David Von Pein Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) So, Jon, do you consider all of the bullets, guns, shells, fingerprints in the JFK case to be "hearsay"? D. - objects can't be hearsay. hearsay is limited to testimony, because it's things that people "say". this is why they called it hearsay. otherwise they'd have called it hearstuff. or hearsomething. or... Exactly. That was kind of my whole point, Glenn. Note the quote marks around the word "hearsay" in my post. Duh! Edited August 5, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Mr. Von Pein, basing generalities about ALL CTer's based upon a statement by ONE CTer is a flawed concept. I have no idea what are you're talking about here, or what "ONE CTer" you're referring to. Care to clarify? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 You don't even think Oswald had a gun in the theater, do you Greg? Admit it---you think he was unarmed, don't you? ??? what??? Glenn, I've talked to some Internet CTers who have actually suggested that Oswald was totally unarmed in the theater. They say LHO had NO GUN at all, and the cops planted the S&W revolver on him. That's why I asked Greg Parker that question. And Greg certainly seems to be entertaining the "No Gun" idea when he said this.... "I'm not ashamed to be skeptical about any official story put out by proven rogues and benders of the laws." -- G. Parker Pretty soon we'll probably have CTers denying the assassination occurred in Dallas. David, do you know the difference in helpful in forming a conclusion and proving a conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 So, Jon, do you consider all of the bullets, guns, shells, fingerprints in the JFK case to be "hearsay"? D. - objects can't be hearsay. hearsay is limited to testimony, because it's things that people "say". this is why they called it hearsay. otherwise they'd have called it hearstuff. or hearsomething. or... Exactly. That was kind of my whole point, Glenn. Note the quote marks around the word "hearsay" in my post. Duh! I do not believe you, not with the way your question was worded. "Do you consider all of the bullets, ..." bs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 Mr. Von Pein, basing generalities about ALL CTer's based upon a statement by ONE CTer is a flawed concept. I have no idea what are you're talking about here, or what "ONE CTer" you're referring to. Care to clarify? "Jon has been saying for weeks now that he thinks NONE of the evidence in the JFK case is really "evidence" because it never found its way into a courtroom. That's the ONLY thing that can make it "evidence", per Jon G. Tidd." Jon (you can tell because he used the name 'Jon' in the subject) is the one CTer he and you were referring to. You very clearly grouped all of us into your opinion based on Jon's statement. This is your specialty, of which your mom is likely quite proud. here's another: I've talked to some Internet CTers who have actually suggested that Oswald was totally unarmed in the theater. They say LHO had NO GUN at all, and the cops planted the S&W revolver on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) Yeah, sure, Glenn. Like I really think physical objects can be considered "hearsay".Why do you think I put quotation marks around "hearsay"? It was because the one and only example Jon was supplying in his previous post (in his little "A, B, C" scenario) was an example of "hearsay", which doesn't apply in any way to the physical evidence in the JFK case. So I have no idea what point Jon was trying to make at all. Hence, I phrased my follow-up question to him in a manner that would be analogous to Jon's only example provided---a "hearsay" example (with quote marks around it). But since guns and bullets aren't hearsay, Jon's post makes no sense (particularly since we were earlier talking about what constitutes "evidence"). Edited August 5, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) And so by mentioning ONE person's name (Jon), and by saying "some Internet CTers", that means I am automatically lumping ALL CTers together in those statements? Bizarre. Edited August 5, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Which actions do you mean, DVP? And convict him in what sense? Oswald's location in the TSBD between 12 noon and 12:30 p.m. has been the subject of great debate, as has been his means of transportation following his departure from the TSBD, as well as his route and timing of travel to the Texas Theater. How do you have certainty as to these matters? I'd like to know. Jon, I mean that Oswald's provable "actions" and movements, in general, certainly point more toward his GUILT than they do his INNOCENCE. Wouldn't you agree? E.G., ...He leaves the TSBD within minutes of the assassination.... So did Charles Givens. James Jarman Jr. testified that when the roll call that indicated Oswald was missing was taken, so was Givens. Does that also make Givens guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) And so by mentioning ONE person's name (Jon), and by saying "some Internet CTers", that means I am automatically lumping ALL CTers together in those statements? Bizarre. the following is the second example. I'll find the one with Jon and prove you did so in that astounding