View Single Post
Old 18th May 2012, 09:37 AM   #228
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Dear Posters and Lurkers,

I grasp that it can be comforting to think someone you disagree with doesn't know anything and cannot get anything right. I understand, as well, that criticism may also provide comfort.

But really, people, even if you think I cannot ever properly quote the relevant part of a witness statement, what is it that prevents so many of you from posting up your own witness quotes? Are you afraid I might accuse you of cherrypicking?

This is an EYEWITNESS CHALLENGE thread. Look, you can even cherrypick as far as I'm concerned, just post up your witnesses, please.

Witnesses say what they say. There is no need to embellish. People also say things that are contradictory; especially when they are under stress or otherwise agitated. Some people say one thing and mean another. I say this to say that just because someone says something different from one part of conversation or statement to another doesn't mean it's improper to quote that part that you are relying on. Overall context matters and interpretation can either be fair or unfair, valid or invalid. By and large, none of us here can really sort this out with certainty. We all do the best we can, presumably.

I think a more effective way of making a claim that I am cherrypicking would be to quote the part of the witness' statement that you think provides a better context. That is what LashL did, but few others have done the same. The best reply to a post of mine that offends you is a post that refutes my post or position. I claim there are NO PLANE witnesses that are qualitatively better than the PLANE SPOTTER witnesses.

I have posted up 7 NO PLANE witnesses. Some have disputed the content, the context, the interpretation and so on. Fine. Let's have at it.

But, I do think it would be helpful to the debunker cause if some of you would post up PLANE SPOTTER claims. That way, the lurkers can be assured that their adherence in the common storyline remains justified. I remain ready to analyze PLANE SPOTTER witnesses; when some are posted, that is. And, it is not likely that I will find it necessary to make the same kind of comments that some of you find it necessary to make about my analysis of witness statements.

Refutation can be accomplished without invective. It's probably more effective, too.

Blessings
Why? I demonstrated conclusively that King WAS IN THE NORTH TOWER, and most likely in the stairwells when the plane hit.

It was absolutely clear from his statement that this was the fact, yet you intentionally omitted it.

yet you still claim he was a No Planer witness, which means you are intentionally deceiving people, No Planer.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top