has
posted a lot of stuff on discussion boards, made some YouTube videos,
read some books and rented the movie JFK a bunch of times. Do you have
any peer reviewed scientific studies that refute the forensic evidence
or SBT, for example? Please point me to it, and I'll gladly read it
with an open mind. If you don't have some real bona fides by now,
admit this is a hobby. A diversion.
>
> And of course, for the umpteenth dozenth time, you cannot produce a
> single justification for your claim that you are right and I am wrong.
>
> Is that correct?
In the mind of you, a kook, no. Of course not. There isn't anything in
heaven or hell that would convince you of Oswald's sole guilt. The oft
repeated joke about God telling the kook at the Pearly Gates that it
was Oswald alone, and the kook gasp that this thing is even bigger
than we thought, is an accurate barometer of how wigged-out you people
are. Admit it , Bob...there isn't one statement or scrap of evidence
that I could link to or cite that would make you rethink your sacred
position.
You are beyond being a conspiracy theorist. You are what I would
describe as an Unreachable. Someone entirely immune from any fact,
document, book, study or whatever that would get you to look at this
in a different way.
> > I'm comfortable that all of the major investigations got this right.
>
> Really??
Really.
>
> But how did you get "comfortable" with the HSCA's conclusion that JFK
> was the victim of a conspiracy?
As you know, they found that Oswald was the shooter that delivered the
shots. In the waning days of the HSCA's life, an acoustics study found
that a fourth shot from the knoll missed everything. This study has
been demolished.
>
> And how did you become convinced that they both got the shooting
> scenario correct, when they disagreed on every shot that was fired that
> day, except 312??
I go along with a shot around 160, 224, and the fatal shot at 313. I'm
not wedded to this, but it seems the most plausible.
>
> Chuck, tell us the truth. Didn't you just say that because you thought
> it sounded nice:-)
> > I can add nothing to what the FBI and Warren Commission, DPD, etc. did
> > to reach a conclusion of Oswald's guilt. A simple reading of the WCR
> > is enough to figure out who killed JFK. It isn't perfect, but its
> > pretty darn good.
>
> > You may think I'm too trusting of the government-
>
> NO CHUCK!!
>
> You got that dead wrong. The simple truth is, that I don't think about
> you or your ilk at all.
Sure you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be trying to convince me that a
massive conspiracy murdered JFK.
>
> Nor do I attempt to substitute ad hominem insults for an honest
> assessment of this crime, as you do.
When you can honestly assess this crime, you'll be a lone nutter.
Oswald alone. It's a simple crime, turned into a clusterf*ck of
confusion by dolts like you that think some guy was crouched in a
Dallas sewer firing a rifle or pistol, or idiots like Gil Jesus who
implies that Connally whipped out a pistol and joined in on the
mayhem. And dismissing everything I wrote as ad hominem is a favorite
ploy of thin-skinned JFK "researchers" who have have no problem
smearing innocent cops, doctors, politicians, journalists and
ballistics experts, but immediately boo-hoo like little babies when
their silly, baseless, ridiculous theories are held to the light and
dissed for being the sham conclusions that they are.
> If I stopped to think about you at all, I would have to conclude that
> you are the victim of your self-confessed ignorance about the case.
If you stopped and really thought about the case at all, you wouldn't
be a CT'er.
One doesn't need to know every WC exhibit number or to have read every
wacky book to come to a conclusion of Oswald's guilt.
> And I would suggest that if you are too fucking lazy to do the research,
> you have no business lecturing those who are not.
> Robert Harris
You're not a researcher, Bob! You're a slightly paranoid middle-aged
guy that thinks you are smarter than all of the people that worked to
solve this. To you, 'they' were all careerists and feared for their
jobs if they spoke out, and you are pure as the wind-driven snow.
'They' all wanted JFK dead and a war in Vietnam, you are only after
the truth. 'They' felt threatened and intimidated by the FBI, and you
are courageous and brave. 'They' were willing to go along with the
dupes at CBS, NBC and ABC, but your voice will not be silenced! Your
theory is one of hundreds. Now....run along and watch the Zapruder
film for the millionth time to bask in the glory of your stunning
'discovery' of a shot at Z285.
I'll cap my post with one of these little dealies to show I'm a real
newsgroup pro, just like you;-)
Robert Harris
<3ceb2436-7423-406c...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Jan 19, 9:05 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 19, 9:05 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry you are exasperated, because I point out that you have not
> > supported your arguments with evidence or logic.
