this is what these arguments are reduced to.
I tell you there is no hard evidence. None.
instead of giving me hard evidence you ask for facts there are no facts.
I don't even know what you ask for or what that means.
But I will make it very simple: Give me one piece of evidence, not hearsay, theories, name calling or misinformation, tha…
instead of giving me hard evidence you ask for facts there are no facts.
I don't even know what you ask for or what that means.
But I will make it very simple: Give me one piece of evidence, not hearsay, theories, name calling or misinformation, that debunks Oswald as the lone assassin.
Or give me one bit of hard evidence - not hearsay, circumstantial or misinformation - that the CIA conspired with Lee Harvey Oswald on Nov. 22.
shouldn't be that hard, should it? - with fifty years of research.
Say whatever. you want. But I would bet a lot of money - a real lot of money - you won't close with a single bit of hard evidence that Oswald did notice alone or that the CIA worked with him on Nov.22. you have the luxury that I will not rebut your next comment.
See if you can keep it out of name calling - because I know you can't cite anything that is not hearsay, theory or misinformation. With 50 years of research to back you up.
this is what these arguments are reduced to.
I tell you there is no hard evidence. None.
instead of giving me hard evidence you ask for facts there are no facts.
I don't even know what you ask for or what that means.
But I will make it very simple: Give me one piece of evidence, not hearsay, theories, name calling or misinformation, that debunks Oswald as the lone assassin.
Or give me one bit of hard evidence - not hearsay, circumstantial or misinformation - that the CIA conspired with Lee Harvey Oswald on Nov. 22.
shouldn't be that hard, should it? - with fifty years of research.
Either one would suffice.
You said it, man: "instead of giving me hard evidence you ask for facts there are no facts. I don't even know what you ask for or what that means."
Keep watchin' out for that misinformation.
Matt:
I'll settle for hard evidence and close.
Say whatever. you want. But I would bet a lot of money - a real lot of money - you won't close with a single bit of hard evidence that Oswald did notice alone or that the CIA worked with him on Nov.22. you have the luxury that I will not rebut your next comment.
See if you can keep it out of name calling - because I know you can't cite anything that is not hearsay, theory or misinformation. With 50 years of research to back you up.
I didn't call you any names.
And the "luxury" you presume to grant me now, of not rebutting me, is a pleasure I have enjoyed throughout this experience.
I know you didn't - I'm sorry if I gave the impression you did.
You didn't resort to the same tactic as SD.
Sorry.