Jump to content
The Education Forum

Robert Charles-Dunne

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Robert Charles-Dunne

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

14,287 profile views
  1. Richard: I just wanted to say that your posts are interesting. But, the contribution of the various clippings is significant, and may tell us much about important primary details. As time and inclination allow, please continue sharing clippings. They are valuable and appreciated.
  2. This is truly rich. Having spent decades accusing DPD, FBI, SS and others of having forged, suppressed and altered evidence in this case (with ample cause), you now claim we can believe the self-same parties, because it suits you. Having repeatedly accused people who disagree with you of siding with the Warren Commission, you now cite as expert witness testimony some of the least credible people and regurgitate uncritically what was said to, and presented by, the Warren Commission. Because it suits you. Like you, I have wondered for decades how Stuart Reed was in a position to
  3. Jim: As you know, I’ve tried wherever possible to give John Armstrong his due, while nevertheless being underwhelmed by his grand hypothesis. Some of your scattershot list of questions are quite interesting, while others are simply straw men. Example: There is no “remarkable amount of evidence that LHO left Dealey Plaza on a bus and then a taxi.” There are tell-tale signs of evidentiary fraud committed by DPD, FBI, SS, et al, in order to avoid investigating a Nash Rambler station wagon. Why? Such LHO confederates as a driver would require a conspiracy, so
  4. Jim, you have a number of recurring tics that are an impediment to your mission. So, Jeremy DOESN’T mention the mastoid issue, of which - you make clear - you’ve grown weary, so you do bring it up? What is wrong with you? Since H&L has demonstrated neither what did or didn’t happen, you know this how? Citation please. You should know. It’s your trick, as you’ve just demonstrated by doing precisely the same thing of which you accuse Jeremy. Your use of withering sarcasm would be more effective if you were actually any good at it. How do you know that OJ
  5. You're the dude who mentioned "major scholars." Who are they? Why not invite them here? Maybe they can answer the questions you cannot. Or are we disallowed from knowing who the hell you mean? Remember that comment? Who are they? Invite them to participate here. Seems like you could use some reinforcements. Yes, I can. And it doesn't require pre-teens to be scouted and swapped out for a decade. So you'd simply dismiss it as a screed, or long rambling filibuster, as you always seem to do with anything for which you have no meaningful or significant retort. You
  6. So, if the occasion warranted, such as writing a book, you’d be precise in your use of words. But since you’re only riffing here for a bunch of non-book readers, it matter less. You seem to be saying that words change meaning depending on who reads them? Got it. Very gracious of you to admit that you have one level of literacy for one occasion, and an entirely different one for others. When in fact the issue is that you cannot teach me (or anyone) what you cannot prove, or teach. That’s gotta hurt. No wonder you save such special venom for me. Just a boy who
  7. Once again, you are wrong, Jonathan. Jim Hargrove and I are presenting evidence. It is users like Jeremy who write screeds, as opposed to analysis of the evidence. If it were evidence of anything, you should provide it to the proper authorities. But you don’t, because it actually isn’t. If it were, Forum members would be able to determine that for themselves. Without page after page of largely non-responsive derp being fired off whenever a valid question cannot be answered. You think people don’t notice your collective MO? You think Forum members don’t se
  8. This proves RCD doesn't understand the H&L theory. Oh he understands the theory. (Exemplary use of language for accuracy; acknowledging that it is a theory and not factual nor proven. Very even-handed of you, Sandy.) He also understands that the hypothesis is unnecessary, superfluous, and in excess to requirements. He said so here not long ago... oh yes, here's what he said: I notice that there were a number of defections roughly coinciding with Oswald’s. Did the CIA also do pre-teen twin work with them? Or was it simply enough for them to show up and cla
  9. So, when writing about people John Armstrong talked to, a published author doesn't use the word "testimony" because he knows what it means, and that it's an over-reach he doesn't need to get called out for. And he's asked you to refrain from using it, because he knows what it means. And because he knows that's it's an over-reach that reflects poorly on the hypothesis every time you do it. And yet you can't help yourself. Do a word search for the contents of H&L and let us know how many times John Armstrong uses the word "testimony" for people not sworn in under oath.
  10. Whereas you've demonstrated a belief in things that don't exist, and simply ignore when people say "your evidence is not compelling." Or worse yet, "nonexistent." Nothing hand-picked about it. Cherry picking is what led to H&L. It's to be avoided. As stated at the top of the post, I sought out the primary definitions - you know, the first ones; the ones called "primary" because they are the most commonly used - and supplied them. Verbatim. You could check that, or you could withdraw your accusation that I selected them for a dishonest skew. If I did that, I'd h
  11. Jim: I thank you for actually directly addressing me, or anyone who criticizes the book for which you have become the public face. Doesn’t happen often enough, it seems. Too easy to just unload another pre-fab volley of derp, rather than address the concerns brought to your attention. But since you’ve asked, I’ll reply First, a few words to ensure that nobody is so slow they do not understand me. (I cannot be blamed for those who attack without reading my posts. Why just the other day, your pal the Doc responded to one of my posts within four minutes. It would h
  12. I don't know anything about Mark Stevens other than what I've read here written by him. Your literary advice might be worth considering if you wrote anything worth reading. But, in fact, you can't hold a candle to Mark Stevens. And know it. You seem to be quite ignorant of a few things, so let me just say I was up to my arm pits in Laura Kittrell well before you started minding the Kitchen Cinque. If anyone is late the party, it's you. By a couple of decades. But where are my manners? You were saying? Yeah don't you just hate cliches that come from the Bible?
  13. Yes, and you even supply the evidence for the contention. Is it your practice to believe in things existing for which there is no extant evidence? So, H&L is a religion after all? Explains a lot. Your evidence for any of this is.......? Oh, right, it's just a guess. An educated one? Because it smells of nothingburger to me. Yeah, imagine the nerve of that Jeremy guy, refusing to believe in things for which you cite no evidence. But a guess will have to suffice, in the absence of a clue.
  14. Evidence exists for the imposture of an adult Oswald. One need not ascribe each such account to witness error. But in no way does adult imposture require the swapping out of interchangeable preteen Oswalds. This is where H&L jumps the shark, and all of the crack H&L squad jump that shark too, with greater glee than even the Fonz. (If you’re young, you can look up that obscure reference. It’s from an old TV show from whence came the term “jump the shark.”) Yes, and yet the crack H&L squad cite a witness who recalls Oswald being both a shy, quiet and bookish boy,
  15. So, dueling dictionaries, is it? Because some remedial reading seems to be in order, I’ve taken the liberty of compiling the first meanings listed for the word “testimony” in a number of dictionaries. ( Did you really think I hadn’t already done that, Sandy?) Dude... you’re the guy who highlighted “usually” in red. And asked me what it meant. I had already posted what it says in most English dictionaries. You may remember this: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/testimony a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response
  • Create New...