>
> You may have read what I wrote, but you certainly didn't do a very
> good job comprehending it.
No Chuck. I understood exactly what you said.
>
> Every major investigation has concluded Oswald was the shooter.
That's a false statement.
The WC concluded that they were not presented with evidence that proved
a conspiracy, which is not surprising, since the the FBI which was
tasked with researching the crime was operating under the instruction
that the "public must be convinced" that Oswald acted alone.
In fact, WC people publicly complained, about the FBI's refusal to
follow up on conspiracy leads. And today, we know that the FBI falsified
evidence and deliberately lied to the commission in order to carry out
Hoover's mandate to make it appear that Oswald acted alone.
And yet we KNOW from recorded phone conversations that both Hoover and
LBJ believed that multiple shooters were involved in the attack, at the
same time that Hoover was declaring that we they needed to convince the
public that a solitary nut carried out the attack.
The HSCA concluded that there was one other shooter involved in the
attack.
So, the truth is, that ZERO major investigations concluded that Oswald
was "the" shooter.
> The
> HSCA thought there was a fourth shot-and that it must have missed
> everything and everyone. The acoustics study that led to that
> conclusion has been debunked.
Yes, the acoustics study was flawed, but they found huge quantities of
evidence pointing to organized crime's involvement in the assassination.
> >
> > The solution to the problem, is NOT to give me another lecture. It is to
> > take a harder look at the evidence.
>
> *sigh*
>
> We know 99.9% about this case that we are going to know.
That's a bullshit answer.
It has been proven false a hundred times over. And even if it hadn't,
you have no business making such a claim after admitting that you
haven't lifted finger to research the crime.
> Unless you
> think there is some sort of smoking gun memo buried somewhere,
> Oswald's guilt is definitive.
Your demand that we trust the governments conclusions would normally be
reasonable, Chuck.
But this case was MUCH different than any other. The FBI went out of its
way to evade evidence of conspiracy and even falsified evidence, like
exhibit CE-399, to hide any possibility that others were involved in the
attack.
Furthermore, the HSCA and WC's theories about the shooting totally
contradicted one another. Jim Moore came along and in "Conspiracy of
One", contradicted both of the govt commissions, declaring that his
scenario was correct beyond all doubt.
Posner's theory, then contradicted all three of his predecessors.
But the FBI's policy alone, makes this case different than any other
major crime in American history. It removes all possible confidence that
any reasonable person could have, in their investigation.
And there's a LOT more we need to research - like why the CIA
deliberately lied in denying that they financed Oswald's trip to Russia
and then denied that they debriefed him on his return - a fact that was
clearly proven in the PBS documentary, WWLHO.
And why Oswald was practically in tears when he was refused a 4 day visa
to Cuba, at precisely the time, when the CIA was trying to assassinate
Castro with everything from poison cigars to bombs planted in seashells
- and why the CIA did everything in it's power, to cover up Oswald's
activities then.
And why they also denied that Oswald was working for the FBI, using his
phony communist credentials to undermine the FPCC and the ACLU, and why
he was checking out the CORE in Clinton. ALL THREE of those
organizations were at the top of Hoover's hit list of course.
The FBI's unwillingness to investigate conspiracy possibilities is NOT a
goofy buff theory, Chuck. It is a documented FACT, acknowledged even by
members the WC and doubly confirmed by documents which proved Hoover's
intention to deceive us, by making it appear that Oswald carried out the
crime alone.
Chuck, you need to understand exactly what it is, that you are putting
all your faith in. Once you do, you will laugh along with the rest of
us, at the nonsense being put out by the Posners and Bugliosis of the
world.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<febe2315-5748-44da...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "If I stopped to think about you {Chuck} at all, I would have to conclude
> >>> that you are the victim of your self-confessed ignorance about the case.
> >>> And I would suggest that if you are too fucking lazy to do the research,
> >>> you have no business lecturing those who are not." <<<
>
> I know you were speaking to Chuck above, but I'm going to chime in
> anyway (sue me).....
>
> I've got a question for Robert Harris:
>
> At what point, in your opinion, should a person like Chuck or myself
> (or anybody, really) say to themselves: "Enough is enough
> already....the CTers have had 44 years to prove their case for
> conspiracy and have failed to do so (miserably)
LOL!!
