ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags assassinations , JFK assassination , John F. Kennedy , Kennedy conspiracies

Reply
Old 16th June 2018, 10:24 AM   #481
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
And you'll get to it in "due course?" Does anyone actually fall for your bluster anymore?
Jay, I too am waiting "in due course" for answers to questions regarding "federal regulations" that I posed to manifesto a week or so ago. Maybe he believes that he is the "holder in due course" of a check (see the law of negotiable instruments) and can cash it whenever he likes.

Last edited by OKBob; 16th June 2018 at 10:42 AM.
OKBob 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
Old 16th June 2018, 10:41 AM   #482
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Cite it one by one and explain why it can’t be trusted.
Think of it this way, manifesto. If every time you raised a point, Hank or another of your critics here responded with a page from Posner, Bugliosi, Moore, McAdams, or another conspiracy-of-one author, I'm fairly certain you would object that those sources were unreliable or biased, or that they ignored the full evidence, failed to interview all witnesses, and so on.

The same problem exists with your simply citing the books or websites of conspiracy authors. The problem is that, in doing so, you are simply pointing to predigested arguments that may not accurately account for the evidence, and may not be responsive to the particular point in controversy here. To reply, "point out what's wrong with my citations," is to seek to shift the burden of proof to your critics, in effect making us responsible for both making your argument and refuting it.

This is why, as skeptics, we try to go back to original evidentiary sources whenever possible, so as to avoid the inevitable filtering and manipulating of evidence found in secondary sources. Undoubtedly, some secondary sources do a more faithful and credible job of reporting evidence, but to carry on debate here by simply citing competing secondary sources would be superficial and unsatisfying, encouraging disputes over messengers rather than evidence.

Last edited by OKBob; 16th June 2018 at 10:44 AM.
OKBob 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
Old 16th June 2018, 10:58 AM   #483
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
"Evidence" from CT loon sources has no value, so I dismiss it.
How convenient since all actors who reports signs of a conspiracy and/or cover-up per your definition are ”CT loon sources” and therefore ”has no value”.

Watertight.

Quote:
Frustrating.. isn't it, having what you think is evidence handwaved, dismissed and ignored?
In here? No, it’s expected in here, in the very heart of the Mighty Church.

No worries.

Quote:
I have highlighted the operative word.
That goes for all witness testimony, people ”thought” they observed this and that.

Next question is how credible each and every testimony is.

Quote:
No, I don't wish it was other type of smoke, I am simply open to other possibilities. YOU are not... your CT mind is closed and bolted shut!
Again, I am refering to the testimony, not your more or less plausible ideas to what it ’really’ was they observed/sensed.

Quote:
If they didn't know they mistook it, they wouldn't know to say so.
Again, I’m refering to the testimony, not your interpretation of it.

Quote:
Maybe his ammunition were handloads. Charles Whitman was a gun enthusiast; many of them load their own ammunition.
IF so, why is this not possible for a shooter on the knoll?

Quote:
Watch the following to learn about the difference between black power and smokeless powder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yceuluh_pJE
It is you who are claiming that observed smoke on the knoll in direct connection to shots fired is impossible since modern ammo is ”smokeless”. ’Smoke less’, is the ”operative” word here.

I proved you wrong.

Again.
manifesto 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
Old 16th June 2018, 11:10 AM   #484
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,861
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
In here? No, it’s expected in here, in the very heart of the Mighty Church.
This is a really weird stance to take. What "church"?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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
Old 16th June 2018, 11:57 AM   #485
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,318
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
In due course, JayUtah.
No, I don't think so. I think you're hoping I just go away. You're an intellectual coward. All you have is bald assertion followed up by assiduous name-calling.

Prove you're more than that. Answer my challenges "emedialy." Don't stall indefinitely and pretend it's all part of some master plan that makes you better than everyone else. People see right through that.
JayUtah is online now   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
Old 16th June 2018, 12:09 PM   #486
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
Think of it this way, manifesto. If every time you raised a point, Hank or another of your critics here responded with a page from Posner, Bugliosi, Moore, McAdams, or another conspiracy-of-one author, I'm fairly certain you would object that those sources were unreliable or biased, or that they ignored the full evidence, failed to interview all witnesses, and so on.

The same problem exists with your simply citing the books or websites of conspiracy authors. The problem is that, in doing so, you are simply pointing to predigested arguments that may not accurately account for the evidence, and may not be responsive to the particular point in controversy here. To reply, "point out what's wrong with my citations," is to seek to shift the burden of proof to your critics, in effect making us responsible for both making your argument and refuting it.

