Search results

The best way to break down a wall is to attack it at its weakest point, rather than to beat your heads against it and hope to knock it down. Find a chink in the armor, insert a lever, and pry. If you can pry one stone loose from the wall, others that are currently solidly embedded will follow...

I like the snippets of Best Evidence I've seen so far. I hope you do a sequel. Several of them. Here's an idea for an unusual theme for a sequel. It would focus not on the cases, but on the Govt's attempts to mislead or thwart investigators, to dismiss cases with inappropriate swamp gas...

Key-Witness Kal: Part 1D Roger Knights Here are quotations from a 2004 book by David Livingston Smith, Why We Lie, that explain why I think Kal didn’t deliberately lie, and is indignant when accused of doing so. In light of what follows, I’m removing, from my earlier post, “Key-Witness...

Key-Witness Kal: Part 4 Roger Knights E. “Paul Kimball’s Not a Lawyer”: That’s wrong; one can be a lawyer, and therefore call oneself a lawyer, without actively practicing law. There are many non-practicing lawyers in Congress and in law schools (as professors), for instance. They are...

Key-Witness Kal: Part 3 Roger Knights C. “Kimball Should Have Contacted Me First”: In one of his XZone appearances (which I’ve unfortunately failed to locate in my notes) Kal complained that it’s a violation of journalistic ethics, and impolite, not to contact the source of a remark and...

Key-Witness Kal: Part 1C— Re-post of and comment on Kal’s August 14 claim: “I have ALWAYS been CLEAR that I NEVER TESTIFIED” Roger Knights Below is a paragraph from a lengthy blog-post by Kal to his site almost two weeks ago. It’s titled, “Paul Kimball Has Problems: Admitting the TRUTH...

Key-Witness Kal: Part 2 Roger Knights A. Kal’s Near-“Equivalence-ing” of Being an Uncalled-Witness with Being a Testifying Witness: He’s claiming above that he as good as testified and that his mere physical absence hardly mattered. Let’s look at this through the analogy of our...

Key-Witness Kal: Part 1B— PS to Kal’s YouTube “I WAS a Witness” Claim Roger Knights (Note: I should have included this material in my “Part 1” post (#240), but I forgot. So I’m labeling this as a subset of that post. Therefore I went back and stuck a subset-title on my response-to-Kimball...

Key-Witness Kal: Part 1A— Paul Kimball’s Comment & My Response Roger Knights I hadn't noticed where you used the phrase "context of a trial." I worry that, in informal usage, the definition has been stretched to include persons who merely CAN testify as experts, and that Kal can find...

Key-Witness Kal: Part 1 Roger Knights Part 1A: The word “player” can mean either of two things: 1. A person on a team’s roster; 2. A participant in a game. Which of those meanings is intended is determined from context: 1. If a person says, “I was a player for the Chicago...

Here's a simpler way: Copy-and-paste the word into any MS Word file, Right-click it, Click "Look Up" in the menu that pops up, Then click "definition" in the submenu. No need to drag out a dictionary. (Browsers should provide this lookup feature too.)

That's what I thought too--but I was too lazy to check it out, and instead decided I'd shuffle off the blame on my quotee if I was called on it. Google gave me 870,000 hits for "histrionic," so it's not an uncommon word. ("Historionic" would find few matches, though, if any.)

That's too strong a word. "Grandiose" is a better fit. OTOH, he has some solid accomplishments under his belt, and he has a Dr. Jeckyll side, and he only acts histrionic occasionally. Then again, you could also say that about Napoleon. FYI: Before about 1960 (?) it was common for the Kentucky...

From what I remember of the C2C interview, the manuscript was cast in concrete by the publisher in December, but the book wasn't actually published until a couple of weeks ago. In other words, the book was "in press" from Dec. through June. I wonder when (and if) "review copies" were sent...

Exactly. Let me preface this by saying I never questioned Kal’s claim to be some sort of captain. I didn’t think he’d lost his marbles, just that he was over-dramatizing things, as usual. It puzzled me, but I figured the details would emerge in time. Nor did I question his anti-terrorism goals...

For a stabilized version of the video, go to this thread on Bigfootforums: http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=19074 Here are terrific quotes from a few of the BFF posters. In reply to a poster who recited the standard objections to the possibility of Nessies existing in the loch...