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

[Bill Chapman]

Even one time would be nice.

Nice but still rhetoric, right?

[John Iacoletti]

Nice but still rhetoric, right?

Yes, because it really has no bearing on his argument that LHO killed Kennedy.  But if he was in the habit of supporting his wild claims with anything but rhetoric, this would be included.

[Bill Chapman]

Yes, because it really has no bearing on his argument that LHO killed Kennedy.  But if he was in the habit of supporting his wild claims with anything but rhetoric, this would be included.

Wow. Talk about circular arguments. You always circle back to 'how does [whatever] prove Oswald guilty'.

Pretty sure you challenged me to prove Bug confirmed his numbers in an actual quote. The talk was about the great number of conspiracy groups, shooters and ppl claimed in conspiracy lore. Not that Oswald was guilty or not.

Bug was mocking these conspiracies. He went after every conspiracy even the silliest and you can bet he kept score.

[John Iacoletti]

Wow. Talk about circular arguments. You always circle back to 'how does [whatever] prove Oswald guilty'.

Pretty sure you challenged me to prove Bug confirmed his numbers in an actual quote. The talk was about the great number of conspiracy claims, shooters and ppl involved in conspiracy lore. Not that Oswald was guilty or not.

Bug was mocking these conspiracies. He went after every conspiracy even the silliest and you can bet he kept score.

Obviously he was mocking -- that's what Bugliosi does.  He thinks that saying "isn't that ridiculous?" constitutes a rebuttal to the points raised.  It's what lawyers do when they have no real rebuttal.

However, it goes deeper than that.  Bugliosi just threw out some numbers with no indication of where they came from or exactly what he counted.  He didn't "confirm" anything.  He just made a claim with no supporting evidence.  Like he always does.

And you, his sycophant, accepts it unquestioningly.  Like you always do.

[Bill Chapman]

Obviously he was mocking -- that's what Bugliosi does.  He thinks that saying "isn't that ridiculous?" constitutes a rebuttal to the points raised.  It's what lawyers do when they have no real rebuttal.

However, it goes deeper than that.  Bugliosi just threw out some numbers with no indication of where they came from or exactly what he counted.  He didn't "confirm" anything.  He just made a claim with no supporting evidence.  Like he always does.

And you, his sycophant, accepts it unquestioningly.  Like you always do.

You claim there is no viable evidence
Like you always do.

You are attacking Bug's idiosyncratic manner as you do with HelenM
Read Bug's book and do your own count

[John Iacoletti]

You claim there is no viable evidence
Like you always do.

Says the guy who's never presented any evidence whatsoever.

You are attacking Bug's idiosyncratic manner as you do with HelenM
Read Bug's book and do your own count

So I have to prove Bugliosi's claim is wrong?  Gee, where have we heard that before?

[Mark Wengler]

13 people+ the shooters.     This is my list on who I think was behind the assassination. After 36 years of studying  the assassination. I could be wrong.
 

  1 The head of ZR/Rifle project William Harvey he would recruit the assassination team and their backups.
2 Mafia don Carlos Marcello provided the funding
3 Either the Hunts or Clinton Murchison because Texas was their playground and both hated Kennedy.
4 David Phillips help in framing Oswald
5 James Jesus Angleton again false info on Oswald
6 E. Howard Hunt says he was involved
7 David S?nchez Morales work with Harvey
8 Need help from some agents in the FBI(Hoover)
9 Military Curtis LeMay hated Kennedy with a passion would like to see him gone anything about military went though him.
10 Persons in the Dallas police force recruited by the Hunts or Murchison.
11 Ed Lansdale Military voice in Dallas
12 Allen Dulles controlled  all info in dealings about the CIA
13 George de Mohrenschildt Controlled  Oswald

The reason Harvey wanted JFK dead is because he saw JFK as weak and knowing nothing on how the world really worked.

Marcello easy. Hated the Kennedys with a passion. Was embarrassed by RFK and wanted revenge.

Hunts & Murchisons They hated JFK?S view on civil rights Also maybe on doing away with the oil depletion allowance  which would have cost them millions of dollars.

Phillips He rose to become the CIA's chief of all operations in the Western hemisphere.  He would have known about plots to kill Castro and the use of the mafia Again hated JFK views on Cuba and the Soviet Union.

James Jesus Angleton was chief of the Central Intelligence Agency's Counterintelligence Staff from 1954 to 1975. His official position within the organization was "Associate Deputy Director of Operations for Counterintelligence (ADDOCI)".  ? If? Oswald was even a low level  asset  he would have known. 

E. Howard Hunt said that he in evolved in the Plot.

Morales he worked with Harvey and have no qualms in killing JFK also may had a hand in killing RFK.

FBI

LaMay saw Kennedy as weak and a ineffective president.

Some members of the Dallas P,D to control things with Oswald.

Lansdale.  He was an operator in coup's around the globe photo?s may show him in the Plaza. Also he was denied several post he wanted.

Dulles was fired by JFK. He could control all info from the cia.

De Mohrenschildt may have been a low lever cia agent he could had guided Oswald since he got back from the Soviet Union.

[Jerry Freeman]

2 Mafia don Carlos Marcello provided the funding
3 Either the Hunts or Clinton Murchison because Texas was their playground and both hated Kennedy.
 

Actually, Hunt and Murchison provided most the funding.