This is why, as skeptics, we try to go back to original evidentiary sources whenever possible, so as to avoid the inevitable filtering and manipulating of evidence found in secondary sources. Undoubtedly, some secondary sources do a more faithful and credible job of reporting evidence, but to carry on debate here by simply citing competing secondary sources would be superficial and unsatisfying, encouraging disputes over messengers rather than evidence.
I fully agree, but in order to save time, sometimes it is more convinient to use summaries done by others as long as each and every claim in these are sourced to the original evidence/testimony.

That said, lets have a look at my sourcing in my latest response to Hank’s little list:

#10. Link to my post where I respond to an identical claim from Hank. In that post I link to the original evidence (HSCA acoustics investigation) and to ca ten posts where I’m trying to explain what said evidence says and argue for its veracity. Ergo, Hanks request has been met multiple times before he posted his little list of questions he claims I ”refuse” to answer.

#11. I link to a summary of the 216 witnesses in and around Dealey Plaza who are on record reporting their different observations. I also link to one representative post where I argue for the inclusion of different witnesses in the ’knoll-category’. That is, IF anyone has issues with some of the categorizings of some of the witnesses, feel free to point this out and of course it is a ”CT web site” if it’s purpose is to correct other faulty summaries from actors who have a different agenda. Per definition.

#12. Here I’m not sure if the poster ”Ed LeDoux” is a ”CT” or not, but I have checked his sources and they are all original statements, easy accessible behind the links posted in connection to each and every witness.

#13. Yes, this is per your definition a ”CT web page” but all the sources are listed in connection to all referenced witness testimony. Since the witnesses are so many (almost 50) and all their testimonies to different investigative bodies and researchers over the years also are listed, it’s a convenient resource to refere to when the totality of the testimonies are discussed (almost all of the almost 50 witnesses who observed/handled JFK’s headwounds close up are saying that it had a big gaping wound in the right back of the head). If one specific testimony is being discussed, of course I source it direct to the original record.

#14. The text is a transcription from doctors Perry and Clark in a press conference in Parkland shortly after they tried to save the life of JFK.

#15. Original transcripts from radio traffic shortly after the shooting at Elm Street.

#16. The original Bell film.

#17. I link to an earlier post from me where I source all the testimonies to official investigators, except one, who is the author Anthony Summers (officer Smith).

#18. • All the testimonies, except one, is given to official investigative bodies. The exception is officer Smith when interviewed by author Anthony Summers confirms and clearfies his earlier testimony to the WC.

• I know that Ed Hoffmans testimony to the FBI was given almost 14 years after the event, but it is up to each and everyone to evaluate his claims. I’m just pointing it out as testimony to a shooter from behind the picket fence on the knoll.

• Bowers was interupted mid sentence when he was about to explain to the WC in more detail what he observed behind the fence on the knoll. Again, my source in this instance is Author Anthony Summers, but Bowers gave similar testimonies to other researchers so I find it credible. And, the ”interuption” is in the WC hearing.

• Same with Jean Hill, either you believe her or you do not. Her testimony is on record and I am pointing it out.

#19. The evidence is the Zapruder film easy accessible on YouTube. My explanations and arguments for it showing a shot from in front are linked to in the post.

#20. Yes, Mantik is according to your definition a ”CT”, but that is fortunatly irrelevant in the real world, outside the Mighty Church. In the real world it is the evidence that counts and in case you dispute it, do so by citing it, explain your point of view and argue for its veracity.


Point is, ”Hanks” requests has been met and amply so.

To be continued.
manifesto 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
Old 16th June 2018, 12:28 PM   #487
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No, I don't think so. I think you're hoping I just go away. You're an intellectual coward. All you have is bald assertion followed up by assiduous name-calling.

Prove you're more than that. Answer my challenges "emedialy." Don't stall indefinitely and pretend it's all part of some master plan that makes you better than everyone else. People see right through that.
I find your desperate eagerness to be seen and attend to amusing. You have to be patient JayUtah. When time permits I’ll attend to your needs.

Promise.

Last edited by manifesto; 16th June 2018 at 12:34 PM.
manifesto 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
Old 16th June 2018, 12:46 PM   #488
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 30,036
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Cite ONE thing I have made up
It's your lie to perpetuate.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
1. Name one claim where I have not provided evidence and I provide it emeditaly.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
When time permits I’ll attend to your needs.

Promise.
Nobody can perpetuate your typical CT lie but you .
RoboTimbo 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
Old 16th June 2018, 01:03 PM   #489
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,318
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I find your desperate eagerness to be seen and attend to amusing.
And I find your ad hominems tedious and childish. It's also hilarious that you challenge people to point out your lies and evasions, and when they meet your challenge you try to write it off as some sort of "desperate eagerness" on their part, not something you yourself asked for. Has that sort of stunt ever worked for you before?

