#1
Conspiracy JFK Forum
The Level Of Debate - Believers vs. Critics.
The Level Of Debate - Believers vs. Critics.
Dale Hayes Wrote:It is sad and humorous watching someone like MM clipping and pasting quotes from conspiracy books while posing as some kind of scholar or researcher. ANYBODY can do what MM does. He reads a lot - big deal. Ask him for credible evidence and just sit and watch the frivolity begin. And the insults. And the arrogance. His plot is SO obvious, but, curiously, he can't seem to summarize the iNCREDIBLE amount of evidence of THE PLOT and put it on display for us. No names, no shooting sequence and definitely NO credible evidence - Quotes from books insinuating names, but that's about all - hilarious.
Sadly, the above is quite typical of the level of debate that believers offer today.
It was much better a decade ago, before so much information was easily available. Dale knows very well that critics have provided a multitude of evidence that they cannot answer.
I invite any believer to put their cursor on the 'FORUM' icon at the top right of this forum, then click on 'Unanswered Topics'. The fact that there are so many unanswered topics demonstrates that believers simply don't have the evidence in their corner. They must pick and choose their debates carefully - as they end up losing many debates due to the evidence.
A good example would be David Von Pein's recent attempts this year to defend the fact that the money order was never cashed. Despite his many attempts - the topic ended the way it started... there's ZERO evidence that the money order was ever processed through any bank.
Unless believers can 'pick up their game' - a new generation is going to grow up accepting the fact of conspiracy.
Re: The Level Of Debate - Believers vs. Critics.
Ben Holmes Wrote:Sadly, the above is quite typical of the level of debate that believers offer today.
Perhaps it's simply a matter of getting what you deserve.
Re: The Level Of Debate - Believers vs. Critics.
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:Sadly, the above is quite typical of the level of debate that believers offer today.
Perhaps it's simply a matter of getting what you deserve.
Once again, you make the point I raise...
Believers simply cannot answer the evidence - and now the rather illogical answer is that it's only because I raise the point.
But these issues have been in the public for a long time, in some cases, over 50 years.
And were there a credible answer to be given by a Warren Commission Supporter - they'd be out there - all ready to cut & paste.
It's quite completely nonsensical to attribute that lack of ability to answer to some perceived character flaw of mine.
Re: The Level Of Debate - Believers vs. Critics.
So, Dale H. "Whine Man" Hayes, Jr. decided to cry on a new forum... how nice.
Yet it's the same old, same old boo hooing we've been subjected to at Amazon for at least 5 years. And from my first response to you back then, Whine Man, I clearly explained the ample evidence of the WR's deception should give honest and sensible people sufficient cause to believe there's much more to the assassination than their distorted version.
But nooooooooooooooooooo........ you just can't get past that little fact.
Yet it's the same old, same old boo hooing we've been subjected to at Amazon for at least 5 years. And from my first response to you back then, Whine Man, I clearly explained the ample evidence of the WR's deception should give honest and sensible people sufficient cause to believe there's much more to the assassination than their distorted version.
But nooooooooooooooooooo........ you just can't get past that little fact.
Re: The Level Of Debate - Believers vs. Critics.
If LNers had anything even mildly compelling to offer other than the tepid litany of "What Warren Said" there might be a modicum of hope in convincing anyone who knew anything about the case. As I've said before, everyone starts off knowing nothing, and works their way up. And almost everyone's opinion is slanted towards the "official" story...when they know nothing.
Here's what Lisa Pease said:
"The very first Warren Commission testimony I ever read was selected at random. Grabbed a volume at random, flipped to page at random, and was shocked to find Arlen Specter trying to put words in Dr. Perry’s mouth. Clearly, Perry believed Kennedy had been shot from in front. Clearly, Specter wasn’t going to let him go until he allowed that the shot “could” have come from behind. It was so shockingly dishonest I knew right then and there that not only had their been a cover-up, but that the media had not even bothered to read the evidence. It was so black and white."
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://jfkfacts.org/jfk-doctors-views-may-stir-parkland-debate/#comments">http://jfkfacts.org/jfk-doctors-views-m ... /#comments</a><!-- m -->
Here's what Lisa Pease said:
"The very first Warren Commission testimony I ever read was selected at random. Grabbed a volume at random, flipped to page at random, and was shocked to find Arlen Specter trying to put words in Dr. Perry’s mouth. Clearly, Perry believed Kennedy had been shot from in front. Clearly, Specter wasn’t going to let him go until he allowed that the shot “could” have come from behind. It was so shockingly dishonest I knew right then and there that not only had their been a cover-up, but that the media had not even bothered to read the evidence. It was so black and white."
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://jfkfacts.org/jfk-doctors-views-may-stir-parkland-debate/#comments">http://jfkfacts.org/jfk-doctors-views-m ... /#comments</a><!-- m -->
Re: The Level Of Debate - Believers vs. Critics.
Nick Principe Wrote:If LNers had anything even mildly compelling to offer other than the tepid litany of "What Warren Said" there might be a modicum of hope in convincing anyone who knew anything about the case. As I've said before, everyone starts off knowing nothing, and works their way up. And almost everyone's opinion is slanted towards the "official" story...when they know nothing.
Here's what Lisa Pease said:
"The very first Warren Commission testimony I ever read was selected at random. Grabbed a volume at random, flipped to page at random, and was shocked to find Arlen Specter trying to put words in Dr. Perry’s mouth. Clearly, Perry believed Kennedy had been shot from in front. Clearly, Specter wasn’t going to let him go until he allowed that the shot “could” have come from behind. It was so shockingly dishonest I knew right then and there that not only had their been a cover-up, but that the media had not even bothered to read the evidence. It was so black and white."
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://jfkfacts.org/jfk-doctors-views-may-stir-parkland-debate/#comments">http://jfkfacts.org/jfk-doctors-views-m ... /#comments</a><!-- m -->
Well stated.
Indeed, you can be shocked by what you find when you start reading the eyewitness testimony. One of my favorites was a lady called to testify who wasn't in Dealey Plaza, didn't know anyone in the case, but once knew the lady who'd babysat for a 2 year old named "Lee Harvey Oswald".
Re: The Level Of Debate - Believers vs. Critics.
Ben Holmes Wrote:Indeed, you can be shocked by what you find when you start reading the eyewitness testimony. One of my favorites was a lady called to testify who wasn't in Dealey Plaza, didn't know anyone in the case, but once knew the lady who'd babysat for a 2 year old named "Lee Harvey Oswald".
Yes, who knows where we'd be without the invaluable testimonies of Anne Boudreaux and Viola Peterman (Bennierita Smith is another favorite of mine). I wouldn't have time for Chaney either if I was on Dulles's pressing schedule.
Too bad OJ's prosecution didn't cross-examine the guy who lived four doors down from 5-year-old OJ in Potrero Hill; they might have cracked that case.
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)