The case for conspiracy was proven long ago. That's why when you take
away the undecideds, most major polls show that you guys' position is
only slightly more accepted than the Flat Earth Society's.
David, you are exactly like Chuck, constantly making sweeping
generalizations that you couldn't prove, to save your life.
> ....so, close the
> book....Oswald did it by himself"??
>
> Or is it the opinion of conspiracy theorists that the above position
> should NEVER EVER be taken by anyone (no matter how many Brian David
> Andersens or Dan Robertsons or Jim Garrisons or David Liftons or Bob
> Harrises crop up in the future, peddling unsupportable theories about
> the case)?
If they are "unsupportable" then you should have no trouble debunking
them. So, why is it that you have to constantly run from our debates?
And why do you have to pretend that you can't see things that even your
fellow nutters acknowledge??
If you were really RIGHT, then you would NEVER have to tell a lie, or
misrepresent anyone or anything, David. You could deal straight off the
top of the deck, and emerge on top every time.
>
> Just curious to know how many theories are TOO many in the "JFK
> Conspiracy" world?
Your reasoning is totally fallacious, David. If tomorrow, somebody
invents a hundred goofy theories, that doesn't change the reality of
what happened, and it certainly doesn't prove that your particular
theory is correct. There is ONE and only one set of facts associated
with this crime.
What's wrong with throwing out the junior high school debate tactics and
making an honest effort to figure this out?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<33668d8b-5e6f-4163...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
YoHarvey <bail...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 6:12 pm, "johnise...@aol.com" <johnise...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Connally, ?and one bullet blew JFK's brains out.
> > > absurd that it defies all reason. It's ?interesting to me how
ROFLMAO!!
Whoever said these guys don't have a sense of humor?
Robert Harris
justm...@gmail.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0eb6a47b4da3f902
>
> >>> "The case for conspiracy was proven long ago." <<<
>
> computer on the day that "conspiracy was proven" in the JFK murder
> case.
>
> Please point me to this "proof". And then get ready to face the press
> every day and rake in the millions when you write that bombshell of a
> book that cracks the case wide open.
>
> >>> "That's why when you take away the undecideds, most major polls show that you guys' position is only slightly more accepted than the Flat Earth Society's." <<<
>
>
> Please put those numbers in context, Bob. After all, you love to
> dissect things to the Nth degree....such as your detailed and
> impossible-to-prove theory about the angle of the bullet trajectory
> from JFK to JBC's back wound being only "2 degrees", instead of 10 or
> so; and your wholly-subjective "Z285" ejaculations....so please
> provide the details of all those people from those polls and tell us
> what percentage of those CTers have done any substantial research or
> reading or in-depth probes into the case.
>
> Maybe after taking 14 years to track down those necessary numbers, you
> won't be laughed at so much when you say things like.....
>
> "Most major polls show that you guys' position is only slightly
> more accepted than the Flat Earth Society's."
>
>
> Thank you. That's the nicest compliment I've had in a long time.
>
> >>> "...constantly making sweeping generalizations that you couldn't prove, to save your life." <<<
>
> I don't have to "prove" them, idiot. The "LHO Was Guilty" facts have
> been proven multiple times and by multiple entities since Nov. 22nd,
> 1963. I and other LNers merely assess those facts, and repeat them,
> endorse them, and bask in the truth of them.
>
> Actually, it's rather hilarious that you, Robert, think that *I* (or
> other LNers) are under the obligation to "prove" anything about this
> triple-murder case (JFK/JDT/LHO) with respect to the ALREADY-PROVEN
> "Oswald Did It" conclusion that has been reached by every single
> official investigative organization that has tackled the case and its
> associated evidence.
>
> It's also quite hilarious to see Robert Harris throwing up that word
> -- "prove" -- into the face of an LNer. As if Bob can "prove" a damn
> thing he asserts regarding the assassination. Can you, Bob? (Except in
> your own mind.)
>
> >>> "If they {the theories of Garrison, Lifton, et al} are "unsupportable" then you should have no trouble debunking them. So, why is it that you have to constantly run from our debates?" <<<
>
> ~LOL time~
>
> What "debates" are those? Do you mean debates about the theories
> espoused by the kook authors I mentioned in my comment you're
> specifically responding to here (not counting Robert Harris) -- i.e.,
> Brian David Andersen, Dan Robertson, Jim Garrison, and David Lifton?