Quote:
You have to be patient JayUtah.
No, I don't. After weeks of your steadfast evasion, I can conclude that you are an intellectual coward who has no real knowledge, no real wisdom, and who is terrified to actually have a debate. Seems a reasonable conclusion given the evidence of your behavior.

Quote:
When time permits I’ll attend to your needs.
They're your needs. You keep claiming you've answered your critics with evidence. You keep saying that if people just point out where you haven't, you'll respond immediately to rectify that. You're the one who needs credibility and is visibly groping for it. And every time I point out that you're lying, that you know you haven't addressed my challenges, and that you clearly have no intention of answering them "immediately" as promised, or apparently no intention of answering them ever, you're the one who loses face. I certainly don't.

By all means keep stalling and proving me right, and yourself to be dishonest. It looks really good for you to say one thing and visibly do another, and then bluster about how your critics must all belong to some imaginary "church." Please by all means keep the world laughing at you. Don't let me save you from yourself.

Last edited by JayUtah; 16th June 2018 at 01:08 PM.
JayUtah is online now   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
Old 16th June 2018, 01:46 PM   #490
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,861
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I find your desperate eagerness to be seen and attend to amusing.
Funny. Jay has standing and you do not. Explain please.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
You have to be patient JayUtah. When time permits I’ll attend to your needs.
Funny, when you demand immediate response, somehow it seem to not apply to you. How does that work?

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Promise.
You have made many of those. All remain unfulfilled. Why is this particular one different? You have failed to meet any others so far.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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
Old 16th June 2018, 02:00 PM   #491
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
#11. I link to a summary of the 216 witnesses in and around Dealey Plaza who are on record reporting their different observations. I also link to one representative post where I argue for the inclusion of different witnesses in the ’knoll-category’. That is, IF anyone has issues with some of the categorizings of some of the witnesses, feel free to point this out and of course it is a ”CT web site” if it’s purpose is to correct other faulty summaries from actors who have a different agenda. Per definition.
This shows the problem that argument-by-link introduces. A third-party summary of witnesses pre-performs the operations that are the very issue: who witnessed what? When you post third-party summaries of evidence, your critics must attempt to rebut both that source and you, without fully knowing what you are contending on the basis of that source. It becomes a great muddle, and enables you to beg the question by proxy.
OKBob 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
Old 16th June 2018, 02:07 PM   #492
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
#12. Here I’m not sure if the poster ”Ed LeDoux” is a ”CT” or not, but I have checked his sources and they are all original statements, easy accessible behind the links posted in connection to each and every witness.
Again, a problem. Your critics should not have to accept your ipse dixit that the sources are all original and properly cited. And it is less a question of authenticity of sources as the way in which sources are marshalled, quoted, and deployed for argumentation by LeDoux and by you (by proxy). Arguing by source-pointing (in effect, saying, "I'm incorporating LeDoux's summaries by reference in my own argument") introduces too much static in relation to signal.
OKBob 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
Old 16th June 2018, 02:11 PM   #493
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I know that Ed Hoffmans testimony to the FBI was given almost 14 years after the event, but it is up to each and everyone to evaluate his claims.
No, that's shifting the burden of proof. In effect, you are asking your critics both to guess at why you're making a proffer of Hoffman and to rebut your (unarticulated) point at the same time. This is both fallacious and inefficient.
OKBob 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
Old 16th June 2018, 02:11 PM   #494
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
This shows the problem that argument-by-link introduces. A third-party summary of witnesses pre-performs the operations that are the very issue: who witnessed what? When you post third-party summaries of evidence, your critics must attempt to rebut both that source and you, without fully knowing what you are contending on the basis of that source. It becomes a great muddle, and enables you to beg the question by proxy.
I link to the ”Dealey Plaza Witness Database” beacause it is so easy to check the supporting evidence behind each and every witness according to from where they heard shots:

1. Klick the link to the Database.

2. Klick ”Knoll”.

3. Klick witness name and voilà, the relevant testimony is there.

The alternative would be to cite each and everyone of all 216 witnesses on record.

Instead I invite everyone opposed to any of the witnesses belonging to any category to explain and argue for why this is so.

Hank have done this with, i think, three of the ’knoll-witnesses’ and I have agreed to one of them being faulty categorized as such.

If you or anyone else have issues with other witnesses, point them out and explain why.
manifesto 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
Old 16th June 2018, 02:14 PM   #495
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
No, that's shifting the burden of proof. In effect, you are asking your critics both to guess at why you're making a proffer of Hoffman and to rebut your (unarticulated) point at the same time. This is both fallacious and inefficient.
My claim was that there is witnesses reporting observing suspect shooters with suspect weapons on the knoll.

