"WRONG, WRONG, WRONG..."
But right, right, right.
We have constructed the scenario of how this moment in history unfolded. You say this is not how this one moment in history happened. Okay, but now the ball is in your court to explain just exactly how that moment in history unfolded, because this is not a game where you can change the rules of historical scholarship and say that your only responsibility is to play defense counsel for Lee Harvey Oswald and just create "reasonable doubt" and that is the end of it. The burden is on YOU and all other conspiracy buffs to put up, or shut up, with regards to telling us in plain English just HOW this moment in time unfolded on November 22, 1963 in Dealey Plaza. And copping out behind a lot of "dog ate my homework" excuses by blaming the government for destroying evidence that you can't even prove exists to begin with that would be relevant to proving how this event happened, is only going to get you a nice fat F when it comes to your powers of historical scholarship.
"The onus is on THEM to answer for the inconsistencies in THEIR report."
We have answered them one by one, and we have also in so doing asked your side to account for many instances of flagrant deception and distortion that is far more serious then any of the inconsistencies in the evidence attributed to the WC conclusions, and on this you and the buffs remain silent and refuse to address the repeated lies of conspiracy authors and advocates from Mark Lane to Jim Garrison to Robert Groden to the present day. Start sticking up for their defective scholarship and try to say with a straight face where they have any credibility.
"I am under NO such obligation to come up with something else."
Oh yes you are. Because if you aren't willing to show some guts and provide some answers to what happened based on what you insinuate must have happened if the WC conclusions are wrong, then you are tacitly conceding by default that there is not ONE plausible answer to explain how events unfolded at that moment in time that can be reconciled to the full body of evidence that exists.
"You attack credible, reputable individuals"
Give us some names, please. You are just engaging in soundbites without substance. OTOH, it doesn't faze you to attack the credibility of 19 forensic pathologists who are better trained in the ability to read x-rays then you or I ever will and who will say categorically that the "altered x-ray" charges are nonsense.
"You attack them often from various angles and usually without any real authority or merit on the matter (save for a few nods to the Gerald Posners of the world)."
Wrong. Often my attacks are based by simply going back to the documented record which is not what I often see from you.
"You attack Mantik, whom you never even heard of prior to this discussion,"
Actually I am familiar with him. A person who associates himself with two charlatans named Jack White (he, the so-called photo "expert" who when he appeared before the HSCA, didn't know what photogrammetry was) and Robert Groden (O.J.'s last desperate hope at the civil trial) has zero credibility in my book since the company he keeps says plenty about what his professional credentials are.
"You refuse to even hear anything anyone else might have to say about it."
Nonsense. If anything I'm the one who always asks the buffs to explain themselves further with regard to what they're arguing, like right now for instance, I keep asking you to provide a plausible answer to what happened, and I can't help it when people like you won't answer the question
"My citing just one of your follies (Crenshaw) is but one example of just how little you really know in regards to the assassination of JFK."
Bunk. I have independently studied this for 25 years of my life, but because I don't spend every waking moment of my life with the WC index at my fingertips I can sometimes make a trivial error when I'm relying only on my memory. I made a trivial goof on Crenshaw when I said he wasn't there, when he played a not significant role compared to the doctors who testified before the WC. And I stand by my comments that Crenshaw is a liar on the matter of LBJ calling him on 11/24 because there is concrete evidence that points to that.
"I'm sorry, but all I've heard from you is the regurgitation of data that is, at times, indefensible to the tune of rage against perceived stupidity."
And this is a nice way of how buffs try to deal with the evidence that undercuts their arguments. Ignore it with a soundbite.
"You seem to know nothing about ballistics, trajectory, or the dynamics of what a rifle or a bullet can and cannot do"
I never professed to be such an expert. All I do is quote the documented record of what those who are qualified to make such judgments have said, and unfortunately for you, you don't like to be reminded of what the experts have had to say.
"yet you try to speak with authority on the matter of
Oswald's performance."
That's based on the relevant physical evidence that you keep ignoring and ducking constantly.
"This is why you have purposely avoided my questions I laid out earlier (post 69)"
As I said before, repeating an untruth multiple times does not make an untruth true. I answered your points which is more then I can say for what you've done with challenges repeatedly made to me, not to mention your stubborn refusal to construct your alternate scenario of how events happened, which to me is intellectual cowardice of the first order.
"You parrot absolute stupidity regarding things that are theoretic phenomenon never having been witnessed by a single human being in the history of mankind (single bullet theory, jet effect, etc.)"
Yet borne out and validated by Drs. Lattimer, Baden and a host of others who are more competent then you and I have no problem trusting their judgments, especially since it happens to fit with the totality of the evidence such as (1) LHO was seen by Howard Brennan firing a gun (2) LHO's fingerprints were on the rifle (confirmed by Dr. Scalice in 1993) (3) LHO fled the scene, had no alibi and then murdered J.D. Tippit and attempted to kill another officer when arrested. And I could go on until this reaches triple digits, and I am quite certain you would then not address a single one of them.
"and would be viewed with incredulity by anyone with a shred of common sense"
Another soundbite that is devoid of factual substance since 19 forensic pathologists said otherwise, not to mention the rest of the HSCA investigation that sought in vain to prove conspiracy and then found the WC conclusions were correct after all.
"yet you attack those with more sensible alternate theories."
What alternate theories are those? I keep asking you to present one and you don't. All I hear is some nebulous McCarthyite charge accusing the government of faking evidence and that's about as sensible as arguing the moon landings were faked.
"(Your remarks regarding Garrison not giving the opening or closing speech in the Claw Shaw trial, and his supposed drugging of witnesses, him being a monster, etc.)"
To anyone with a sense of decency, Garrison was a monster. What he did to Clay Shaw was the most disgraceful chapter in the history of American jurisprudence, and the fact that he doped up Perry Russo to get the evidence he needed to proceed with an indictment of Shaw is not subject to dispute. Kindly consult the works of Milton Bremer, Jay Epstein and Patricia Lambert sometime.
"I'm not sure that it was you personally) accuse Stone of doctoring the Z-film for his movie which is a lie"
Quote that, if you please because I never said any such thing.
"The majority of people in this country deny the accuracy of the Warren Report because it is a flawed document"
No, they doubt the accuracy because too often they get the evidence spoonfed to them by dishonest men like Mark Lane, Garrison, Oliver Stone etc. who have lied and lied repeatedly about the evidence instead of going back to the full body of evidence that is there. The imbalance of conspiracy books to non-conspiracy books on the JFK assassination is on the order of 10 to 1 and when that imbalance exists it's going to make an impact on public perceptions.
"made up of pitiful leg work and indefensible investigations by those who were not fully qualified and had no business being on the commission in the first place."
ROTFLMAO! I happen to think the WC staff did an outstanding job given the constraints they operated under and because they were simple lawyers asked to do a tough job in which proving a conspiracy could have netted them fame beyond their dreams, they instead let their integrity rule the day and let the facts speak for themself. And their work has been upheld by all subsequent investigations that have taken advantage of advances in science to realize that for whatever constraints they operated under that led to some errors and flaws, their basic conclusions were accurate.
"You don't see this kind of outcry over Robert Kennedy's murder."
Wrong. Many of the same JFK buffs have written about RFK's murder (Philip Melanson) and no less then Stone was trying to link them by having Garrison say that "They will kill Bobby because he wants to avenge his brother" (this in spite of the fact that the real Garrison had accused Bobby of being complicit in the cover-up of his brother's murder prior to RFK's assassination). You wouldn't believe how much conspiracy fodder about RFK came up because a disturbed person named Sandra Serrano told NBC's Sander Vanocur an hour after the shooting that a woman in a polka-dot dress came out saying giddily, "We shot him!"
"You don't see this kind of outcry over Lincoln's murder."
Wrong again. Lincoln murder conspiracy junk has been around for more then a hundred years, and from the 30s to the 80s it was quite popular for people to push garbage concerning Lincoln's Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, which even led to a bad movie called "The Lincoln Conspiracy." It was only when Civil War scholars finally revealed that the documents used by Lincoln conspiracy buffs for decades to push their junk were hoaxes did it finally begin to die down. With JFK, history is merely repeating itself as so often many buffs have had to resort to hoaxes in order to push their viewpoints.
"You don't see this kind of outcry over the death of Monroe,"
I've seen plenty of authors pushing conspiracy over that one too, including ones accusing no less then JFK and RFK of being responsible for that.
"When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck..."
Yeah, the only problem is there are too many instances where conspiracy buffs keep calling a duck a goose when it comes to the nature of the evidence, like in the matter of that "changed motorcade route" to name just one example.
"Why would the person who took the pictures need to be a pathologist to determine whether or not the pictures they are looking at are NOT the same ones they originally took?"
Because it demonstrates first off that the person is not qualified to make a medical judgment about the wounds. And second, there's the inconvenient problem of the photographer saying something different in 1967 as is documented by the HSCA.
"Yet you have no problem slandering Garrison, Stone, Mantik, and all of the rest to bolster your own opinion."
Because I can document their lies and deceit quite thoroughly as have reputable scholars. And you have shown a curious refusal to answer the objections made to their conduct.
"I simply have questions that I want answered."
Yet you remain curiously unwilling to provide an alternate answer of what happened when challenged repeatedly to do so. That isn't the mark of someone who wants questions answered if you ask me.
"Again, your characterization of Garrison as a crackpot in light of the fact of his career record demonstrates your ignorance."
Excuse me? What career record is that? We are talking about his shameful conduct in a case that he couldn't get a conviction in, and for which he was sued for defamation by Shaw, and were it not for Shaw's untimely death, that case would have resulted in Garrison being barred from ever writing a book or making a nickel off his witch hunt. He was an evil man, period. And I have read the works of Bremer, Epstein, Lambert etc. which you evidently have not.
"Why don't you admit that you have no real working knowledge of Garrison?"
I won't because that would be lying. Garrison was an evil man who tried to frame an innocent man named Clay Shaw. Period. If you want to make a hero of someone like that, when the trial record, and the documented studies of authors like Bremer, Epstein, Kirkwood and Lambert are there for you to see, you demonstrate quite vividly why I can not take your arguments seriously.
"I can produce three-fold a list of very reputable, respectable individuals that admired him and his work throughout his career."
Let's see them go on the record and say they admired what he did to Clay Shaw and how he conducted himself in that case, because that's the issue at hand.
"You refuse to address my previous questions as outlined in #69, saying that you do not have to address them because you think you found a couple of chinks in the armor of my post. You say that this excuses you from answering the tough questions that I have provided. Then, you turn around and demand that I answer questions for you when you refuse to look at my own. Why? I will be more than happy to address those questions AFTER you finish answering the ones that I provided for."
Evasion, evasion, evasion, evasion. I expected nothing less from someone whose hand is caught in the cookie jar on the matter of the "changed motorcade route" and the "timing question" you put and knows he's in trouble.
"Please, go back and read post 69 and then answer them one by one (or just the ones that you have yet to address). I think I deserve that."
I answered your questions, and I am not going to accept your evasions of questions put to you because you didn't like the answers you were given. If you really have the courage of your convictions, you will answer that question about the phony "changed motorcade route" issue right now.
But I suspect I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer.
