On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 4:48:20 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Feb 12, 3:08 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The theory that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the murder of President >> Kennedy is and has always been severely flawed.
It is also the theory that has the most support from the evidence,
and the most going for it. It accounts for the rifle, the bullets, it
has a shooter, ect.
It has the most support *BECAUSE* it was a coverup. Contrary evidence
was simply lost.
The dog ate my evidence. Beyond lame.
It really doesn't take very much knowledge of this case to understand
the dissappearing evidence...
You have to be a real moron to try to build a case using imaginary evidence. But then again, Ben will never be man enough to build a case that can be put up against what the WC put on the table almost 60 years ago.
And isn`t Ben adorable when he makes pretend he is going to engage on any of these issues like an adult? Everyone knows that won`t last, it`ll be diaper Benny before you know it.
In addition to the fact
that it tries to prove a negative (an almost always impossible task),
Yet in all the years since Oswald committed these crimes nobody has
been able to produce credible evidence that Oswald worked with anyone
else to commit them.
Begging the question...
That Oswald shot and killed Kennedy is the conclusion of numerous investigations, it can`t be begging the question.
it
is based on apparent evidence for the location of one of the shooters,
which was discovered on the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook
Depository. LN advocates have tried to support their case by pointing out >> that authorities discovered no other weapons or shell casings that day, >> which might be a convincing argument, except for the rather significant >> fact that no other buildings were ever searched.
Why was that location identified so quickly as the location that
someone was shooting from? Oh, thats right, someone was shooting from
that location.
The location that was identified EVEN MORE QUICKLY is one that you
dare not mention...
See someone shooting is much better than thinking shots came from somewhere, but it takes reasoning to determine that, and you just don`t have any.
In fact, not only was the Daltex building, which afforded a potential
shooter a much better angle than the depository,
But Oswald didn`t work there.
Begging the question again...
Wrong again.
not searched, but there
is no publicly known record of anyone who was in that building at the
time, ever being interviewed by authorities - the solitary exception being
Jim Braden, who was at the Cabana hotel with Jack Ruby, the night before, >> and who was a mafia hoodlum with links to David Ferrie and Carlos
Marcello.
The lone nut theory also suffers from the fact that it directly
contradicted numerous witnesses, in Dealey Plaza, at Parkland Hospital and
elsewhere, provoking LN advocates to accuse a small army of perfectly
legitimate witnesses to be crazy or incompetent.
No, it`s the retards who try to create constructs using this
material that are crazy and incompetent.
Not a refutation, merely a denial...
Neither. A correction. We don`t denigrate the witnesses, we just look at the information they supplied correctly. Conspiracy folks play silly games with the information they supplied.
with a dash of ad hominem thrown
in for good measure.
The large majority of Dealey Plaza witnesses who stated an opinion on the >> subject, reported hearing a shooting sequence which included only a single
early "noise" and then closely bunched shots at the very end of the
shooting. Many witnesses described the final two as almost simultaneous, >> and obviously much too close for both to have come from Oswald's rifle. >> And in fact, among law enforcement professionals, not even one of them
testified to hearing early shots that were closer together than the final >> ones, which is required by the LN theory.
Satisfying the impressions of law enforcement professionals under
fire during a brief sneak attack is not a requirement of LN theory.
Not a refutation... merely another logical fallacy.
I merely pointed out Harris`s claim that it was a requirement of the LN theory was an empty one.
Their recollections have been solidly confirmed by indisputable evidence >> of a shot at frame 285 and by other evidence for a shot that was fired
after the explosion at 313. You can view a detailed explanation for the >> shot at 285, here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
And almost every Parkland doctor or nurse, who saw the back of the
President's head, described massive damage to the back of the President's >> head, which strongly suggested a shot from the front. A close examination >> of frames from the Zapruder frame confirms their statements and also
proves that the damage occurred sometime after the initial explosion at >> frame 313. Blownup frames from the Nix film suggest that this damage was >> inflicted at approximately the equivalent of Zapruder frame 320.
<snicker>...
Logical fallacy deleted.
I had to go find what Ben was so frightened of, and I was right, it was good...
"<snicker> This is what the retards come up with, complex scenarios
involving two shooters firing a half second apart, with one bullet
entering the wound caused by the other."
It is an accurate characterization of what Harris was presenting, but Ben doesn`t like things to be looked at correctly.
But as a theory, the LN position, as presented by the WC should not be
accepted by any honest person, for the simple reason that the Commission's
conclusions were contaminated by the very agency that was responsible for >> researching the crime.
Within 48 hours of the President's death, FBI commissioner J. Edgar Hoover
was contacting members of the Justice dept and the white house, urging
them that "the public must be convinced" that there was no conspiracy. And
the historical record, based on statements by LBJ aide, Walter Jenkins and
Katzenbach, prove that no-one argued with him, and that the government's >> agenda from that day forward, would be to deceive the American people.
It was truth that there was only one shooter. How do you deceive
people with the truth?
Clearly you didn't understand Robert's point -
which he makes crystal
clear in the next paragraph.
And there is no doubt at all, that this was a deliberate deception. Just a
few days later, Hoover and LBJ were on the phone, speculating that John >> Connally was wounded because he came between a sniper and President
Kennedy, and that if Connally hadn't been hit, the President would have >> suffered an additional wound.