I,m NOT claiming this as ”proof” of shooters with rifles on the knoll.
manifesto 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
Old 16th June 2018, 02:20 PM   #496
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,895
Originally Posted by manifesto;12329481IF
so, why is this not possible for a shooter on the knoll?

It is you who are claiming that observed smoke on the knoll in direct connection to shots fired is impossible since modern ammo is ”smokeless”. ’Smoke less’, is the ”operative” word here.

I proved you wrong.

Again.
Here's the problem, you've proved nothing, and these claims cannot be reconciled with the visual evidence. There was no smoke behind the fence because there was no shooter behind the fence, and firearms had used smokeless propellant for almost a century.

But you're a simple person, let's go to the Orville Nix film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQE8Cj_495g


This one is put up by the JFK Assassination forum.

There is a lot to see. You can see the fatal headshot and it's relation to the target. You can see most of the important witnesses who didn't see anyone behind the fence, and these folks had the clearest view.

You can see the three men standing on the stairs on the knoll turn and run up toward the fence TO GET OUT OF THE LINE OF FIRE from the shots coming from up the street at the TSBD.

What you don't see is anyone behind the fence, or a flash from Old Smokey.

No smoke.

Most of the witnesses only thought they heard shots come from the knoll, and the serious echo has been discussed here extensively.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 16th June 2018 at 02:21 PM.
Axxman300 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
Old 16th June 2018, 02:21 PM   #497
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
Again, a problem. Your critics should not have to accept your ipse dixit that the sources are all original and properly cited. And it is less a question of authenticity of sources as the way in which sources are marshalled, quoted, and deployed for argumentation by LeDoux and by you (by proxy). Arguing by source-pointing (in effect, saying, "I'm incorporating LeDoux's summaries by reference in my own argument") introduces too much static in relation to signal.
No.

1. LeDoux are listing witnesses who reported smoke in connection to the shootings in and around Dealey Plaza.

2. As proof of each and every witness doing just that he post the links to where they do it.

3. If anyone doubt this, it is easy to control the veracity of each and every claim by clicking one or more of the links to the supporting evidence.

What is missing here?
manifesto 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
Old 16th June 2018, 02:23 PM   #498
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 30,036
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No.

1. LeDoux are listing witnesses who reported smoke in connection to the shootings in and around Dealey Plaza.

2. As proof of each and every witness doing just that he post the links to where they do it.

3. If anyone doubt this, it is easy to control the veracity of each and every claim by clicking one or more of the links to the supporting evidence.

What is missing here?
Debunked.

https://www.archives.gov/research/jf...mission-report
RoboTimbo 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
Old 16th June 2018, 02:24 PM   #499
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Here's the problem, you've proved nothing, and these claims cannot be reconciled with the visual evidence. There was no smoke behind the fence because there was no shooter behind the fence, and firearms had used smokeless propellant for almost a century.

But you're a simple person, let's go to the Orville Nix film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQE8Cj_495g


This one is put up by the JFK Assassination forum.

There is a lot to see. You can see the fatal headshot and it's relation to the target. You can see most of the important witnesses who didn't see anyone behind the fence, and these folks had the clearest view.

You can see the three men standing on the stairs on the knoll turn and run up toward the fence TO GET OUT OF THE LINE OF FIRE from the shots coming from up the street at the TSBD.

What you don't see is anyone behind the fence, or a flash from Old Smokey.

No smoke.

Most of the witnesses only thought they heard shots come from the knoll, and the serious echo has been discussed here extensively.
Baloney. As usual.

The claim was that only ”muzzle loaded flintlocks” showed smoke when fired. My video proves this claim, wrong.

End of story.

Last edited by manifesto; 16th June 2018 at 02:27 PM.
manifesto 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
Old 16th June 2018, 02:29 PM   #500
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 30,036
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Baloney. As usual.

The claim was that only ”muzzle loaded flintlocks” showed smoke when fired. My video proves this claim, wrong.

End of story.
Nope.

https://www.archives.gov/research/jf...mission-report
RoboTimbo 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
Old 16th June 2018, 02:32 PM   #501
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Funny. Jay has standing and you do not. Explain please.
Funny, coming from you.

Quote:
Funny, when you demand immediate response, somehow it seem to not apply to you. How does that work?
Funny, where do I ”demand immediate respons”?

Quote:
You have made many of those. All remain unfulfilled. Why is this particular one different? You have failed to meet any others so far.
I attend to JayUtahs needs when time permits.

