11/22/21

[Richard Smith]

One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is correct, is the fact that contrarians never even attempt to provide a counternarrative (much less actual evidence) to explain what actually happened.

Trust "Richard" to actually confirm what I just said and come up with the biggest cop out of them all! Basically, he is saying here that he (the official narrative) is right unless a counter narrative proves him/it wrong. It's not a surprise, though. It's just about all "Richard" has to offer. In the real world, there is no need for a counter narrative. The official narrative either stands or doesn't when scrutinized. In this case it clearly doesn't, which is exactly why the LNs fail completely to defend it.

In fact, some contrarians won't even admit they are CTers.

Have you ever considered the possibility that somebody can scrutinize the official narrative, to see if it will withstand closer examination, without having any kind of theory about the conspiracy that must have existed, if the official narrative turns out to be a fairytale? Of course you haven't! Calling people CT's and contrarians is just a defense mechanism for you, designed to help you avoid having to discuss the actual evidence and the case.

Because the contrarian/defense attorney position requires no facts, evidence, common sense, or reason to defend.

To be a contrarian you need to dismiss, or disagree with, a popular opinion. That's not the case here as there is no popular opinion that supports the official narrative. For the past 58 years there has never been a majority in support of the official story. But, hey, when you disagree with "Richard" you must be a contrarian, right? 

You sound like a very bad prosecutor who complains to the judge that the defense is asking too many good questions.

Yawn.  Down the rabbit hole we go again.

[Dan O'meara]

58 years ago today.

What do we know with absolute certainty?

1. Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself and unassisted shot and killed John F. Kennedy.

In the short time I've been looking into this case, the only thing I know, with absolute certainty, is that there is not a single piece of credible evidence that Oswald took the shots.

Not a single piece!

Talking about "absolute certainty" over this matter reveals a belief system. A faith-based perception. Perhaps even indoctrination.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yawn.  Down the rabbit hole we go again.

See, I told you.... not even an attempt to defend his position. 

[Richard Smith]

See, I told you.... not even an attempt to defend his position.
[/quote

Perfect contrarian response.  Derail the discussion with personal insults.  Take no position on the matter being discussed.  Down the rabbit hole.

[Martin Weidmann]

See, I told you.... not even an attempt to defend his position.


Perfect contrarian response.  Derail the discussion with personal insults.  Take no position on the matter being discussed.  Down the rabbit hole.

Perfect contrarian response.

The broken record plays again (and again, and again, and again......)

A contrarian is somebody who goes against popular belief. In this case there is no popular belief. All there is, is your opinion, which is far from popular or credible. Just how often does this need to be explained to you before you start using words correctly?

Derail the discussion with personal insults.

Projection. The one who is constantly insulting people, simply because they disagree with you, is you!

Take no position on the matter being discussed.

Wrong twice!

I do take a position when I question the authenticity or validity of a piece of evidence, but perhaps that's just too difficult for you to understand.

And with you, there is no discussion. You never ever discuss anything..... instant dismisal, ridicule and misrepresentations is all you ever have to offer.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Then they should be reviewed by the congressional intelligence committees and sorted out there.

I have always felt that if there are documents that still need to be witheld (which is likely) that a new panel should be empowered to review them to attempt to assure researchers that there is nothing amiss there.

   BTW--These sources and methods are a little out dated aren't they? I mean after 58 years...it's obviously not the same world.
Of course there is nothing nefarious to be concerned with when it comes to the CIA or the FBI right? 

On methods, here is a quote from my article:

"The agency fought to withhold a document captured from Imperial Germany during World War I because it revealed a method of making invisible ink that was an antecedent of a method still used by intelligence agencies."

So, in one way the method was obsolete but it pointed to a new method.

On sources, here is a quote from Mark Zaid:

"… there is the possibility there's some information within these files that still needs to be protected … I'll give you one example. Lee Harvey Oswald, the expected assassin, went to Mexico City in September of 1963. We know he visited the Soviet and the Cuban embassies. We might have had, probably did, sources in those embassies, both human and technical, and protecting those sources, especially human, they could still be alive 58 years later. They could be in their 80s right now."

