View Single Post
Old 12th July 2015, 06:02 AM   #3287
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Robert ignores the data posts and goes straight for a post that was an summary aside to another poster. Robert claims he wants to talk about the assassination, but curiously, skips over any posts of mine that discuss the witnesses recollections in detail.


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
What is "unfortunate" is that so many people are impervious to the evidence which proves them wrong.
Absolutely. Is that why you're not even trying to rebut the points I made concerning Connally, nor defend your straw man arguments about what I said?


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Well of course! Never mind that every attempt you have made to push this nonsense has been thoroughly refuted and every one of "your" witnesses has flatly contradicted you:-)
You ultimately agreed with my claims about John Connally. You never disputed my claims about Clint Hill, all you said was there was no else who said that. You've since admitted that was wrong, as you ultimately conceded Connally's recollection agreed with Clint Hill's -- both heard only two shots and one impact on the head.


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Both Clint Hill and John Connally were crystal clear that the last shot they heard, was exactly that. Neither of them even hinted that they thought they heard two shots from one.
It's still a straw argument every time you talk about Hill or Connally talking about two shots at the very end. That's not what they said; and that's not what I said they they said. It's not even what you said.

Both said they heard a shot and an impact of the shot at the end of the shooting. I said that, you agreed to it. Realizing the problems with your admissions, and how it impeaches your conclusions, you're trying to back track now and muddy the waters by bring in straw man arguments.

Prolong the conversation rather than reach a conclusion.


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
This has to be one of the most idiotic arguments I have heard from you guys all day:-) You think that because no evidence was found in an unsearched building, that this is some kind of proof that no assassins were there.
You think that because no evidence was found in an unsearched building, that this is some kind of proof that no pink unicorns were there.

No one found evidence of pink unicorns in that unsearched building, nor did any witnesses outside in Dealey Plaza see any pink unicorns in the building nor did anyone see pink unicorns enter the building, nor did anyone see any pink unicorns leave the building.

Exactly what evidence we have of assassins, we have for pink unicorns as well.

By your "logic", this is some kind of proof pink unicorns accompanied the snipers into the building to act as spotters. It works the exact same way.


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
And you deny the ridiculously obvious fact that a sniper would choose to remain unseen and not leave an evidence trail.
Further evidence that there were pink unicorns in the building! You deny the ridiculously obvious fact that pink unicorns also choose to remain unseen and not leave an evidence trail! Have you ever seen a pink unicorn? Did you ever find any evidence of one? See, this proves my contention that pink unicorns were inside the building with those assassins! There is *just as much evidence* for the pink unicorns as there is for the sniper or snipers you conjecture.


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Meanwhile, you don't want to talk about the infinitely more important facts that at least one of the early shots was inaudible to most of the witnesses and none of them were loud enough to provoke the kind of reactions that followed 285 and 313.
Really, do I have to explain this every time you pretend to not understand the point?

I already pointed out some flaws with that, none of which you choose to address. You're likewise ignoring my points about what Connally heard (advancing a straw man rebuttal instead), you're ignoring your own admission that Connally said he heard both the shot and the impact of the shot on the head, and you're ignoring the true import of that statement (and of the other witnesses who said much the same thing) -- that one solution here is two shots and one sound of impact on the skull, not three shots.

And especially not your argument for suppressed shots, multiple shooters, and inventive interpretations of the eyewitness testimony and the Zapruder film.

The two shot-one impact sound scenario fits entirely those witnesses who reported two closely bunched, almost simultaneous 'shots'. Especially clear were Clint Hill and John Connally, both of whom explicitly mentioned one final shot and one sound of impact.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
How could those shots have been fired from a high powered rifle that produced sound levels that were 16 TIMES LOUDER than the level which has been proven to cause involuntary startle reactions and permanent hearing loss with extended exposure??
Begging the question.


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Don't you think THAT evidence is infinitely more important than that snipers did exactly what we should expect them to do, to avoid getting caught?
Along with the pink unicorns, Robert, along with the pink unicorns. They did exactly what we should expect pink unicorns to do as well, to avoid getting caught.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 12th July 2015 at 07:09 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top