Promise.
manifesto 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
Old 16th June 2018, 02:34 PM   #502
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 30,036
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I attend to JayUtahs needs when time permits.
It's your lie to perpetuate.
RoboTimbo 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
Old 16th June 2018, 02:56 PM   #503
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
What is missing here?
What's missing is your own argument, articulated in your own words, carefully citing exactly the witness testimony that you believe supports your points. Nobody here cares about LeDoux and his links to testimony.
OKBob 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
Old 16th June 2018, 03:05 PM   #504
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Bowers was interupted mid sentence when he was about to explain to the WC in more detail what he observed behind the fence on the knoll. Again, my source in this instance is Author Anthony Summers, but Bowers gave similar testimonies to other researchers so I find it credible. And, the ”interuption” is in the WC hearing.
You cite Summers for the "interruption" claim. But if one goes to the actual testimony of Bowers, it's clear that he was allowed to testify fully about the two men he saw, where they were before the shots were fired and after the policeman rode up the incline, and what he thought he saw in the way of "a commotion." He was then asked if he could describe this commotion more fully, and he said that he couldn't "pinpoint" it. The transcript indicates that his sentence broke off here or was interrupted by Ball. Since Bowers was not able to "pinpoint" this "commotion," it's just as likely that his testimony tailed off and that Ball broke in to ask a further question. I see no basis for claiming that Ball diverted him from a major revelation of conspiracy.

Last edited by OKBob; 16th June 2018 at 03:15 PM.
OKBob 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
Old 16th June 2018, 03:06 PM   #505
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
• I know that Ed Hoffmans testimony to the FBI was given almost 14 years after the event, but it is up to each and everyone to evaluate his claims. I’m just pointing it out as testimony to a shooter from behind the picket fence on the knoll.
But let's look at your claim again that you were asked to prove: "Multiple witnesses saw suspect individuals with suspect weapons behind the fence on the knoll."

For Hoffman, I'm highlighting the pertinent word. You don't get to assume it. I pointed out you need to prove it. Show us that Hoffman was actually a witness. Your claim, your burden of proof. Citing someone who didn't come forward for years with a story doesn't establish he's a witness.



Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
• Bowers was interupted mid sentence when he was about to explain to the WC in more detail what he observed behind the fence on the knoll. Again, my source in this instance is Author Anthony Summers, but Bowers gave similar testimonies to other researchers so I find it credible. And, the ”interuption” is in the WC hearing.
And you don't get to assume what Bowers was going to say next, but that's exactly what you're doing. There was no mention at any point in his testimony of seeing multiple weapons or multiple shooters. He said he saw two men, who didn't appear to be together. He was also asked, at the end of his testimony, whether he had anything additional to add. He said he didn't.

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL - I believe you have talked this over with me before your deposition was taken, haven't we?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Is there anything that you told me that I haven't asked you about that you think of?
Mr. BOWERS - Nothing that I can recall.
Mr. BALL - You have told me all that you know about this, haven't you?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I believe that I have related everything which I have told the city police, and also told to the FBI.
Mr. BALL - And everything you told me before we started taking the deposition?
Mr. BOWERS - To my knowledge I can remember nothing else.
== UNQUOTE ==


Moreover, he also gave statements to the FBI and the Sheriff's office on 11/22/63. In neither of those statements did he mention seeing anyone with a gun.

https://history-matters.com/archive/...Vol6_0149b.htm

Here's his 11/22/63 DSO statement:
== QUOTE ==
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS

BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Lee E. Bowers, Jr., w/m/38 of 10508 Maplegrove Lane, Dallas, Texas DA-1-1909 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
I work at North Tower Union Terminal Co. RI-8-4698 7 am to 3 pm Monday thru [sic] Friday. The tower where I work is West and a little north of the Texas Book Depository Building. I was on duty today and about 11:55 am I saw a dirty 1959 Oldsmobile Station Wagon come down the street toward my building. This street dead ends in the railroad yard. This car had out of state license plats with white background and black numbers, no letters. It also had a Goldwater for "64" sticker in the rear window. This car just drove around slowly and left the area. It was occupied by a middle aged white man partly grey hair. At about 12:15 pm another car came into the area with a white man about 25 to 35 years old driving. This car was a 1957 Ford, Black, 2 door with Texas license. This man appeared to have a mike or telephone in the car. Just a few minutes after this car left at 12:20 pm another car pulled in. This car was a 1961 Chevrolet, Impala, 4 door, am not sure that this was a 4 door, color white and dirty up to the windows. This car also had a Goldwater for "64" sticker. This car was driven by a white male about 25 to 35 years old with long blond hair. He stayed in the area longer than the others. This car also had the XXX [strikeout] same type license plates as the 1959 Oldsmobile. He left this area about 12:25 pm. About 8 or 10 minutes after he left I heard at least 3 shots very close together. Just after the shots the area became crowded with people coming from Elm Street and the slope just north of Elm.

/s/ Lee E. Bowers Jr.

