What?s the MINIMUM number of people required for your CT to work?

[John Iacoletti]

He actually thinks it's the "nutters" who promote convoluted scenarios behind the assassination. We're just creating these made up theories to make the conspiracy crowd look bad. Claims such as: two Oswalds, JFK body alteration, switched caskets, multiple witnesses killed. That's all made up by us.

What is made up by the nutters is the idea that every single conspiracy theory ever proposed by anybody is collectively embraced by every person who doubts the official narrative.

Just examine his views: he says all of the eyewitnesses against Oswald lied: Markham lied, Brennan lied, McDonald lied, Brewer lied, Postal lied et cetera.  Then he says all of the physical and scientific evidence is fraudulent: the fingerprint evidence is fake, the handwriting evidence is useless, the forensic evidence can be dismissed, the photographic evidence is phony. All of this happened - these people all lied and the experts are all not credible - but it's unfair to claim that Oswald defenders like himself believe in convoluted theories.

Sure he doesn't.

Who is "he"?  The only person lying here is Steve Galbraith.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

And then we have the ad hominem in response.

To repeat: the same person who says the eyewitnesses like Brennan, Markham, Brewer et cetera against Oswald lied, that the physical and scientific evidence against Oswald can be summarily dismissed - handwriting experts have no credibility, the photographic experts are wrong et cetera - and then argues that other evidence should be dismissed because of legal reasons (remember: this is a historic event we are discussing not a trial) says he wants to discuss the evidence and he's not, no he's not, a conspiracy believer.

Right, someone is telling stories here alright. Although he probably believes them. 

Just to put a bow on this: this is the same person who says Oswald leaving nearly all his money to Marina ($170 or about $1200 in today's dollars) the day of the assassination can be explained away because Oswald always left money for her.

Of course Marina said it was always a "few dollars", that she was shocked at the amount, and that he would leave her money on Mondays not Friday.

But again, this Oswald apologist at any costs says it was just Oswald following his usual routine.

[John Iacoletti]

And then we have the ad hominem in response.

To repeat: the same person who says the eyewitnesses against Oswald all lied, that the physical and scientific evidence against Oswald can be summarily dismissed - handwriting experts have no credibility, the photographic experts are wrong et cetera - and then argues that other evidence should be dismissed because of legal reasons (remember: this is a historic event we are discussing not a trial) says he wants to discuss the evidence and he's not, no he's not, a conspiracy believer.

Quote me or anybody else here saying that "the eyewitnesses against Oswald all lied" or you too can .

Do you guys ever get tired of making up strawmen to argue against?

How is leaving money for one's wife evidence of murder?  Apparently it is when that's all you've got.

[Bill Chapman]

That's a Bugliosi strawman.  Quote anybody ever actually proposing this or

You'd love me to shut up
Seems some ppl here are getting under your skin
Oh yeah, everybody that disagrees with you

[John Iacoletti]

You'd love me to shut up
Seems some ppl here are getting under your skin
Oh yeah, everybody that disagrees with you

Yeah, that's what I thought.  You can't quote anyone ever in the history of assassination lore who ever claimed that JFK was assassinated by 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators.

And neither can Bugliosi.

But anything to distract from your inability to prove your case.

[Bill Chapman]

Quote me or anybody else here saying that "the eyewitnesses against Oswald all lied" or you too can .

Do you guys ever get tired of making up strawmen to argue against?

How is leaving money for one's wife evidence of murder?  Apparently it is when that's all you've got.

"How is leaving money for one's wife evidence of murder?"

>>>On its own? Where did anyone say that?

[Bill Chapman]

Yeah, that's what I thought.  You can't quote anyone ever in the history of assassination lore who ever claimed that JFK was assassinated by 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators.

And neither can Bugliosi.

But anything to distract from your inability to prove your case.

LOL

Where did Bugliosi claim or imply that all 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators were involved? Or that ANY were involved? Are you that stupid? Bug is pro-Oswald-lone-killer-no-conspiracy-needed. FFS.
 
The point is that there are so many CT-claimed conspiracies, claimed conspirators, and claimed shooters emanating from thousands of conspiracy books .... ALL leading nowhere.