Jump to content
The Education Forum
Bruce Fernandez

Who supports/promotes the shills?

Recommended Posts

So you think you have something interesting on your site. I've been there, didn't see anything worth while [sic].

Boy, there's a real surprise, Ken. A CTer finding none of the actual evidence against Oswald "worthwhile".

That's something brand new, huh?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how would i have known it's your own website if i didn't click on it, David?

Easy. By the visible URL (jfk-archives.blogspot...).

But here's the translation of Glenn's post above....

Glenn DID click the link, but when he found out that it said "DVP's Archives", he immediately left the page without bothering to check any of the source links DVP provided to back up the things he was saying in the article regarding John Connally's bullet fragments.

True or false, Glenn?

the difference in Pat's website and yours is probably the credibility and content.

Yeah, prob'ly.

~eyeroll~

Of course he [Patrick J. Speer] can cite his own website.

But you don't like the idea of me doing the same thing, right?

Nice double standard, Glenn.

Easy. By the visible URL (jfk-archives.blogspot...).

* How does that tell me it's yours, David?

True or false, Glenn?

* False, I read until i got to the part about someone shaving minute sections of lead from the lead core of the butt of the bullet.

Nice double standard, Glenn

* Not a double standard at all. I know what kind of material you present, and I know what kind he presents. His is credible in a good defense; yours is not. In fact, you'd be properly advised NOT to use your own material if you actually intend to be convincing.

any other questions, Dave?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i mean, not that I'll reply, but fire away...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for a word or two in defense of the people who usually and predictably get slagged in threads like these: They are not stupid, they do not have a lesser knowledge of the evidence and they are not shills, agents or paid agents. They are sincere people who, whether you like it or not, interpret things differently than you, and they deserve the same courtesies as you, like not being constantly called names and put down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is my first real foray into a forum such as this, and i've been very impressed by the fantastic intellect in those with whom i do and do not agree. before this venture i would have laughed at the idea of someone spending this much energy and time just trying to dissuade others from getting in the longer line for no real reason. i don't scoff at that any more.

none of us are idiots - i value everyone's opinions. i don't value a transparent agenda in the face of good, solid reasoning, sincerity notwithstanding.

interpretation is one thing. denial is another (i'm a recovered alcoholic - i don't judge denial either). but plain bad logic is hard to put up with, and is what makes me think that there ARE shills, for whatever motive.

just plain old bad reasoning is what kills the credibility, in my mind, not interpretation or opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think you have something interesting on your site. I've been there, didn't see anything worth while [sic].

Boy, there's a real surprise, Ken. A CTer finding none of the actual evidence against Oswald "worthwhile".

That's something brand new, huh?

There is NO evidence against Oswald, that's why what you have isn't interesting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interpretation is one thing. Denial is another.

I completely agree.

Just check out the "SBT / Lapel Flip" thread for the true definition of "denial". It's vividly illustrated HERE.

just plain old bad reasoning is what kills the credibility, in my mind, not interpretation or opinion.

Hear, hear!

Such as the type of bad reasoning possessed by many conspiracy theorists that allows them to consider the idea that Lee Oswald was being framed in advance of the assassination, but despite that alleged fact, the real assassins decided to shoot John Kennedy with at least TWO rifles (in both front and rear locations) on 11/22/63.

Shouldn't THAT type of "bad reasoning" automatically "kill the credibility" of the person advancing such a cockeyed theory?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is NO evidence against Oswald...

What was I just saying about "denial"? Ken is living, breathing proof of it.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for a word or two in defense of the people who usually and predictably get slagged in threads like these: They are not stupid, they do not have a lesser knowledge of the evidence and they are not shills, agents or paid agents. They are sincere people who, whether you like it or not, interpret things differently than you, and they deserve the same courtesies as you, like not being constantly called names and put down.

Stephen, I haven't been here long, but I haven't seen this "like not being constantly called names and put down." that you refer to. I do see standard terminology, Nutters and Cter's but that just for simplicity. Put down? Proven wrong? isn't that what both sides are doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a double standard at all. I know what kind of material you present, and I know what kind he [Pat Speer] presents. His is credible in a good defense; yours is not. In fact, you'd be properly advised NOT to use your own material if you actually intend to be convincing.

And none of the source material I present is "credible" either, is that correct?

IOW, the only "credible" and "convincing" stuff is the material put up by CTers. Right, Glenn? Despite the fact that no CTer in history has ever produced any solid (or physical) evidence to PROVE their claims of a JFK conspiracy. Gotcha.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is NO evidence against Oswald, that's why what you have isn't interesting

What was I just saying about "denial"? Ken is living, breathing proof of it.

And yet you still fail to produce any, the same as everyone else. When someone comes up with some evidence, we'll all know about it. 51+ years and still none. That's not denial, that's fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does that ["JFK-Archives..." URL] tell me it's yours, David?

Well, you're right, it wouldn't automatically tell you that info if you've never visited any of my pages previously. But I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that perhaps you *had* visited at least one of my "JFK Archives" pages in the past since 2010. I must have been mistaken in assuming that. Sorry.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a double standard at all. I know what kind of material you present, and I know what kind he presents. His is credible in a good defense; yours is not. In fact, you'd be properly advised NOT to use your own material if you actually intend to be convincing.

And none of the source material I present is "credible" either, is that correct?

IOW, the only "credible" and "convincing" stuff is the material put up by CTers. Right, Glenn? Despite the fact that no CTer in history has ever produced any solid (or physical) evidence to PROVE their claims of a JFK conspiracy.

There has been very much proof of 'a' conspiracy because it has been clearly proven that there were more than one shooter and that single fact alone 'proves' a conspiracy. It does not 'prove' 'who' was involved, but it does prove 'a' conspiracy and that simple proof is the disproof that it was LHO. So you should stop talking about evidence to 'prove' a conspiracy, that is way in the past....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does that ["JFK-Archives..." URL] tell me it's yours, David?

Well, you're right, it wouldn't automatically tell you that info if you've never visited any of my pages previously. But I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that perhaps you *had* visited at least one of my "JFK Archives" pages in the past since 2010. I must have been mistaken in assuming that. Sorry.

just for the record " jfk-archives.blogspot..." will not link you to anything.. just click on that and see where you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a double standard at all. I know what kind of material you present, and I know what kind he presents. His is credible in a good defense; yours is not. In fact, you'd be properly advised NOT to use your own material if you actually intend to be convincing.

And none of the source material I present is "credible" either, is that correct?

IOW, the only "credible" and "convincing" stuff is the material put up by CTers. Right, Glenn? Despite the fact that no CTer in history has ever produced any solid (or physical) evidence to PROVE their claims of a JFK conspiracy.

There are many people properly convicted and in prison based solely on circumstantial evidence. In fact, most people who are being exonerated are the ones who were convicted on "eye-witness" testimony.

a little perspective...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...