/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== UNQUOTE ==


You see any mention of weapons or shooters? I don't either.

To pretend that he would omit shooters from his same day statement and then, when he was testifying, got interrupted once, and forgot to mention it again, is just that, pretense. It has no basis in reality.



Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
• Same with Jean Hill, either you believe her or you do not. Her testimony is on record and I am pointing it out.
Jean Hill, on the day of the assassination, said she saw no shooter. In her Warren Commission testimony, she said nothing about seeing a shooter. She in fact specifically denied seeing any shooter:
https://history-matters.com/archive/...Vol6_0111a.htm
"No; I never saw a weapon during that whole time, in anyone's hand."

In her later statement from 1991, she didn't explain why she said that, and then offer a correction. She simply pretended her 1991 statement was what she was always saying. It wasn't. You don't get to pretend her statement from 28 years after the fact takes precedence over her statements on 11/22/63 and remain credible. You aren't. You don't get to pretend she didn't change her statements and she is credible. She isn't.



Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Point is, ”Hanks” requests has been met and amply so.
No.

• Hoffman hasn't been established to even be a witness, only assumed so.
• Bowers never said anything to anyone anywhere about witnessing a shooter or shooters.
• Jean Hill is the least credible assassination witness on the planet. No hyperbole. When the Moorman photograph was colorized, and a supposed knoll shooter dressed like a cop was inserted into the photo, Jean Hill started mentioning that she saw a knoll shooter dressed like a cop. But that was not something she ever mentioned prior to that. She changed her story as frequently as her underwear.



Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
To be continued.
I'll be here.

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; 16th June 2018 at 04:34 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 03:10 PM   #506
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Same with Jean Hill, either you believe her or you do not. Her testimony is on record and I am pointing it out.
No, either she is credible or not, and you must make the case for her credibility if you wish to have her claims accepted. And you'll have to account for a trajectory of testimony that began in 1963 with her seeing nothing on the knoll and ended in the 1990s with a man clearly firing a weapon.
OKBob 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
Old 16th June 2018, 03:14 PM   #507
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
#20. Yes, Mantik is according to your definition a ”CT”, but that is fortunatly irrelevant in the real world, outside the Mighty Church. In the real world it is the evidence that counts and in case you dispute it, do so by citing it, explain your point of view and argue for its veracity.
I'm requesting right now that you stop putting words in my mouth about Mantik or any other person I haven't discussed here. I'm also requesting that you stop making me a congregant of this "Mighty Church" you keep mentioning. It's ad hominem, illegitimate, and insulting to do so.
OKBob 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
Old 16th June 2018, 03:17 PM   #508
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
Again, a problem. Your critics should not have to accept your ipse dixit that the sources are all original and properly cited. And it is less a question of authenticity of sources as the way in which sources are marshalled, quoted, and deployed for argumentation by LeDoux and by you (by proxy). Arguing by source-pointing (in effect, saying, "I'm incorporating LeDoux's summaries by reference in my own argument") introduces too much static in relation to signal.
And - as an example of this noise - some of his witness aren't knoll witnesses. And in fact he agreed one of them should not be called a knoll witness.

He asks for why links to CT authors aren't reliable, he establishes why himself.

Ed LeDoux claims Nolan Potter is a smoke witness, but neglects to note where he saw the smoke. Potter saw the smoke in front of the TSBD rising about the trees. Manifesto includes LeDoux's treatment of Potter as support for his claim "- Multiple witnesses saw and smelled gunsmoke on and down Hill from the knoll."

That's nonsense, and that's why nobody should trust conspiracy sources.

Manifesto himself admitted Potter shouldn't be a knoll witness and his inclusion into the prior cited list was not correct:

Quote:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4148
What of this are not clear?

Potter said he could not determine from which direction the shots were fire.

...If he is explicitly stating that he could not determine from which direction the shots were fired, that is his statement.
The inclusion of Potter also calls into question the veracity of the 52 Knoll witnesses Manifesto previously cited. I pointed out plenty of other questionable calls, including that of a man - James Crawford - who pointed out the Depository as the source of the shots to a co-worker by the time of, or just after, the third shot. Even he is identified as a knoll witness in the list cited by Manifesto. By any reasonable accounting, he is a Depository witness. The list of 52 knoll witnesses cited by Manifesto is not a trustworthy source.

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; 16th June 2018 at 04:41 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 03:30 PM   #509
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Baloney. As usual.
Robert Prey, where have you been?

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
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 03:54 PM   #510
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,318
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I attend to JayUtahs needs when time permits.
No, I don't think you ever will. I think you're going to continue ignoring them on the gambit that I'll get bored or frustrated and go away, thus freeing you of the risk of embarrassing yourself with unsatisfactory answers.