Proving only that Hoover had a poor understanding of the facts at
that time.
Nope. But let's imagine that you're right, that he had a poor
understanding of the facts - he clearly believed that there were
multiple shooters... yet you've completely missed the fact that it
doesn't matter whether he believed the truth, or whether he believed wrongly...
IT'S A FACT THAT HE INTENTIONALLY DIRECTED THE INVESTIGATION
**CONTRARY** TO HIS BELIEF.
Show where Hoover pushed the WC to accept the things he speculated with LBJ about.
Right or wrong belief doesn't matter.
LBJ: How did it happen they ("they"?) hit Connally?
JEH: Connally turned to the President, when the first shot was fired and I
think that in turning.. it was where he got hit.
LBJ: If he hadn't turned he probably wouldn't have gotten hit?
JEH: I think that is very likely.
LBJ: Would the President've gotten hit by the second one?
JEH: No, the President wasn't hit with the second one.
LBJ: I say, if Connally hadn't been in his way?
JEH: Oh, yes, yes. The President would no doubt have been hit!
LBJ: He would have been hit three times?
JEH: He would have been hit three times...
Now, it doesn't matter that Connally was (apparently) not hit from the
front. What matters is that Hoover obviously realized that this was a
conspiracy which included a shooter who was in front of the limo, at the >> same time that he was pushing an agenda to make government leaders deny >> that this crime was a conspiracy. That fact alone, does more than just
cast doubt on the WC's conclusions. It removes any possible reason for us >> to trust the FBI to properly investigate the crime and present reliable >> evidence to the Warren Commission.
And now that Robert has explained it clearly and concisely,
Chickenshit suddenly turns silent.
Why would anyone care about the opinion of someone who has every conceivable fact wrong?
You bitch about that article, it got more things right than Hoover did.
Worse, Hoover's FBI enforced that agenda with some of the most outrageous >> deceptions known to American law enforcement. We now know, that the bullet
found in Parkland Hospital by Daryl Tomlinson had nothing to do with the >> assassination, and that when confronted with that bullet, the FBI replaced
it with one they probably test fired from the alleged murder weapon. That >> fact was confirmed by Governor Connally, Dallas District Attorney Wade, >> the nurse who recovered the actual bullet that fell from the Governor's >> leg, Connally's top aide - Bill Stinson, and the Texas Ranger who turned >> the bullet over to the Dallas Police department. The details of this issue
are explained here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKwqhf0MYio
That same issue and others, are also explained in this very extensive
analysis of the shooting in Dealey Plaza:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkAc76n8q44
Hoover's FBI also went to extreme lengths to hide obvious signs of
deception when they conducted a polygraph test of Jack Ruby for the Warren
Commission and denied any signs of dishonestly on Ruby's part (which
probably shocked Ruby more than anyone). This article which I wrote back >> in the nineties, is just as true today as it was then.
http://jfkhistory.com/Polygraph/polygraph.html
And what's truly amusing, is that even though the HSCA demonstrated
quite expertly that Ruby's polygraph was fraudulent... no believer has
been able to explain why.
Chickenshit will run again, as he always has...
I tend not to pay attention to things that have little or no evidential value.
This is just the sort of thing conspiracy folks focus on, they like like to look at the wrong things.
The simple fact is, that the Warren Commission's conclusions were based >> almost entirely, on evidence that was given them by the FBI. Of course, >> the WC did not conclude that there was no conspiracy. The Commission
concluded instead, that it saw no evidence of conspiracy.
As true today as it was then.
It's true that the WC's conclusions haven't changed. It's **NOT**
true that the evidence for conspiracy doesn't exist.
What is it?
But as we know
today, that fact has nothing to do with what really happened. It only
tells us what the FBI told them. And this FBI was not about to report
anything that even hinted of a conspiracy.
In short, anyone who claims that there was no conspiracy because the
FBI/WC claimed they didn't find evidence of conspiracy, is using faulty >> logic that is in the same class with the silliest of conspiracy theories.
I'm not surprised that Chickenshit stayed silent here...
You`ll be removing every point I made so far soon enough.
What Harris has done is made assumptions about some very unclear dialog. Where would your hobby be without this sort of "this must mean this" empty claims?
Nothing in the dialog shows that Hoover had any understanding of the seating in the limo. Nothing in that dialog indicates Hoover had any understanding of the relation of the limo to the TSBD. Nowhere in that dialog does Hoover advance the idea that
shots came from multiple directions/locations. Nothing in that dialog does it say anything about where the shots originated from.
This is like Wade, and other people who said clearly erroneous things. I see things that are clearly wrong and I disregard it, conspiracy folks latch onto it.
If you still believe that this assassination was carried out by a
soliltary shooter, then you need to demonstrate that it was physically
possible for all the shots to have been fired from the alleged murder
weapon.
They put bullets in Oswald`s rifle. When they pulled the trigger,
the bullets came out really, really fast.
For anyone that knows how bolt action rifles work, this kooky
assertion by Chickenshit just shows what a moron he is.
You just hate the truth.
It's just that simple. And after 14 years of debating these issues
with LN advocates, it's become quite obvious, that it's also just that
impossible.
Robert Harris
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)