>
> You must be kidding. A six-year-old kid who has only read the first
> half of the Warren Report and nothing else could "debunk" the above
> crop of crackpot CT spin artists.
>
> And that age requirement is reduced to a five-year-old when Bob
> Harris' theories are included exclusively.
>
> >>> "And why do you have to pretend that you can't see things that even your fellow nutters acknowledge??" <<<
>
>
> >>> "If you were really RIGHT, then you would NEVER have to tell a lie, or misrepresent anyone or anything, David. You could deal straight off the top of the deck, and emerge on top every time." <<<
>
> is accomplished by lone-assassin advocates is another reason you are
> what you are -- i.e., a rabid "Nothing Is Ever What It Seems To Be"
> conspiracy promoter.
>
> >>> "If tomorrow, somebody invents a hundred goofy theories, that doesn't change the reality of what happened, and it certainly doesn't prove that your particular theory is correct. There is ONE and only one set of facts associated with this crime." <<<
>
> (despite the weak-sister protestations of many a-CTer) -- Lee Harvey
> Oswald fired three shots at President Kennedy from the Book
> Depository, with shot #3 killing JFK.
>
> But to a CTer like Bob (and many others like him), this "set of facts
> associated with this crime" -- facts that lead exclusively and
> inexorably to LHO's guilt without a shred of REASONABLE doubt -- are
> facts that aren't really "facts" at all. They are things to be
> twisted, skewed, mangled, and distorted beyond all possible
> recognition.
>
> Do you deny that Bob?
>
> Of course you'll deny it. Because a CTer has the "true set of facts",
> right? A CTer always knows better than the WC....or the HSCA....or the
> autopsists who had their hands on the body of JFK.
>
> And anybody that says otherwise is either a "Warren Commission
> apologist" or a "disinformation" specialist of some kind or is a
> person who just simply hasn't researched the case enough (i.e., a
> person who hasn't logged enough assassination mileage to realize, as
> CTers do, that it's utterly foolhardy to believe in things like Lee
> Oswald's sole guilt or the Single-Bullet Theory).
>
> So, you're right Bob....the "reality of what happened" in Dallas
> doesn't change. It never did and never will. The things that change
> (from day to day) are the unsupportable theories propped up by CTers
> with nothing to do (it seems) but prop up unsupportable theories
> relating to the events in Dallas on November 22nd.
>
> But based on the "reasonable reality" of what happened on Elm Street,
> Oswald shot and killed JFK. That's a certainty. And he almost
> certainly did it alone.
>
> As Bud said so very nicely and succinctly exactly one year ago (on
> January 19, 2007; original post linked below) -- "{It was} either
> Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it
> alone."
>
> The first option in Bud's quote makes sense of course....the latter
> option reeks with absurdity and is an option that is merely the
> wishful-thinking of conspiracy theorists worldwide, many of whom have
> become charter members of the"Anybody But Oswald" Club.
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bfe877d069a14595
>
> I repeated that very same Bud quote, in fact, just a few hours ago in
> a comment I posted at Amazon.com, in response to another conspiracy-
> hungry individual who said (in a typical kook-like rant):
>
> "'Oswald's Ghost' is a blatant propaganda piece that makes no
> use of information gleaned in more than 20 years. .... {Director
> Robert Stone} does a great disservice to the American people by
> continuing the govt-media blackout on any and all evidence that
> counters the Warren Report's rigged findings".
>
> www.amazon.com/review/R1S95P93PLA7OF/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?%5Fencodi...
>
> Oh, well. Conspiracy kooks come in all shapes and sizes. (And they can
> be found on virtually all websites.)
>
> >>> "What's wrong with throwing out the junior high school debate tactics and making an honest effort to figure this out?" <<<
>
> the earlier belly-laugh of a statement, "You are constantly making
> sweeping generalizations that you couldn't prove, to save your
>
> Well, Bob, since I apparently haven't yet graduated from the 8th
> grade, perhaps I don't have what it takes to evaluate the necessary
> ingredients in the "JFK Assassination Pot"; and therefore I can't make
> "an honest effort" when it comes to trying to figure out who murdered
> John Kennedy (and J.D. Tippit) in 1963.
>
> I, of course, think otherwise (see Blog page below for lots more
> "thinking otherwise").