Quote:
Promise.
A worthless promise. You post a lot, so time doesn't seem to be your problem. If time were your only problem, the fair approach would be to answer your critics on a first-come, first-served basis. But no, you pick and choose whom you will answer, regardless of whether they posted five minutes ago or five weeks ago. Which means there's some other criteria by which you're choosing to bestow your attention.

I submit you respond to posts you think you can dismiss quickly with a snide comment, an irrelevant link, or a veiled accusation. And you ignore any that require thought or knowledge beyond what your conspiracy authors have spoon-fed you. You already told me you don't like the kinds of questions I asked, so that's pretty much all the evidence I need to conclude that you're ignoring me not because you don't have time, but because you can't meet my challenges.

Prove me wrong, if you can.
JayUtah is online now   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
Old 16th June 2018, 04:22 PM   #511
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Robert Prey, where have you been?

Hank
You didn’t quote my post in full, Hank?
”Baloney. As usual.

The claim was that only ”muzzle loaded flintlocks” showed smoke when fired. My video proves this claim, wrong.

End of story.”
Axxman300 quoted my refutation of smartcooky’s claim that only ”muzzle loaded flintlocks” showed smoke when fired, with a long supposedly refuting rant that contained nothing with any bearing on the issue at hand.

Now, you come in and quote me, pretending I was wrong?

Is this what the Mighty Church are doing to you? Turning reality inside out, making black to white, up is down, right is wrong?

Is it worth it Hank?
manifesto 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
Old 16th June 2018, 04:26 PM   #512
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
I'm requesting right now that you stop putting words in my mouth about Mantik or any other person I haven't discussed here. I'm also requesting that you stop making me a congregant of this "Mighty Church" you keep mentioning. It's ad hominem, illegitimate, and insulting to do so.
You were refuting my WHOLE post and everything in it. If you keep siding with the Church in each and every post you write, I’ll take the liberty to include you in that category.

Until you show me otherwise.
manifesto 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
Old 16th June 2018, 04:29 PM   #513
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
You didn’t quote my post in full, Hank?
”Baloney. As usual."
Now, you come in and quote me, pretending I was wrong?
I said nothing at all about whether you were right or wrong on that point.

I merely pointed out your response bears a remarkable similarity to that of another poster, Robert Prey, whose favorite word was apparently 'baloney'. He didn't have much credibility either.

In my other posts, however, I did point out some issues with your claims. Claims you have yet to address with anything other than assumptions that your interpretations of the evidence are correct. You have to ignore all the hard evidence and expert testimony - or assume it's fradulent - to get to the point where your eyewitness out of context claims become meaningful to even discuss.

Is this what the Mighty Church of the bloody fruit cake is doing to you? Turning reality inside out, making black to white, up is down, right is wrong?

Is it worth it Manifesto?

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
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 04:31 PM   #514
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,210
As far as witness statements/testimony goes, there are a few rules I always apply to determine value, and therefore weight

1. Information gleaned from interviews as soon as possible (within minutes or hours) after the event has high value.

2. When multiple witnesses describe aspects of what they observed (descriptions of a suspect, descriptions of what they saw or heard, description of events as they unfolded, observations of things that happened etc) and those descriptions match or have a high degree of corroboration, then their statements have high value.

3. When witnesses differ significantly in their descriptions of events and the people involved, then their statements have low value.

4. Anything that is said by initially interviewed witnesses years after the event are of low value, unless their story remains largely the same throughout.

5. People who come forward for the first time years after the event have absolutely no value as witnesses at all, unless what they say is corroborated by either physical evidence or a substantial number of other eye-witnesses who were interviewed at or shortly after the event.

People such as Jean Hill and Ed Hoffman have zero value as witnesses. Ed Hoffman probably wasn't even there, his first report is in 1977/78 (14 years later). Jean Hill changed her story more often that she changed her knickers.

So, who do I think has value as witnesses? Here are a few

Harold Norman, James Jarman Jr and Bonnie Ray Williams: Three employees of the TSBD who had watched the motorcade from windows near the southeast corner of the fifth floor. They reported that they heard three gunshots come from over their heads, and plaster dust fell from the ceiling. Norman also heard the sounds of a bolt action rifle and those of cartridges dropping on the floor above them.

Howard Brennan: He was sitting across the street from the TSBD and facing directly at it. He told police that as he watched the motorcade go by, he heard a shot come from above, and looked up to see a man with a rifle make another shot from a corner window on the sixth floor. He had seen the same man minutes earlier looking out the window. He gave a description of this man, which was relayed to DPD officers at 12:45 p.m., 12:48 p.m., and 12:55


This is a photo taken in in March 1964 at the behest of the WC who asked him to pose for in the exact spot where he was seated on November 22
(A) indicates where he saw the shooter before and during the time when the shots were being fired
(B) indicates where he saw "coloured guys" (Harold Norman and James Jarman Jr) watching the motorcade.

