Post by c***@gmail.comPost by Ben HolmesPost by c***@gmail.comPost by Ben HolmesPost by c***@gmail.comArguing to argue. Again.
So you're denying that anyone needs to support their own statements...
Eristic argument. Arguing to argue. Again.
So you're agreeing that it's "eristic" to demand that someone support
their own statement.
On useless side arguments over what this poster said, etc. yes.
Good of you to be explicit. Even though you weasel with the "side
argument" garbage.
Post by c***@gmail.comIt's just arguing to argue. It goes no where. The same demands buffs
make at this board almost thirty years ago are the same demands they
make today.
And the answers that believers are providing today are the same absent
ones they gave decades ago.
Such cowards you believers are... you can't admit that most all of
your arguments have evaporated in the wind now that we have more
information.
Post by c***@gmail.comPostjacking something from .john and asking if a "believer" here will
dare support the statement is just another eristic argument.
No, it's merely additional proof for the cowardice and dishonesty of
all believers.
Johnny would censor such a post in his playground, and now you object
to me pointing it out in public.
Eristics...
Post by c***@gmail.comPost by Ben HolmesI'll have to save this one for the next time you whine and demand
citations.
Apples and oranges.
How so?
Why are critics required to present a scenario, do tests, support
their claims...
But believers aren't?
Post by c***@gmail.comYou're the C-H-A-L-L-E-N-G-E-R, Ben.
Meaningless. Scientists who argued against Phlogiston were also
challenging the original viewpoint.
Sounds to me like you're a flat earther...
Post by c***@gmail.comYou make mighty big claims about 7-8 shots in the Plaza
'The evidence is better explained by 7-8 shots' is a "mighty big
claim?"
How so?
Post by c***@gmail.coma switched JFK corpse/coffin
That is indeed what the evidence shows... You're simply TERRIFIED of
explaining this, aren't you?
Post by c***@gmail.comaltered films and photos
Altered film, yes. Altered autopsy photos, yes.
Oh, you're simply lying... No need to ask you to support what you
cannot support.
Post by c***@gmail.comLBJ as a co-conspirator
Who, in this case, had the biggest motive?
Don't bother answering - you're terrified of the truth.
Post by c***@gmail.comand on and on. Don't you see the difference?
Yep... you're a liar and a flat earther... how silly!
Post by c***@gmail.comOne side has already laid out a case--twice--with the WC and HSCA
and also various sub investigations,
And by that standard, so have the critics. Mark Lane, Douglas Horne,
et al... So what are you whining about?
Post by c***@gmail.comand the other side can only sputter that
something else happened, somehow.
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Lies won't convince anyone...
Post by c***@gmail.comPost by Ben HolmesIndeed it is... but it's also true. From now on - AND BASED ON YOUR
OWN STATEMENT - it would be "eristic" of me to support my own
statements, so I need no longer do so.
Ironically, another erisitc argument.
Oh, *anything* said to you is "eristic" or has some flaw of the month.
Any excuse to hide the fact that you're a coward.
Post by c***@gmail.comPost by Ben HolmesPost by c***@gmail.comLet's talk about your 7-8 shot shooting sequence.
You won't. You'll simply run away. Does 3 evenly spaced shots or 7-8
closely spaced shots best describe a "flurry of shots?"
So someone saying there was a "flurry of shots" constitutes your
proof of 7-8 shots?
Logical fallacy. I knew you'd run... I predicted it.
Post by c***@gmail.comYou demand absolute precision in all areas from the WC or HSCA
Another logical fallacy...
No, I demand the honest truth. Both investigations *PROVABLY* lied.
And you can't explain that fact.
Post by c***@gmail.combut you are allowed to conclude 7-8 shots based on an earwitness
statement in the limo. Can you even set the bar any lower?
I'm allowed to use the evidence to conclude what actually happened.
You're allowed to lie and run away ...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME.
Post by c***@gmail.comWell, let's discuss it. Lay out your 7-8 shot shooting scenario. Ready?
You ran ... why are you demanding even *MORE* evidence to run from?
But if you're willing to look even more cowardly - tell us why CE399
couldn't be duplicated by the WC's testing.
Prediction: you'll run again.