>
> I can see the ingredients in that JFK Pot....and the parts marked
> "conspiracy" have been ADDED to that stew by people like Jim Garrison,
> Mark Lane, Oliver Stone, and many other "assassination
> sensationists" (to quote the Warren Commission's David Belin) who just
> simply aren't satisfied with the ordinary and evidence-based November
> 22 stew ingredients....so they have to spice it up with their own
> unique seasonings.
>
> Suddenly, I'm hungry for some Dinty Moore's.
>
> Somebody pass the salt.
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.60s/browse_thread/thread/282746f40489bbe7
Harris wrote (Chicos twin):
If you were really RIGHT, then you would NEVER have to tell a lie, or
misrepresent anyone or anything, David. You could deal straight off
the
top of the deck, and emerge on top every time.
Harris? You seem to be describing your brother Chico Jesus with that
comment. It's what he does daily. Come to think of it, that describes
Holmes and Walt too. No surprise, the 5 Stooges all work together to
be ignorant. Would you like to be #6?
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0eb6a47b4da3f902
>>> "The case for conspiracy was proven long ago." <<<
When was that, Bob? I must've been out of town or away from my
computer on the day that "conspiracy was proven" in the JFK murder
case.
Please point me to this "proof". And then get ready to face the press
every day and rake in the millions when you write that bombshell of a
book that cracks the case wide open.
>>> "That's why when you take away the undecideds, most major polls show that you guys' position is only slightly more accepted than the Flat Earth Society's." <<<
Standard type of silly reply by a CT-Kook, of course.
Please put those numbers in context, Bob. After all, you love to
dissect things to the Nth degree....such as your detailed and
impossible-to-prove theory about the angle of the bullet trajectory
from JFK to JBC's back wound being only "2 degrees", instead of 10 or
so; and your wholly-subjective "Z285" ejaculations....so please
provide the details of all those people from those polls and tell us
what percentage of those CTers have done any substantial research or
reading or in-depth probes into the case.
Maybe after taking 14 years to track down those necessary numbers, you
won't be laughed at so much when you say things like.....
"Most major polls show that you guys' position is only slightly
more accepted than the Flat Earth Society's."
~LOL time~
>>> "And why do you have to pretend that you can't see things that even your fellow nutters acknowledge??" <<<
Huh?
>>> "If you were really RIGHT, then you would NEVER have to tell a lie, or misrepresent anyone or anything, David. You could deal straight off the top of the deck, and emerge on top every time." <<<
Which I think I accomplish...."every time". That you don't think this
is accomplished by lone-assassin advocates is another reason you are
what you are -- i.e., a rabid "Nothing Is Ever What It Seems To Be"
conspiracy promoter.
>>> "If tomorrow, somebody invents a hundred goofy theories, that doesn't change the reality of what happened, and it certainly doesn't prove that your particular theory is correct. There is ONE and only one set of facts associated with this crime." <<<
And it's a "set of facts" that indicates one thing definitively
(despite the weak-sister protestations of many a-CTer) -- Lee Harvey
Oswald fired three shots at President Kennedy from the Book
Depository, with shot #3 killing JFK.
But to a CTer like Bob (and many others like him), this "set of facts
associated with this crime" -- facts that lead exclusively and
inexorably to LHO's guilt without a shred of REASONABLE doubt -- are
facts that aren't really "facts" at all. They are things to be
twisted, skewed, mangled, and distorted beyond all possible
recognition.
Do you deny that Bob?
Of course you'll deny it. Because a CTer has the "true set of facts",
right? A CTer always knows better than the WC....or the HSCA....or the
autopsists who had their hands on the body of JFK.
And anybody who says otherwise is either a "Warren Commission
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bfe877d069a14595
Oh, well. Conspiracy kooks come in all shapes and sizes. (And they can
be found on virtually all websites.)
>>> "What's wrong with throwing out the junior high school debate tactics and making an honest effort to figure this out?" <<<
Another hunk of hilarity courtesy of Mr. Harris. He throws up to me
the earlier belly-laugh of a statement, "You are constantly making
sweeping generalizations that you couldn't prove, to save your
life" .... and now I'm treated to, "Honest effort to figure this out".
As if a hardline, entrenched CTer knows what the words "honest effort"
even mean.
But, well, Bob, since I apparently haven't yet graduated from the 8th
grade, perhaps I don't have what it takes to evaluate the necessary
ingredients in the "JFK Assassination Pot"; and therefore I can't make
"an honest effort" when it comes to trying to figure out who murdered
John Kennedy (and J.D. Tippit) in 1963.
I, of course, think otherwise (see Blog page below for lots more
"thinking otherwise").
I can see the ingredients in that JFK Pot....and the parts marked
"conspiracy" have been ADDED to that stew by people like Jim Garrison,
Mark Lane, Oliver Stone, and many other "assassination
sensationists" (to quote the Warren Commission's David Belin) who just
simply aren't satisfied with the ordinary and evidence-based November
22 stew ingredients....so they have to spice it up with their own
unique seasonings.
Suddenly, I'm hungry for some Dinty Moore Beef Stew.
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> In article
> <febe2315-5748-44da...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "If I stopped to think about you {Chuck} at all, I would have to conclude
> > >>> that you are the victim of your self-confessed ignorance about the case.
> > >>> And I would suggest that if you are too fucking lazy to do the research,
> > >>> you have no business lecturing those who are not." <<<
> >
> > I know you were speaking to Chuck above, but I'm going to chime in
> > anyway (sue me).....
> >
> > I've got a question for Robert Harris:
> >
> > At what point, in your opinion, should a person like Chuck or myself
> > (or anybody, really) say to themselves: "Enough is enough
> > already....the CTers have had 44 years to prove their case for
> > conspiracy and have failed to do so (miserably)
>
> LOL!!
>
> The case for conspiracy was proven long ago.
When did this happen? What proved it?
> That's why when you take
> away the undecideds, most major polls show that you guys' position is
> only slightly more accepted than the Flat Earth Society's.
Harris can show no real connection between conspiracy being proven
and the high poll figures, he has no idea what the respondants to the
polls based their beliefs on. I suspect the majority of the
respondants that indicate a conspiracy belief have a vague feeling
something fishy went on, based on what is anyones guess.
Interesting that both Holmes and Hariis both pounced on what they
percieved as Chuck`s admission of ignorance, but tout the beliefs of
the general public, who know much, much less about the case than Chuck
does.
> David, you are exactly like Chuck, constantly making sweeping
> generalizations that you couldn't prove, to save your life.
He reads here, and he observes that you kooks aren`t putting
anything on the table but your opinions. Your opinions of when shots
w3ere fired in the z-film. Your opinion of what mark on JFK`s back is
a bullet hole. You kooks like your opinions so much, you consider them
fact.
> > ....so, close the
> > book....Oswald did it by himself"??
> >
> > Or is it the opinion of conspiracy theorists that the above position
> > should NEVER EVER be taken by anyone (no matter how many Brian David
> > Andersens or Dan Robertsons or Jim Garrisons or David Liftons or Bob
> > Harrises crop up in the future, peddling unsupportable theories about
> > the case)?
>
> If they are "unsupportable" then you should have no trouble debunking
> them. So, why is it that you have to constantly run from our debates?
You think it is within our power (or desire) to convince you that
your opinions are wrong. You like them, a lot. Walt has his sets of
beliefs he likes a lot, go to him and try to convince him he is wrong,
and you`ll get an idea of what it is like to try to convince you that
your ideas are wrong.
Also, DVP is always posting reasons the whole concept of conspiracy
is silly, and why it would be crazy to even contemplate such an
undertaking. I rarely see the kooks touch these posts that show the
idea of conspiracy as outlined by the kooks to be absurd on the face
of it.
> And why do you have to pretend that you can't see things that even your
> fellow nutters acknowledge??
>
> If you were really RIGHT, then you would NEVER have to tell a lie, or
> misrepresent anyone or anything, David. You could deal straight off the
> top of the deck, and emerge on top every time.
Chuck told the truth about you. It didn`t jive with how you see
things, so you disregard it.
>
> >
> > Just curious to know how many theories are TOO many in the "JFK
> > Conspiracy" world?
>
> Your reasoning is totally fallacious, David.
It speaks to the fact that they are the product of too many people
turning information over to see what alternatives to the official
findings they can contrive. An activity you engage in.
> If tomorrow, somebody
> invents a hundred goofy theories, that doesn't change the reality of
> what happened, and it certainly doesn't prove that your particular
> theory is correct. There is ONE and only one set of facts associated
> with this crime.
Silly. Is the neck wound an entrance or exit? Hundreds of other
disputes.
> What's wrong with throwing out the junior high school debate tactics and
> making an honest effort to figure this out?