The Ear-witnesses near the TSBD: The vast majority of these witnesses indicated the TSBD as the source of the the shots. They were very close to the source, so they were not as likely to hear the echoes that ear-witnesses further away in Dealey Plaza may have heard. Also, the vast majority of this group of witnesses were adamant that they only heard three shots. It was mostly people further from the TSBD (ie.e. more likel to hear echoes) who reported four or more shots, although the vast majority of them also reported only the three.

Samuel Kinney: A SS Agent and driver of the follow-up car directly behind the presidential limousine, who said “As we completed the left turn and on a short distance, there was a shot”.

George Hickey: The SS Agent in the rear-left seat of the follow up car said “Just prior to the shooting the presidential car turned left at the intersection and started down an incline. After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like a firecracker,”

Paul Landis: The SS Agent standing on the right-rear running board of the follow up car said “At this moment I heard what sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder.”

T.E. Moore: He was a Dallas County clerk who was standing on Elm Street. He said “There was a highway marker sign right in front of the Book Depository, and as the president got around to that, the first shot was fired.”
All four of these witnesses are indicating that the first shot was fired a lot earlier that most people think, and certainly before Z133 when Zapruder restarted his camera.
All of these people were interviewed at the time, were sure of what they saw or heard, and have not changed their story.

Reliable, unimpeachable witnesses!
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky 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
Old 16th June 2018, 04:32 PM   #515
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
No, either she is credible or not, and you must make the case for her credibility if you wish to have her claims accepted. And you'll have to account for a trajectory of testimony that began in 1963 with her seeing nothing on the knoll and ended in the 1990s with a man clearly firing a weapon.
No, you misread my claim. My claim was and is that multiple witnesses saw suspect shooters with suspect weapons on the knoll during the shooting.

Sure, I could include ’reported that they’ saw, but it is superfluous, since all eyewitness testimony is ’reported that they’ saw/heard/felt/smelled something.

The question of credibility and so on is separate from this.
manifesto 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
Old 16th June 2018, 04:37 PM   #516
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
I said nothing at all about whether you were right or wrong on that point.

I merely pointed out your response bears a remarkable similarity to that of another poster, Robert Prey, whose favorite word was apparently 'baloney'. He didn't have much credibility either.

In my other posts, however, I did point out some issues with your claims. Claims you have yet to address with anything other than assumptions that your interpretations of the evidence are correct. You have to ignore all the hard evidence and expert testimony - or assume it's fradulent - to get to the point where your eyewitness out of context claims become meaningful to even discuss.

Is this what the Mighty Church of the bloody fruit cake is doing to you? Turning reality inside out, making black to white, up is down, right is wrong?

Is it worth it Manifesto?

Hank
So, in attacking a post where I am 100% correct, implying that I’m the opposite isn’t at all inverting the situation and Reality itself?

Is it worth it, Hank? The warm feeling of belonging and acceptance for which you have to invert Reality itself?

I’m not religious, but it’s kind of ominous, isn’t it?

Last edited by manifesto; 16th June 2018 at 04:39 PM.
manifesto 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
Old 16th June 2018, 04:39 PM   #517
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,210
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
If time were your only problem, the fair approach would be to answer your critics on a first-come, first-served basis. .
Better still, if time were a problem, make the claim and provide the evidence in support of the claim at the same time in the same post.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky 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
Old 16th June 2018, 04:42 PM   #518
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,210
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
....all eyewitness testimony is ’reported that they’ saw/heard/felt/smelled something.

The question of credibility and so on is separate from this.
No, it isn't, no matter how much you wish it was.

What the witness says and what their credibility is, go hand in hand with determining the level of value of the witness' statement and the weight it should be accorded.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 16th June 2018 at 04:51 PM.
smartcooky 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
Old 16th June 2018, 05:14 PM   #519
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
My claim was and is that multiple witnesses saw suspect shooters with suspect weapons on the knoll during the shooting.
When did they make these statements about shooters and weapons? Who, what, and when? You must be including Hill, or why did you mention her?
OKBob 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
Old 16th June 2018, 05:17 PM   #520
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
You were refuting my WHOLE post and everything in it.
I think you've got the wrong person. I selected portions of your post and questioned them. And even if I had challenged the "WHOLE post," what would that have to do with some Church you've concocted? I suggest that you tone down the ecclesiastical rhetoric if you wish to be spared challenges to your own faith-based argumentation.

Last edited by OKBob; 16th June 2018 at 06:16 PM.
OKBob 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:29 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.