Why didn't the Conspirators plant Eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza?

[Dillon Rankine]

Somebody did.

And you have evidence of that being fake?

[John Iacoletti]

The answer is obvious.  If you imply the evidence is suspect or fake over and over, but refuse to acknowledge that you are alleging a conspiracy (which by implication must be the case to explain the fakery),

Why would it necessarily take more than one person to fabricate evidence?

For example, he implied that you had posted fake info regarding who had posted on a recent thread even though he himself had participated on that thread and knew he was lying.

I think you are really so delusional that you can't tell the difference between your assumptions about what people do/think/say and what they actually do/think/say.  You're not a mindreader, so stop pretending that you are.

[John Iacoletti]

LOL

'in other words'

There you go again

That's what all of these "I don't believe a conspiracy would ever do X, therefore there was no conspiracy, therefore Oswald did it" arguments amount to.  It's pure rhetoric.

[John Iacoletti]

Nobody thinks that putting his ring in the cup is 100% evidence of killing somebody.

Bugliosi did.  He said that each one of his fabulous 53 was evidence that pointed toward's Oswald's guilt.

The point made is simply that it?s adnormal behaviour for somebody who?s just going to work and has no history of having done so previously.

So what is it doing of a list of evidence?  Just to make the list longer?

It?s all about context. It wouldn?t stand up in a courtroom, but the courtroom rarely stands up to reality.

Exactly.  Which is why courtroom lawyers shouldn't try to do science.

[John Iacoletti]

And you have evidence of that being fake?

 

[Bill Chapman]

Bugliosi did.  He said that each one of his fabulous 53 was evidence that pointed toward's Oswald's guilt.

On their own... or in combo, Johnny Piecemeal?
Meantime, after 55 years you and your CT#FailArmy buddies have no one at all to point to...

[Dillon Rankine]

Bugliosi did.  He said that each one of his fabulous 53 was evidence that pointed toward's Oswald's guilt.

The ring thing is more retrospectively probative.

So what is it doing of a list of evidence?  Just to make the list longer?

Pretty much.

Exactly.  Which is why courtroom lawyers shouldn't try to do science.

It?s why the entire criminal justice system needs reformed.