I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak (new book)

[John Iacoletti]

Nevertheless, it's important to take even the nuttiest conspiracy-mongers to task

This is now the third time Bill has posted this nutty video and has completely ignored all previous replies.

Never fear, he will ignore it again and probably just tell the Jim Garrison pearly gates joke one more time.

Great job pasting that Youtube link Bill!  That's some impressive research.

As for the actual video.  That's 6 minutes of life that nobody will ever get back.  Here we see a guy named Steve Shives use the usual LN tactic of argument by appeal to ridicule, without ever actually addressing any reasons for believing the narrative.

His "5 Stupid things":

1. The endless list of potential suspects

This is the usual strawman that says that every CT believes every conjecture that has ever been brought forth.  As an amusing aside he talks here about preferring the "explanation that requires the fewest assumptions" as if the WC explanation isn't absolutely loaded with assumptions.

2.  The equally endless list of possible motives

As opposed to the WC's lack of any motive.

3. The lack of a coherent counter-narrative

As opposed to the WC's lack of a coherent narrative to begin with.

4. They attract people who aren't normally conspiracy theorists

I'm not sure why he considers this "stupid".  But this may have something to do with this case being nothing like conspiracy theories like the moon landing hoax or Bigfoot, despite some LNers' best attempts to paint them with the same brush to avoid actually talking about the evidence.

5. They combine to form the perfect storm of conspiracy theories

Also not about anything stupid.  I think Steve lost his train of thought halfway though the video.  Here he shows a cute graphic with JFK's picture and the quote "Ask not what the evidence says happened.  Ask what sounds good to you".  Which in fact describes perfectly how the WC came to their conclusion.

Nice try, but a giant fail on multiple levels.

[Paul May]

Nobody on the Internet?  Really?  And yet it?s YOU was was thrown off the ED Forum for stealing the identity of another person.  It?s YOU who refuses to debate LIVE for anybody on the internet to watch.  It is YOU who runs and hides EVERY time. So, with all reading this posting, I again CHALLENGE you to debate this case live on line.  Yes or no coward?

[Bill Chapman]

This is now the third time Bill has posted this nutty video and has completely ignored all previous replies.

Never fear, he will ignore it again and probably just tell the Jim Garrison pearly gates joke one more time.

What, I should respond to every conspiracy nut job who will simply call everything faked anyway?

The Garrison joke is interactive, fits every conspiracist on the planet.
"John Iacoletti* reaches the Pearly Gates..." etc

What fail? You responded as per usual, yawn.

*That's right, even devil-worshipping atheists get a fair trial
And you've got a whole lot of 'splaining to do, Johnny666

[Nicholas Turner]

What, I should respond to every conspiracy nut job who will simply call everything faked anyway?

The Garrison joke is interactive, fits every conspiracist on the planet.
"John Iacoletti* reaches the Pearly Gates..." etc

What fail? You responded as per usual, yawn.

*That's right, even devil-worshipping atheists get a fair trial
And you've got a whole lot of 'splaining to do, Johnny666

Atheists don't worship the Devil.

[Steve Logan]

Atheists don't worship the Devil.

Maybe that's a Canadian thing.

[John Iacoletti]

What, I should respond to every conspiracy nut job who will simply call everything faked anyway?

You don't respond substantively to anything.  You just cut-and-paste other people's work, take potshots at people, and pat yourself on the back.

[Fred Litwin]

Chapter Two of my book, I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak, is now online for free.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Litwin_garrison.htm

fred

[John Iacoletti]

A decent, if not impartial, synopsis of the Garrison case against Clay Shaw.

Still conspicuously absent:  any of this "overwhelming evidence" that incriminates Oswald.

P.S. McAdams.  LOL.