Jack P
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2006
- Messages
- 5,610
- Real Name
- Jack
Phil, this is not "prosecution" of LHO, this is using the methodological tools of *Historiography* which in establishing the viability of *what* happened at a given moment in time, is not the same as how one "prosecutes" a case in court. This is the fallacy I have repeatedly pointed to over and over again as to why buffdom is so incredibly absurd, because it spends so much time on minutiae that they think will generate their concept of a "reasonable doubt" verdict and thus let them off the hook on the matter of their responsibility to come up with a plausible scenario of how events actually did unfold at that one moment in time which is what you MUST do in order to be taken seriously. As I've said, do not stop with asking questions that as Jeff and I have demonstrated can be answered without batting an eye, start providing YOUR version of how this unfolded that factors in all the evidence that would present tough questions and challenges from our side. But this is something I note that you hesitate to do in the tradition of buffdom, because to do so would force conspiracy thought out into the open in regards to how ludicrous their ideas are in regards to how it could have happened that day. Better to avoid that and use the phony standard of how to look at this, because this is the only way that keeps buffdom in business.
As for who would erupt in laughter in a courtroom though, I think buff logic which has to construct this scenario of planted bullets, switched rifles, phantom gunmen who disappear without being seen by anyone etc. being discussed in advance of the crime would get first dibs on that!
As for who would erupt in laughter in a courtroom though, I think buff logic which has to construct this scenario of planted bullets, switched rifles, phantom gunmen who disappear without being seen by anyone etc. being discussed in advance of the crime would get first dibs on that!