James DiEugenio Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 Let me note, it has now been 8 days since my twitter challenge to Posner and three surviving members of the Commission--Willens, Griffin, Slawson--for a debate in LA or SF. No reply yet. Recall, the name of his book was Case Closed. If there was no evidence of a conspiracy, what is the problem? But hey, if I was them and I saw JFK Revisited, I would not reply either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 24 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: Let me note, it has now been 8 days since my twitter challenge to Posner and three surviving members of the Commission--Willens, Griffin, Slawson--for a debate in LA or SF. No reply yet. Recall, the name of his book was Case Closed. If there was no evidence of a conspiracy, what is the problem? But hey, if I was them and I saw JFK Revisited, I would not reply either. I must say, if such a debate were to be limited to JFK Revisited and provided it was a formal debate with a moderator, I don't think it would be difficult to do very well against Jim D. I am basing this on the number of points that Fred Litwin has been able to score already in his series on the film. Fred Litwin's JFK Revisited Archive ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com) Now, mind you, I am not volunteering to debate Jim D. That is just not my thing-I prefer to work behind the scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 (edited) On 1/19/2022 at 10:48 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said: [...] But I think that they reached the proper conclusion-Oswald was guilty. [...] that in and of itself is a conspiracy theory... the entire WC committed the conspiratorial act against Oswald -- and your "proper conclusion," lmao, that sir, is why we have trials, and until that time and place innocent until proven guilty. To opine anything thing else is wishful thinking, an act of PR, of course if you were in Russia you may get away with it... Edited January 22, 2022 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 18 hours ago, David G. Healy said: and until that time and place innocent until proven guilty. Hitler was never tried for his crimes. He may be said to be legally innocent, but I believe the verdict of history indicates he is guilty. Same with Oswald and I think it is terrible that so many people absolve him of guilt for his horrible crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 "JFK Revisited" Recklessly Accuses George Burkley of being Involved in a Cover-Up (onthetrailofdelusion.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 I have Parnell, for good reasons, on ignore. But then whenever someone quotes him, as above, I have to read his stuff. Which convinces me further as to why I have him on ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 On 1/19/2022 at 9:08 AM, Sandy Larsen said: Okay, so the "mob killed Hoffa" theory isn't your theory. But it is a conspiracy theory and you do believe it. Therefore, you do believe at least one conspiracy theory. So why did you say that you don't believe in conspiracy theories? On 1/19/2022 at 11:38 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said: No, I don't believe it. I suspect it could be true but I don't believe it. One day, it may be proven and then I will believe it. Tracy, Thanks for answering my questions. I think that you were right at first when you said you suspect that the Mafia killed Hoffa. You objected only when I substituted the word "believe" for "suspect." I guess because you consider "believe" to mean that a person considers something to be factual. But that's usually not the case. Consider this example: If someone says that they believe it will rain tomorrow, does that mean that they consider it a fact that it will rain tomorrow? No it doesn't. It means that, for whatever reason, the person thinks it is likely to rain. Anyway, that's the reason I was having a hard time understanding you. 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