If there is anything that I've learned here, it is that the more farfetched a theory, the more fanatical is its proponent because it is a faith based belief. As a result, the proponent is all the more impervious to facts and evidence since they would not have reached this baseless conclusion in the first place had they been capable of reason. So meaningful discussion is impossible. Your problem is not just with LNers, though. To my knowledge there is not a single CTer on this forum who has professed a belief or support for your baseless conclusion that Truly, Shelley, Fritz, and Dougherty all had "foreknowledge" of the assassination. In fact, those that have expressed any opinion share my skepticism which you also rebutted in the same way with insults and snide remarks. Your theory is an outlandish outlier theory even in the JFK CTer community. Which is saying a great deal.
Unlike your baseless theory, no LNer needs to take our conclusion that LHO assassinated JFK to the NY Times or anyone else to have it validated. The official investigations and history books already agree with that conclusion. It does not surprise me, however, that you wish to limit your "evidence" and singular wisdom in uncovering the truth to an Internet forum rather than be exposed and embarrassed in the real world. Imagine the laughter if you made that silly pitch outside the context of this forum to a serious historian or journalist. You must know that is the case since you won't give it try. Now you are dismissed.
"If there is anything that I've learned here, it is that the more farfetched a theory, the more fanatical is its proponent because it is a faith based belief."I'm trawling through this mass of contradictory and often misleading evidence and eye-witness testimony, trying to make my
own sense of it, my
own interpretation of events based on the evidence as it stands. I am trying to create my
own narrative from all this. If that narrative agrees with others, all well and good. If it doesn't, so be it.
You, on the other hand, have had your narrative spoon-fed to you like some big baby. You've done nothing to earn it, added nothing to it, questioned nothing.
And you have the audacity to talk about a "faith based belief" as if it doesn't apply to you.
You simply regurgitate what you've swallowed whole.
There is no greater fanatic that he who is absolutely and utterly convinced he is right. You believe you are above the need to engage in any type of discussion and can contemptuously dismiss any serious debate without actually taking part.
But let us not forget this one, mind-blowing fact - there is not one iota of credible evidence that Oswald took the shots.
Really think about that. Think about your certainty and the quicksand it is built on.
Not one single, credible piece of evidence!How can that be?
How can you have so much certainty over so little?
The answer to that is - pure faith.
If there's one thing I've learned here, a fanatic will never consider anything outside his own, spoon-fed beliefs.
"As a result, the proponent is all the more impervious to facts and evidence since they would not have reached this baseless conclusion in the first place had they been capable of reason. So meaningful discussion is impossible."Again, I would steer the reader to "The Sign of a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory" to look through the record of the discussion I had with Richard there. It is me presenting the facts, analysing the evidence and proposing theories. Richard is simply in denial, the most telling sign of which is his deliberate refusal to understand the most basic arguments because they cause a problem for him and his faith.
Even in my last post here I'm providing a list of problematic issues as far as Oswald being the shooter:
All the witnesses who saw a man on the 6th floor describe him wearing a light/white shirt. Oswald was never described wearing such a shirt at the TSBD and no such shirt was found in his possession.
The only thing Amos Euins can remember is a bald spot. Something Oswald didn't have.
Brennan insists the shooter waited around admiring his handiwork yet seconds later Oswald is confronted in the second floor lunchroom.
Hank Norman can hear the shells hitting the floor but neither he, Williams nor Jarman hear "Oswald" running across the floor just above them.
Dorothy Garner reports hearing Adams and Styles racing down the stairs and Truly coming up the stairs but no Oswald.
Oswald's reported observation of Norman and Jarman entering the TSBD places him on the first floor (in the Domino Room) around 12:25Pm, exactly where he places himself at the time of the assassination.
These are all genuine issues in the evidence for the Oswald-Did-It scenario. The credible evidence for placing Oswald on the
6th floor at the time of the shooting is non-existent but that's good enough for you (because it is a matter of faith in your spoon-fed beliefs).
Argue against these points, I dare you.
"To my knowledge there is not a single CTer on this forum who has professed a belief or support for your baseless conclusion that Truly, Shelley, Fritz, and Dougherty all had "foreknowledge" of the assassination. In fact, those that have expressed any opinion share my skepticism which you also rebutted in the same way with insults and snide remarks. Your theory is an outlandish outlier theory even in the JFK CTer community. Which is saying a great deal."You have no idea what a compliment this is.
I have often bemoaned the fact that I am, by default, lumped in with the CTer community because I don't accept Oswald was the shooter. I consider myself an "outlier" in this community of mental health issues. The narrative I'm working on is my own, best interpretation of the evidence as I find it and is subject to radical revision in the light of relevant evidence or compelling argument. This is something I have demonstrated elsewhere on this forum. You can make yourself feel like a big man shooting down the farcical nonsense most forum members post here but, as you've already found out, you won't be getting such an easy ride from me.
I'd advise you to do what you did on the other thread, and run along.
"Unlike your baseless theory, no LNer needs to take our conclusion that LHO assassinated JFK to the NY Times or anyone else to have it validated. The official investigations and history books already agree with that conclusion."Yet another divisive tactic usually reserved for the lunatic fringe - misrepresentation.
I never wrote that you should take your "conclusion" anywhere. This is actually what I posted:
"Never forget - you only have a narrative.
And if you do ever come up with some credible evidence that Oswald fired the shots why don't you "take your "evidence" to the NY Times, Wash Post or some other media outlet" and put an end to all this?
Pulitzer winning stuff indeed."The point wasn't about the conclusions you've been spoon-fed and suck up unquestioningly (remember, they're not even
your own conclusions, they've been provided for you)
The point of the post was the mind-blowing fact that there is not one jot of credible evidence that Oswald took the shots.
Nothing. Nada. Nil.
Only someone of true faith could accept such a thing.
"Now you are dismissed."Dismissed??
By you ??
You must be joking.
Isn't it time for your diaper change?