bit of reason, too... You used this: "I've talked to some Internet CTers who have actually suggested that Oswald was totally unarmed in the theater" to support your assertion that Greg must therefore think O was unarmed. there's no way around that. it was what you thought, implied and said. and lumping Greg into the equation with no other reason to think he thinks O was unarmed is tantamount to including any CTer. so YES, you used some people to assume another person thought the same thing. admit it. Edited August 5, 2015 by Glenn Nall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 Which actions do you mean, DVP? And convict him in what sense? Oswald's location in the TSBD between 12 noon and 12:30 p.m. has been the subject of great debate, as has been his means of transportation following his departure from the TSBD, as well as his route and timing of travel to the Texas Theater. How do you have certainty as to these matters? I'd like to know. Jon, I mean that Oswald's provable "actions" and movements, in general, certainly point more toward his GUILT than they do his INNOCENCE. Wouldn't you agree? E.G., ...He leaves the TSBD within minutes of the assassination.... So did Charles Givens. James Jarman Jr. testified that when the roll call that indicated Oswald was missing was taken, so was Givens. Does that also make Givens guilty? condition: there were in fact many people shown to have lied during this criminal investigation. condition: lying in a criminal investigation is as much guilty behavior as any behavior i can think of. conditional proposal: if, according to DVP, guilty behavior in the wake of a crime proves guilt, then, my friends, we have proof of a conspiracy. has my conditional reasoning failed me, D.? or are any of the conditions errant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 And so by mentioning ONE person's name (Jon), and by saying "some Internet CTers", that means I am automatically lumping ALL CTers together in those statements? Bizarre. "Jon has been saying for weeks now that he thinks NONE of the evidence in the JFK case is really "evidence" ..." you said earlier that we CTers believe that ALL of the evidence is fake. you stereotype based on one person's statement, pure and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) James Jarman Jr. testified that when the roll call that indicated Oswald was missing was taken, so was Givens. Does that also make Givens guilty? Charles Givens had two alibi witnesses standing with him when President Kennedy was shot (James and Edward Shields) [see 6 H 351]. Plus, Givens went back to the TSBD after the shooting, but it had been sealed off by then and he couldn't get back in. So he left. That's hardly a situation that could be defined as fleeing the crime scene.... CHARLES GIVENS -- "Well, we broke and ran down that way, and by the time we got to the corner down there of Houston and Elm, everybody was running, going toward the underpass over there by the railroad tracks. And we asked--I asked someone some white fellow there, 'What happened ?" And he said, "Somebody shot the President." Like that. So I stood there for a while, and I went over to try to get to the building after they found out the shots came from there, and when I went over to try to get back in, the officer at the door wouldn't let me in." [6 H 355] Edited August 5, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Just this one LNer, and no other person in the assassination community? Now I understand. That your new motto Steve? Up to NOW you've been unable to understand? That's what you seem to be saying since NOW you understand me as well. Lol We all use some of these.. human nature.. LNers only more so since they have to defend the WCR & HSCA and no matter how hard they try The Evidence let's them down every time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 James Jarman Jr. testified that when the roll call that indicated Oswald was missing was taken, so was Givens. Does that also make Givens guilty? Charles Givens had two alibi witnesses standing with him when President Kennedy was shot (James and Edward Shields) [see 6 H 351]. Plus, Givens went back to the TSBD after the shooting, but it had been sealed off by then and he couldn't get back in. So he left. That's hardly a situation that could be defined as fleeing the crime scene.... CHARLES GIVENS -- "Well, we broke and ran down that way, and by the time we got to the corner down there of Houston and Elm, everybody was running, going toward the underpass over there by the railroad tracks. And we asked--I asked someone some white fellow there, 'What happened ?" And he said, "Somebody shot the President." Like that. So I stood there for a while, and I went over to try to get to the building after they found out the shots came from there, and when I went over to try to get back in, the officer at the door wouldn't let me in." [6 H 355] he wasn't suggesting that Givens is guilty, David. Damn. He was pointing out that, by your reasoning, if someone was missing from roll call, then he must be guilty. And that this is NOT a logic follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 David (and Stephen and Kathy), Right. Glenn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now