On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 20:41:06 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
<
alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>BH - giving a credible reason why they weren't lies.
Ah, this will be good. Amusing that you didn't *start* with my post,
so let's put that back in, so that lurkers can see how well you dealt
with the facts I posted:
>As it was yourself who brought her into the discussion, I assumed that you had done more than use the WC as a source.
>But you refuse to share your extra knowledge.
>
>I was obliged to conduct my own enquiry
Logical fallaicies such as these will be deleted in the future. You
will see a "LFD" - 'Logical fallacy deleted. I never feel the need to
respond to logical fallacies, so in this post, I'll merely point them
out.
The *WARREN COMMISSION* didn't want her to give testimony... no-one
who's honest can read her testimony and not see this. But this has
*NOTHING* to do with the lie I pointed out, so it's a logical fallacy.
There was quite a bit of eyewitness intimidation. It's unfortunate
that there aren't any believers who will publicly acknowledge it.
Again, simply a logical fallacy that won't get responses in the
future.
>The possibility it was all a figment of her imagination was raised by WC investigators.
Speculation isn't evidence. You've given *NO* evidence that would
support this, nor does it address the issue.
This doesn't address the lie the WC told *AT ALL*.
>Two, he didn't believe her. Perhaps he was a control-freak?
>
>I suspect that Wilma could have been genuinely mistaken and was not lying. Or she was a woman with mental health problems. Hence I asked about this barricade incident. Which may have been this incident
>
https://archive.org/details/nsia-TiceWilma/nsia-TiceWilma/Tice%20Wilma%2004
>
>It seems that Tice contacted Eileen Kaminski, Ruby's other sister, concerned about both sisters well-being as Ruby stood trial. Tice was not the one who reported to the police believing that they already knew Ruby was present at Parklands.
None of the above has addressed the lies told by the WCR... no wonder
you deleted what you were allegedly responding to.
When all you have are logical fallacies, you lose.
> I asked for clarification. You seem to believe such a request is unreasonable.
Another logical fallacy.
>But let us accept that Ruby was indeed at Parklands and run with that.
No, let's examine the evidence, AND SEE IF THE WARREN COMMISSION TOLD
THE TRUTH.
>Other than Kantor and Tice, Roy Stamps also said he saw Ruby carrying tv cables at Parklands.
>
>I asked what does it matter if he was or not.
>
>Perhaps indeed he was the Plan B I asked about previously.
>
> If JFK survived Ruby was to ensure he didn't. How? Or as Kantor
> thought, to tamper with the evidence. Did he plant the bullet on the
> stretcher? Was he sighted near that location? It isn't stated but why
> draw attention to your presence by approaching Kantor if that was the
> purpose? How did "they" have prior knowledge that the pristine bullet
> was required to be found and managed to arrange it all in advance,
> supplying Ruby with it to plant? Who knows?
None of these logical fallacies addresses the lies told by the WC
about Tice's testimony.
You've make a huge mistake if you think I support the "planting"
nonsense.
>If the WC lied about Ruby being at Parklands, the HSCA thought different.
>"While the Warren Commission concluded that Kantor was mistaken, the Committee determined he probably was not."
Again, this has nothing to do with the lies told by the WC.
> So how important does the HSCA rate the incident in understanding who killed JFK?
Another logical fallacy.
Here's the relevant points from my post:
The Warren Commission simply lied about Mrs. Tice's view of Ruby -
attempting to state that it was obstructed, when the actual testimony
shows that Ruby was just 3 feet away, and at one point, *facing* Mrs.
Tice. The WC *cited* her testimony, so they couldn't have been unaware
that their own evidence contradicted their assertion. Amusing that the
WC would argue that Mrs. Tice had never seen Jack Ruby before... they
didn't appear to be embarrassed that Brennan had never seen Oswald
before...
You didn't address THE ONE SINGLE ASSERTION I MADE!
The WC provably lied, AND YOU DIDN'T ADDRESS THAT LIE *AT ALL*.
After evading the point I made, you now think you are owed any
answers to your questions?
How silly!
What part of Mrs. Tice's testimony, OR ANY OTHER TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE
WHATSOEVER - allowed the WC to say that her view was obstructed?
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I RAISE, WITHOUT DELETING THEM - IF YOU THINK YOU
ARE OWED ANSWERS FROM ME.
I can answer ANY evidential question on the JFK case, and have proved
that a number of times before. But the answers *I* sought were not
then forthcoming.
So my policy is a simple one - *YOU* prove you can answer questions
first, then I'll answer yours.
And as any honest person reading this post can see - you failed.