[Richard Smith]

Perfect contrarian response.

A contrarian is somebody who goes against popular belief. In this case there is no popular belief. All there is, is your opinion, which is far from popular or credible.
Just how often does this need to be explained to you before you start using words correctly?

Derail the discussion with personal insults.

Projection. The one who is constantly insulting people, simply because they disagree with you, is you!

Take no position on the matter being discussed.

Wrong twice!

I do take a position when I question the authenticity or validity of a piece of evidence, but perhaps that's just too difficult for you to understand.

And with you, there is no discussion. You never ever discuss anything..... instant dismisal, ridicule and misrepresentations is all you ever have to offer.

And on and on it goes down the rabbit hole.  Claim that someone has not provided "evidence."  What exactly are we to make of that since the evidence of Oswald's guilt is well known?  Even to you.  The case against Oswald is known to everyone here.  There is no reason to go over it again and again.  You discount that evidence, imply it is the product of fakery while entertaining all manner of outlandish counter explanations supported by no evidence whatsoever, but then deny you are a CTer because taking any position would expose the absurdity of your lazy contrarian game.  Then you make it personal with a lot of commentary.   Repeat over and over and over...ZZZ. 

[Martin Weidmann]

And on and on it goes down the rabbit hole.  Claim that someone has not provided "evidence."  What exactly are we to make of that since the evidence of Oswald's guilt is well known?  Even to you.  The case against Oswald is known to everyone here.  There is no reason to go over it again and again.  You discount that evidence, imply it is the product of fakery while entertaining all manner of outlandish counter explanations supported by no evidence whatsoever, but then deny you are a CTer because taking any position would expose the absurdity of your lazy contrarian game.  Then you make it personal with a lot of commentary.   Repeat over and over and over...ZZZ.

And on and on it goes down the rabbit hole. 

And the broken record plays again......

Claim that someone has not provided "evidence."

Well, you most certainly haven't, so that claim is correct.

What exactly are we to make of that since the evidence of Oswald's guilt is well known?

Hilarious, if it wasn't so sad. You assume Oswald's guilt and then select the evidence that, in your opinion, supports that predetermined conclusion, while at the same time ignoring and dismissing all the problems there are with that evidence.
You clearly have not understood the difference between evidence and proof.

The case against Oswald is known to everyone here.  There is no reason to go over it again and again.

Yes there is. That's what this forum is actually about.

You discount that evidence, imply it is the product of fakery while entertaining all manner of outlandish counter explanations supported by no evidence whatsoever,

No. Wrong on all counts. I don't discount any evidence, but I do question problematic parts of it and want people like you to defend the evidence and the conclusions that can be drawn from it.

I also don't imply that the evidence is the product of fakery, but I do question the validity and authenticity of that evidence when there is good reason to do so.

And I don't present "outlandish counter explanations" because you have never ever presented anything that needed to be countered.

but then deny you are a CTer because taking any position would expose the absurdity of your lazy contrarian game.

How can I be a CTer, when I don't have a theory about any kind of conspiracy. What you can't get through your thick skull is that I couldn't care less about a conspiracy, if there was one. My only interest in this case is to determine if the evidence presented against Oswald can withstand scrutiny and justify the conclusions you and your ilk are drawing from it. You can behave like a cry baby all you want, but that doesn't alter the basic fact that you have demonstrated clearly that you are unable or unwilling to defend the official narrative, which tells me all I need to know.

Then you make it personal with a lot of commentary.

Commentary like me telling you that you are unable to defend the official narrative, is that what you mean? Is that what you call "making it personal"? Did I hurt your feelings?

What makes you the entitled one, thinking that your opinion is always the right one and that everybody else is stupid and beneath you? Who do you think you are to insult people left, right and center, just because they disagree with you?