JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Why would the conspirators let Oswald have a midnight press conference?
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: Richard Smith on September 04, 2018, 03:13:09 PM ---You nailed it exactly. John is a dishonest contrarian. The single worst poster on this board. He takes issue with the evidence against Oswald as being suspect and then suggests it is a "strawman" argument to conclude that he is implying a conspiracy. Who exactly faked or manufactured all this evidence if not a conspirator? We are only left to ponder this intentional void in John's logic. Like Inspector Clouseau, he suspects everyone and he suspects no one. It is a lazy way to stay in a discussion without having to provide any supporting evidence while attempting to set an impossible standard of proof for others. The time honored defense attorney approach to a case where all the evidence is stacked against his client.
--- End quote ---
Says the lazy, dishonest contrarian who when asked for evidence that Oswald killed JFK, either gives none at all or rattles off a bunch of conclusions about the evidence that are either completely false, unproven, or misleading rather then providing any actual evidence.
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: Bill Brown on September 01, 2018, 06:30:57 PM ---Okay. Where do I start? Let's start with these six (there are plenty more):
The shell fragments allegedly found inside the limo, which were linked through ballistics to the rifle found up on the sixth floor. Were these fragments really found inside the limo or were they planted?
--- End quote ---
What is your evidence that they were found inside the limo?
--- Quote ---The two shell casings found in Oak Cliff, one by Barbara Davis and one by Virginia Davis. Were these two shells really found at the scene by these girls?
--- End quote ---
What is your evidence that the two shells in evidence (and which two shells anyway?) were found at the scene by the Davis girls?
--- Quote ---The paper trail and money order leading to Oswald's purchase of the rifle allegedly found up on the sixth floor. Was this paper trail faked? Was the money order faked?
--- End quote ---
What is your evidence that these paper trails lead to Oswald?
--- Quote ---The paper trail leading to Oswald's purchase of the revolver allegedly used to kill Tippit. Was this paper trail faked?
--- End quote ---
What is your evidence that this paper trail leads to Oswald
--- Quote ---The revolver in evidence, allegedly taken from Oswald when he was apprehended inside the theater. Is that really the revolver taken from Oswald or did the real murder weapon disappear and Gerald Hill plant into evidence a revolver linked to Oswald?
--- End quote ---
What is your evidence that CE143 was taken from Oswald when he was apprehended inside the theater?
What I've noticed is that when nutters can't defend the provenance of what they consider to be evidence, they quickly rush to shift the burden of proof and insist that you prove that somebody faked it. Even evidence that doesn't even have anything to do with who murdered Kennedy.
If you can't (for example) reliably prove that Oswald filled out the 2-inch order coupon that a microfilm picture was taken of with anything other than a biased, unscientific judgment call (and you cannot), then there is no need for any of your "paper trail" to have been "faked" by anybody. If there is no evidence that Oswald picked up a parcel from the post office containing CE139 (and there is not), then there is no need for any of your "paper trail" to have been "faked" by anybody. That's why they are strawmen. You want to pretend that either the evidence we have proves what you think it proves, OR that some vast conspiracy that nobody ever claimed faked it all. You can't prove your case, so you shift the burden to the other side of the false dichotomy.
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on September 01, 2018, 08:04:33 PM ---Of course, that's a complete intellectual dodge. It exists. How did it come to exist? Either Oswald made it or someone else did. Who is that someone else? Those are our choices. Choosing (c) neither is, frankly, a dodge.
--- End quote ---
No, it's not a "dodge". It's the only intellectually honest answer. The time to believe a claim is true is when you have a good reason to believe it. Just choosing an answer that you cannot support is no virtue.
Ross Lidell:
Chief of police, Jesse Curry, said that Oswald was shown to the news reporters: "... to demonstrate that he had not been mistreated." (or words to that effect).
Rob Caprio:
--- Quote from: Steve Howsley on September 04, 2018, 03:18:26 PM ---It matters because you have a track record of being a little loose with the truth.
Before anyone comments on your claim you should reference your source. Even a raving CTer would expect you to do that.
My bet is that your source (if you have one) is another low grade poster on a CT forum.
--- End quote ---
Loose with truth? 😅😄 This is funny coming from someone who hasn't cited one piece of evidence since they have been on this board.
Why does a source matter? I asked a basic question. Was this held in the lineup room or not? Since you clearly can't answer that question then move on.
I thought you weren't going to respond to my posts? Talk about being loose with the truth.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version