Evan Marshall Posted May 20, 2018 Share Posted May 20, 2018 I was assigned to Detroit Homicide on two separate occasions. What does that me me an expert in? Canvassing neighborhoods because I must have knocked on a bazillion doors. My partner and I would start working a case with certain conclusions but when those proved not to be true we would shift directions and look for "new truth". We had Family Tree's at Homicide and I would inherit open case that were often committed before I joined the police department. Looking at these case with a fresh eye we often found that the cases were "investigated" with blinders on. Perhaps if we locked away our egos and were more careful with what we assumed was fact because it aligned with prior bias, we could actually solve this darn thing! Additionally, it is actually possible to disagree without being disagreeable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted May 20, 2018 Share Posted May 20, 2018 Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Evan Marshall said: I was assigned to Detroit Homicide on two separate occasions. What does that me me an expert in? Canvassing neighborhoods because I must have knocked on a bazillion doors. My partner and I would start working a case with certain conclusions but when those proved not to be true we would shift directions and look for "new truth". We had Family Tree's at Homicide and I would inherit open case that were often committed before I joined the police department. Looking at these case with a fresh eye we often found that the cases were "investigated" with blinders on. Perhaps if we locked away our egos and were more careful with what we assumed was fact because it aligned with prior bias, we could actually solve this darn thing! Additionally, it is actually possible to disagree without being disagreeable! Very well said, Evan. And you are absolutely right that there is a HUGE amount of bias in folks here and elsewhere when they're "investigating" and "researching" the JFK case. As a matter of fact, the person who replied to you above, Knight, is the person I mentioned that very thing to on another thread on this forum. Here is that post: KNIGHT -- You totally misinterpreted my post. If you can effectively rebut the research these people are doing, that would be LEADING. BUT if you won't lead and you refuse to follow, you are only obstructing. Show me YOUR OWN RESEARCH that disproves what Andrej and Chris are doing...not just "I disagree, so they're wrong,wrong, wrong." Show me something beyond mere argument. Rebut them with research. Otherwise, it's nothing but obstruction. WALTON -- This is about the fifth time you've said this, Mark - that I'm misrepresenting what you're saying. And FYI - I just showed my own version of why it can't be a 5-10 guy with one foot down on the lower step. Someone's height doesn't fall that much, Mark. And earlier up I made my own graphics showing that the leg Stancak made is too long. You obviously didn't read it. And I've done more than enough work on the Oswald clone story and how Zapruder's film was NOT filmed in 48 FPS and then 67% of the frames were removed. Yes, you've read that correctly, Mark. I've made videos and illustrations. Those, too, are either ignored or someone goes on a rant about how clueless I am instead of further debate on their theory. In other words, they revert to name calling. The biggest problem with the JFK story, Mark, is one of bias. I've asked some other researchers on this and they agree - WHY do these people believe in such nonsense? And it seems like the consensus is many of them have a hatred of the US government. In other words, the big, bad government is terrible, always wrong, always sinister and therefore, lies about everything. EXCEPT - when the written record somehow fits their crazy theory. Then, they'll quote page upon page of whatever's in the official record, probably grudgingly, but they do anyway. Folks who don't buy into the craziness, on the other hand, have the ability to question the THEORY, not the JFK story. They have the ability to say - wait a minute. We're expected to believe that around crying people, passersby and news cameras that when the body left PMH that the Bad Guys squirreled away the body either at Love Field or some other undisclosed location, took the body out of the coffin and threw it into the cargo hold, then snuck it out the back door of 26000 and onto a helicopter, in full view of live TV cameras, family members, and others upon arriving at Andrews? I mean...really, Mark? Do YOU believe in a fantastical story like this? Here's a perfect example of what I mean. I know the researcher who posted the thread below is well respected on this forum. But this guy confirmed to me a while back that, to put it simply, he doesn't like the government. Period. Do you not think this kind of bias doesn't cloud a person's judgement? It does, Mark. I've removed the name of this researcher from the above graphic to abide by the kinder and gentler nature of the new EF. But the above is what he posted on another forum. Not a single person bothered to even reply to his post there. I took a look at it and it was one of those head-shaking and eye-rolling moments for me as well. Do you remember the Mel Gibson movie Conspiracy Theory, Mark? When the guy has his walls covered in foil, photos overlapping photos with scribbles, names and drawings on them, Mark? If you can find the above post and take a look at it, Mark, you'll understand why it was yet another head-shaking, eye-rolling OMFG moment for me and the 326 others who looked at it. And yet, all I hear about on here is how "well-respected" this guy is. Not everything happened like you and others think happened, Mark, on 11/22. The law of averages and life in general just don't have this huge convergence of stolen bodies and faked films and cloned assassins (from Europe) like folks like this well-respected researcher and others think happened. But back to this thread, Mark. As another researcher who's not allowed to post here said - if you were really looking for truth in this thread, Mark, why haven't you asked Stancak to recreate the character with his over-stretched leg to be anatomically correct? In other words, reduced by 3 whole inches? Stancak said his future work would concentrate on dealing with correcting that but we've yet to see it. And if you, yourself, were not biased here, you'd be asking him when that was going to happen instead of turning around and telling ME why don't I do my own research and post it, when I already have ad nauseum. Edited May 21, 2018 by Michael Walton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Marshall Posted May 21, 2018 Author Share Posted May 21, 2018 Two groups of people I lost interest in and refuse to devote time to are the agenda driven and those with bloated egos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaleen Kilroy Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 20 hours ago, Evan Marshall said: I was assigned to Detroit Homicide on two separate occasions. What does that me me an expert in? Canvassing neighborhoods because I must have knocked on a bazillion doors. My partner and I would start working a case with certain conclusions but when those proved not to be true we would shift directions and look for "new truth". We had Family Tree's at Homicide and I would inherit open case that were often committed before I joined the police department. Looking at these case with a fresh eye we often found that the cases were "investigated" with blinders on. Perhaps if we locked away our egos and were more careful with what we assumed was fact because it aligned with prior bias, we could actually solve this darn thing! Additionally, it is actually possible to disagree without being disagreeable! It’s actually reassuring to me that a homicide detective still sees the JFK case as open. For someone to pull something off this audacious, I believe they would have to have a lot knowledge in deceiving the authorities and entire populations in political assassinations. That’s one of the reasons the CIA tops the list for me as suspects. Bill Harvey in particular not only hated the Kennedys but studied Russian assassinations throughout the world and knew how they worked. The mob obviously did this as well with local police, judiciary and witnesses as well politicians on occasion. They were less interested in the con staying but knew how to use an assassin in a police uniform, for instance, to fool people during the crime. Didn’t the CIA use a similar scenario to JFK’s murder to kill a Phillipine leader through a Commie patsy who was killed himself quickly following the assassination? And it should be noted that every single CIA agent was given a copy of this book when they came on board: https://www.amazon.com/Big-Story-Confidence-Man/dp/0385495382 This book was also the basis for the movie ‘The Sting.’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 Once again, Mr. Walton drags me into his fantasy...the one in which I believe in body snatchers. I have NEVER subscribed to such a theory. But that little fact doesn't stand in the way of Mr. Walton's fantasy. Truth is powerful. I would advise Mr. Walton to stick to the truth, rather that projecting me into his straw-man fantasies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Marshall Posted May 21, 2018 Author Share Posted May 21, 2018 Sadly proves my point exactly 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