You show yourself to be just as Chuck portrayed. Someone convinced
he has the talent and honesty others lack, but in all actuality merely
a hobbyist.
>
> Robert Harris
Robert Harris
David, I am not an idiot. I pass the Mensa test with considerable room
to spare.
When you have to substitute personal insults for honest analysis and
evidence, you say more about the weakness of your case than anything I
could say.
You tell us not only that you are wrong, but that you know you are wrong.
Robert Harris
In article
<d2963b0c-5f15-49d0...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0eb6a47b4da3f902
>
>
> >>> "The case for conspiracy was proven long ago." <<<
>
>
> When was that, Bob? I must've been out of town or away from my
> computer on the day that "conspiracy was proven" in the JFK murder
> case.
>
> Please point me to this "proof". And then get ready to face the press
> every day and rake in the millions when you write that bombshell of a
> book that cracks the case wide open.
>
>
> >>> "That's why when you take away the undecideds, most major polls show that
> >>> you guys' position is only slightly more accepted than the Flat Earth
> >>> Society's." <<<
>
>
> Standard type of silly reply by a CT-Kook, of course.
>
> Please put those numbers in context, Bob. After all, you love to
> dissect things to the Nth degree....such as your detailed and
> impossible-to-prove theory about the angle of the bullet trajectory
> from JFK to JBC's back wound being only "2 degrees", instead of 10 or
> so; and your wholly-subjective "Z285" ejaculations....so please
> provide the details of all those people from those polls and tell us
> what percentage of those CTers have done any substantial research or
> reading or in-depth probes into the case.
>
> Maybe after taking 14 years to track down those necessary numbers, you
> won't be laughed at so much when you say things like.....
>
> "Most major polls show that you guys' position is only slightly
> more accepted than the Flat Earth Society's."
>
>
>
>
> >>> "David, you are exactly like Chuck..." <<<
>
>
> Thank you. That's the nicest compliment I've had in a long time.
>
>
>
> >>> "...constantly making sweeping generalizations that you couldn't prove,
> >>> to save your life." <<<
>
>
> I don't have to "prove" them, idiot. The "LHO Was Guilty" facts have
> been proven multiple times and by multiple entities since Nov. 22nd,
> 1963. I and other LNers merely assess those facts, and repeat them,
> endorse them, and bask in the truth of them.
>
> Actually, it's rather hilarious that you, Robert, think that *I* (or
> other LNers) are under the obligation to "prove" anything about this
> triple-murder case (JFK/JDT/LHO) with respect to the ALREADY-PROVEN
> "Oswald Did It" conclusion that has been reached by every single
> official investigative organization that has tackled the case and its
> associated evidence.
>
> It's also quite hilarious to see Robert Harris throwing up that word
> -- "prove" -- into the face of an LNer. As if Bob can "prove" a damn
> thing he asserts regarding the assassination. Can you, Bob? (Except in
> your own mind.)
>
>
>
>
> >>> "If they {the theories of Garrison, Lifton, et al} are "unsupportable"
> >>> then you should have no trouble debunking them. So, why is it that you
> >>> have to constantly run from our debates?" <<<
>
> ~LOL time~
>
> What "debates" are those? Do you mean debates about the theories
> espoused by the kook authors I mentioned in my comment you're
> specifically responding to here (not counting Robert Harris) -- i.e.,
> Brian David Andersen, Dan Robertson, Jim Garrison, and David Lifton?
>
> You must be kidding. A six-year-old kid who has only read the first
> half of the Warren Report and nothing else could "debunk" the above
> crop of crackpot CT spin artists.
>
> And that age requirement is reduced to a five-year-old when Bob
> Harris' theories are included exclusively.
>
>
>
> >>> "And why do you have to pretend that you can't see things that even your
> >>> fellow nutters acknowledge??" <<<
>
>
>
> Huh?
>
>
>
>
> >>> "If you were really RIGHT, then you would NEVER have to tell a lie, or
> >>> misrepresent anyone or anything, David. You could deal straight off the
> >>> top of the deck, and emerge on top every time." <<<
>
>
>
> Which I think I accomplish...."every time". That you don't think this
> is accomplished by lone-assassin advocates is another reason you are
> what you are -- i.e., a rabid "Nothing Is Ever What It Seems To Be"
> conspiracy promoter.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> "If tomorrow, somebody invents a hundred goofy theories, that doesn't
> >>> change the reality of what happened, and it certainly doesn't prove that
> >>> your particular theory is correct. There is ONE and only one set of facts
> >>> associated with this crime." <<<
>
>
> And it's a "set of facts" that indicates one thing definitively
> (despite the weak-sister protestations of many a-CTer) -- Lee Harvey
> Oswald fired three shots at President Kennedy from the Book
> Depository, with shot #3 killing JFK.
