19-06-2015, 05:19 PM
Interesting you should write this... do you feel the same for those who argue against the theories and evidence? or should they be allowed to cherry-pick a sentence like Greg and neglect to offer the information in context?
This is one you can take on Vanessa - no heavy lifting... the data is posted earlier in this thread...
Why is there an argument about the simple counting of days? He can't fit 200 into 123 so he does everything possible to make the discussion about something else... this is called a STRAW MAN rebuttal and comes straight out of a document which teaches how to disrupt and overtake a forum...
". Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of
your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look
good and the opponent to look bad. Either m[B]ake up an issue [/B]you may safely imply
exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation,
or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance
and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and
fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues."
He does not understand or know the material well enough to have a discussion which is more than evidence in every one of his posts.
What we see repeatedly now is the "selection of the weakest aspect of the weakest charges" - focusing on whether there was 100% intel of 95% intel surrounding Oswald in New Orleans has no bearing on the H&L evidence... THIS is
You've seen me post a few of the hundreds of bit of material which suggests the existence of two people who have been combined into one. I ask that you read thru CE1961 and then CE1962 and get back to mwith what YOU think the problem is there. Just take that single example and focus on it. There are numerous examples of Marines in one area describing one Oswald while another group who were summarily ignored who were describing the larger, southern, non-commie talking Lee. We then have the Folsom and Donadebian exhibits to review...
How does one begin a discussion when one of the party's POV is that the USMC simply asked their marines their vital stats upon discharge and did not actually do any of the measurements...
that his discharge height of 5'11" is a GUESS? This is where a conversation begins - without proof or corroboration this statement is absurd on its face, yet is the go to rebuttal argument for whu one man is 5'11 and thother barely 5'9.
Why one boy is 5'4" in 1953 and the other 4'10". And in reality, they don't look all that much alike... but just enough. If you can look at this collage and say all these men are the same person, we then need to go to step two and understand when these images were taken and why the boy with Ferrie, Harvey, is not the same person as the 1957 Biloxi Lee...
![[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=7012&stc=1]](https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7012&stc=1)
or that in less than 2 weeks his appearance changes that drastically? In the end Vanessa, these men are indeed similar but not anywhere close to identical...
![[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=7013&stc=1]](https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7013&stc=1)
Quote:Cos it seems to me if you are going to nail your colours to the wall over this theory then you ought to have at least read the entire book.
This is one you can take on Vanessa - no heavy lifting... the data is posted earlier in this thread...
Why is there an argument about the simple counting of days? He can't fit 200 into 123 so he does everything possible to make the discussion about something else... this is called a STRAW MAN rebuttal and comes straight out of a document which teaches how to disrupt and overtake a forum...
". Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of
your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look
good and the opponent to look bad. Either m[B]ake up an issue [/B]you may safely imply
exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation,
or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance
and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and
fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues."
He does not understand or know the material well enough to have a discussion which is more than evidence in every one of his posts.
What we see repeatedly now is the "selection of the weakest aspect of the weakest charges" - focusing on whether there was 100% intel of 95% intel surrounding Oswald in New Orleans has no bearing on the H&L evidence... THIS is
You've seen me post a few of the hundreds of bit of material which suggests the existence of two people who have been combined into one. I ask that you read thru CE1961 and then CE1962 and get back to mwith what YOU think the problem is there. Just take that single example and focus on it. There are numerous examples of Marines in one area describing one Oswald while another group who were summarily ignored who were describing the larger, southern, non-commie talking Lee. We then have the Folsom and Donadebian exhibits to review...
How does one begin a discussion when one of the party's POV is that the USMC simply asked their marines their vital stats upon discharge and did not actually do any of the measurements...
that his discharge height of 5'11" is a GUESS? This is where a conversation begins - without proof or corroboration this statement is absurd on its face, yet is the go to rebuttal argument for whu one man is 5'11 and thother barely 5'9.
Why one boy is 5'4" in 1953 and the other 4'10". And in reality, they don't look all that much alike... but just enough. If you can look at this collage and say all these men are the same person, we then need to go to step two and understand when these images were taken and why the boy with Ferrie, Harvey, is not the same person as the 1957 Biloxi Lee...
or that in less than 2 weeks his appearance changes that drastically? In the end Vanessa, these men are indeed similar but not anywhere close to identical...
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter