Jump to content
The Education Forum
Bruce Fernandez

Who supports/promotes the shills?

Recommended Posts

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, as always, I tend to agree with most things you say. But, my criticism of most LNers in general is that they tend to be living decades in the past in terms of research and ignore entire fields of research that is inconvenient for them to delve into. Of course, CT's often ignore evidence too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hard not to ignore evidence for a Lone Gunman when there's just so little of it.

OH! you mean in general... yep, i can admit getting a little uncomfortable when reading some things. :) not too often, tho...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn / Ken,

The evidence of Oswald's guilt is right there before your eyes. It's not my fault you can't (or won't) add up the pieces.

You say you want the truth. I say "the truth" has been staring you in the face since 11/22/63. Unfortunately, you choose to look the other way.

And I'd love to hear Ken (or any CTer) try to logically explain to a jury Oswald's actions (and his utterances) in the theater within the context of the "Oswald Never Shot Anybody On Nov. 22" framework. Would ANY of the jurors not be doubling over from laughter? I doubt it.

Here is just a sample of the type of silliness a defense lawyer would have to present to a jury if Lee Oswald had lived long enough to stand trial for J.D. Tippit's murder....

The Hilarious Defense Of Lee Harvey Oswald

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I had your total freedom, Ken. You can just make up stuff from pure nothingness all day long and try to pass off such tommyrot as an "open mind". No need to stick with the physical evidence. Just pretend it was all faked to frame Oswald. Done deal. Ahhhh, what a life!

And why don't you have 'total freedom'? Who or what constrains you from having the freedom to see the truth?

DVP are you deliberately avoiding this question?

Of course I'm deliberately avoiding that question, Ken. Because it's a silly (i.e., dumb) question.

However, since you are a charter member of the popular "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity here on the Internet, you are, quite naturally, unable to tell that your question is inane and ridiculous.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn / Ken,

The evidence of Oswald's guilt is right there before your eyes. It's not my fault you can't (or won't) add up the pieces.

You say you want the truth. I say "the truth" has been staring you in the face since 11/22/63. Unfortunately, you choose to look the other way.

And I'd love to hear Ken (or any CTer) try to logically explain to a jury Oswald's actions (and his utterances) in the theater within the context of the "Oswald Never Shot Anybody On Nov. 22" framework. Would ANY of the jurors not be doubling over from laughter? I doubt it.

Here is just a sample of the type of silliness a defense lawyer would have to present to a jury if Lee Oswald had lived long enough to stand trial for J.D. Tippit's murder....

The Hilarious Defense Of Lee Harvey Oswald

again, you've missed the point - it's not the defense's obligation to explain his defendants actions - it's the prosecution's obligation to prove his guilt. that's how american justice works.

but you won't accept that. i know this.

edit - but i really think you're just doing this sh** on purpose, and i do not know why i don't simply ignore it...

Edited by Glenn Nall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken, your question is silly (i.e., dumb). inane and ridiculous.

got that? don't forget it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit - but i really think you're just doing this sh** on purpose, and i do not know why i don't simply ignore it...

By all means, please do. You haven't said a single thing worthy of consideration anyway. And I've already archived enough of your statements about all the evidence being "irrelevant" that I certainly don't need any more of your preposterous comments for my files.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-959.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I had your total freedom, Ken. You can just make up stuff from pure nothingness all day long and try to pass off such tommyrot as an "open mind". No need to stick with the physical evidence. Just pretend it was all faked to frame Oswald. Done deal. Ahhhh, what a life!

And why don't you have 'total freedom'? Who or what constrains you from having the freedom to see the truth?

DVP are you deliberately avoiding this question?

Of course I'm deliberately avoiding that question, Ken. Because it's a silly (i.e., dumb) question.

However, since you are a charter member of the popular "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity here on the Internet, you are, quite naturally, unable to tell that your question is inane and ridiculous.

Of course I'm deliberately avoiding that question, Ken. Because it's a silly (i.e., dumb) question. Well, it's not like you didn't bring up the subject. Was it a dumb statement when you made it? The real reason you are avoiding it, you don't want anyone to know why you can't speak the truth. There IS a reason....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I had your total freedom, Ken. You can just make up stuff from pure nothingness all day long and try to pass off such tommyrot as an "open mind". No need to stick with the physical evidence. Just pretend it was all faked to frame Oswald. Done deal. Ahhhh, what a life!

And why don't you have 'total freedom'? Who or what constrains you from having the freedom to see the truth?

DVP are you deliberately avoiding this question?

Of course I'm deliberately avoiding that question, Ken. Because it's a silly (i.e., dumb) question.

However, since you are a charter member of the popular "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity here on the Internet, you are, quite naturally, unable to tell that your question is inane and ridiculous.

It's 'dumb', 'inane' and 'ridiculous' because you can't answer it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions.

No member is allowed to accuse a fellow member of lying

Members that post and/or imply that a fellow member of this forum...may be paid to post on this

forum:-...Such behaviour may lead to a suspension or ban from the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting approach in a thread entirely devoted to shills.

I'd suggest closing the thread, honestly. i posted my intention to ignore this person this morning, and that's what I've done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions.

No member is allowed to accuse a fellow member of lying

Members that post and/or imply that a fellow member of this forum...may be paid to post on this

forum:-...Such behaviour may lead to a suspension or ban from the forum.

Interesting.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's REALLY interesting is that there are several of us who disagree on much theory and yet are quite civil in conversation and debate without much effort. Ken here and I, and Paul T and I SURELY do not agree on much, yet have been quite friendly as I see it.

But there is one who DOES seem to attempt provocation and antagonism at the drop of a hat (or a thread), and this person is who, IN MY OPINION, diverts a thread's natural course.

But that's just my opinion, like anything else, worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's REALLY interesting is that there are several of us who disagree on much theory and yet are quite civil in conversation and debate without much effort. Ken here and I, and Paul T and I SURELY do not agree on much, yet have been quite friendly as I see it.

But there is one who DOES seem to attempt provocation and antagonism at the drop of a hat (or a thread), and this person is who, IN MY OPINION, diverts a thread's natural course.

But that's just my opinion, like anything else, worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it.

I think we agree on quite a bit, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oswald not bringing a lunch to work does not help prove he killed JFK. In fact, it helps prove nothing.

Whether Oswald did or did not shoot Tippit does not prove or disprove whether Oswald killed JFK.

MUCH of Mr. Von Pein's 10 "points" have absolutely no bearing on whether Oswald is guilty of shooting JFK. But in his mind, apparently, if we accept that Oswald shot Tippit, we MUST accept that Oswald killed JFK.

Still don't know how determining whether Oswald brought a lunch or not helps "prove" Oswald shot JFK. Dave, I simply can't make that leap. Maybe you can, but I can't.

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...