>
>
> But to a CTer like Bob (and many others like him), this "set of facts
> associated with this crime" -- facts that lead exclusively and
> inexorably to LHO's guilt without a shred of REASONABLE doubt -- are
> facts that aren't really "facts" at all. They are things to be
> twisted, skewed, mangled, and distorted beyond all possible
> recognition.
>
> Do you deny that Bob?
>
> Of course you'll deny it. Because a CTer has the "true set of facts",
> right? A CTer always knows better than the WC....or the HSCA....or the
> autopsists who had their hands on the body of JFK.
>
> And anybody that says otherwise is either a "Warren Commission
> >>> "What's wrong with throwing out the junior high school debate tactics and
> >>> making an honest effort to figure this out?" <<<
>
>
>
> Another hunk of hilarity courtesy of Mr. Harris. He throws up to me
> the earlier belly-laugh of a statement, "You are constantly making
> sweeping generalizations that you couldn't prove, to save your
> life" .... and now I'm treated to, "Honest effort to figure this out".
>
> Well, Bob, since I apparently haven't yet graduated from the 8th
> grade, perhaps I don't have what it takes to evaluate the necessary
> ingredients in the "JFK Assassination Pot"; and therefore I can't make
> "an honest effort" when it comes to trying to figure out who murdered
> John Kennedy (and J.D. Tippit) in 1963.
>
> I, of course, think otherwise (see Blog page below for lots more
> "thinking otherwise").
>
> I can see the ingredients in that JFK Pot....and the parts marked
> "conspiracy" have been ADDED to that stew by people like Jim Garrison,
> Mark Lane, Oliver Stone, and many other "assassination
> sensationists" (to quote the Warren Commission's David Belin) who just
> simply aren't satisfied with the ordinary and evidence-based November
> 22 stew ingredients....so they have to spice it up with their own
> unique seasonings.
>
> Suddenly, I'm hungry for some Dinty Moore's.
David Von Pein
Lovely retort.
About the best I could expect (I guess) from a CTer in Bob "285"
Harris' shoes.
Chuck Schuyler
> David, I am not an idiot. I pass the Mensa test with considerable room
> to spare.
Too bad they don't measure common sense.
I wonder how many Mensa members believe some guy crouched in a sewer
on 11/22/63 took a shot at JFK. Take a poll, Bob!
>
> When you have to substitute personal insults for honest analysis and
> evidence, you say more about the weakness of your case than anything I
> could say.
Awww...poor Bob...the sad tone of one who has been deeply aggrieved by
yet another unfair attack by yet another Warren Commission
'apologist', probably on the CIA disinformation payroll. How much more
will you have to endure, Bob? How great must be your personal
suffering before you bring Justice to JFK's killers? How many more
YouTube videos must you create? How many more times must you watch the
movie JFK or read Rush to Judgment?
How much more responsibility must you shoulder before you can take
back AmeriKKKa, Bob?
>
> You tell us not only that you are wrong, but that you know you are wrong.
(A mournful violin quietly fills the void.)
Touching, Bob. (Kleenex time.)
>
> Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<4a832f84-0d1e-460d...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 8:11 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > David, I am not an idiot. I pass the Mensa test with considerable room
> > to spare.
>
> Too bad they don't measure common sense.
No Chuck, you don't doubt my common sense.
You cannot deal with the facts and evidence that I present, so you
attack me personally, instead.
When you do that, you totally corroborate my arguments.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<3d9ead2f-d3a9-4834...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "When you have to substitute personal insults for honest analysis and
> >>> evidence, you say more about the weakness of your case than anything I
> >>> could say. You tell us not only that you are wrong, but that you know you
> >>> are wrong." <<<
>
>
>
> Lovely retort.
Thank you David.
When do you intend to post your retort, to refute my arguments?
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "When do you intend to post your retort, to refute my arguments?" <<<
Already done it.
Or, more accurately, the HSCA has done it (re. the back wound)....with
this:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/7/7a/Photo_hsca_ex_20.jpg
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg