Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
TACO MY ASS!!!

Trump is not chickening out in Iran. This morning he is dropping the hammer. He is blockading the Strait of Hormuz. If Iran isn't going to let everyone through, then nobody gets through. Iran will lose their principle source of income. I thought he might just shut of Kharg Island but that would still allow Iran to extort ransom money in exchange for allowing selected ships through. It also shuts off their biggest customer, China, from getting 50% of their oil.

If the Iranians didn't know it before, they know it now. They are dealing with one tough SOB. The best thing is he's our tough SOB. The Iranians will capitulate or be destroyed, both militarily and economically. Let them eat all that sand they have.
2
You will never understand or accept that you can not put the bag allegedly found on the 6th floor in Oswald's hand on Friday morning. You just assume it is and call it "very reliable forensic evidence".
If you want to talk about a very dubious practice, this is it!

There is no reason to believe Frazier had greater powers of perception than the rest of us. I'm sure in his mind he was being truthful about what he testified to but like the rest of us, he didn't remember every detail exactly.

How do you know for a fact that he didn't remember every detail exactly? Or is it just wishful thinking?

As the articles I posted pointed out, over time we develop false memories about an event.

Frazier told FBI agent Odum on 12/02/63 that he "observed that Oswald had his package under his right arm, one end of the package being under his armpit and the other end apparently held with his right fingers". He still says the same thing to this day! You are of course aware of this, right?

So, if you are going to argue that he didn't remember correctly what he saw, you're going to have to explain why! And the pathetic claim that the 6th floor bag was the one Oswald was carrying isn't going to cut it, unless you can actually put that bag in Oswald's hand on Friday morning.

3
The conspiracy hobbyist's views on the Tippit murder reveal a mindset to find any excuse imaginable to exonerate Oswald of both the murders he committed that day. No amount of evidence will ever convince them they are wrong, even though they obviously are.

And how do you know for a fact that Roberts, who was paying more attention to the television and had bad vision, was absolutely right?
4
Being specific is not the same as being accurate. Our minds remember some things and not others so we try to fill in the blanks as best we can which leads to inaccurate memories. There is no reason to believe Frazier had greater powers of perception than the rest of us. I'm sure in his mind he was being truthful about what he testified to but like the rest of us, he didn't remember every detail exactly. He got the part about Oswald cupping the bottom of the bag in his palm. We know that because that's where his palm print was. He didn't notice the bag extended several inches above Oswald's shoulder. We know that because the bag was found with Oswald's palm and fingerprint on it and its measured length of 38 inches would not have allowed him to tuck the top end under his armpit.

As the articles I posted pointed out, over time we develop false memories about an event. We get parts of it right and parts of it wrong. You have given us no reason to believe Frazier was any more reliable than any other witnesses. You choose to believe him because you want to believe Oswald was innocent and accepting Frazier's testimony as 100% accurate provides you with the excuse to dismiss a very damning piece of evidence of his guilt. Using unreliable eyewitness testimony to trump very reliable forensic evidence is a very dubious practice.

You will never understand or accept that you can not put the bag allegedly found on the 6th floor in Oswald's hand on Friday morning. You just assume it is and call it "very reliable forensic evidence".
If you want to talk about a very dubious practice, this is it!

There is no reason to believe Frazier had greater powers of perception than the rest of us. I'm sure in his mind he was being truthful about what he testified to but like the rest of us, he didn't remember every detail exactly.

How do you know for a fact that he didn't remember every detail exactly? Or is it just wishful thinking?

As the articles I posted pointed out, over time we develop false memories about an event.

Frazier told FBI agent Odum on 12/02/63 that he "observed that Oswald had his package under his right arm, one end of the package being under his armpit and the other end apparently held with his right fingers". You are of course aware of this, right?
5
The conspiracy hobbyist's views on the Tippit murder reveal a mindset to find any excuse imaginable to exonerate Oswald of both the murders he committed that day. No amount of evidence will ever convince them they are wrong, even though they obviously are.
6
:D You're right, I can't refute what you've written about the unreliability of eyewitnesses
But in Frazier's case he knew exactly what he saw and was very clear and specific about it

You have failed to make your point.  I don't know what that means.

Being specific is not the same as being accurate. Our minds remember some things and not others so we try to fill in the blanks as best we can which leads to inaccurate memories. There is no reason to believe Frazier had greater powers of perception than the rest of us. I'm sure in his mind he was being truthful about what he testified to but like the rest of us, he didn't remember every detail exactly. He got the part about Oswald cupping the bottom of the bag in his palm. We know that because that's where his palm print was. He didn't notice the bag extended several inches above Oswald's shoulder. We know that because the bag was found with Oswald's palm and fingerprint on it and its measured length of 38 inches would not have allowed him to tuck the top end under his armpit.

As the articles I posted pointed out, over time we develop false memories about an event. We get parts of it right and parts of it wrong. You have given us no reason to believe Frazier was any more reliable than any other witnesses. You choose to believe him because you want to believe Oswald was innocent and accepting Frazier's testimony as 100% accurate provides you with the excuse to dismiss a very damning piece of evidence of his guilt. Using unreliable eyewitness testimony to trump very reliable forensic evidence is a very dubious practice.
7
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:




JohnM

So it includes hallucinogens....  Good to know  Thumb1:
9
Why do you hate women?
And I thought you supported DEI, some hypocrite you are!

JohnM

You think a great many things and all of them are wrong.

But I noticed your inability to answer a simple question. Extremely weak sauce for a self-proclaimed "genius".  :D
10
Geez, are you never grateful?
I once again educated you and corrected your inability to do proper research and you immediately shift the goalposts, a simple "thank you" would work wonders! Thumb1:

JohnM

What medication are you on?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10