PorchGate: What Marina really heard

[Bill Chapman]

When did I claim that? You?re still batting .000.

No idea what you?re talking about. How is it a ?weapon??

I know why you use the expression. It?s so you can claim someone said something that he never actually said. Like this for example:

I?m not Shelley Segal, nor do I help her write her songs. So you can?t cite me ever saying that, then?

You mean other than the Warren Commission?

Why would you ask? Can you cite me ever saying that every last bit of minutae is sinister and loaded with malicious intent?

You can?t ignore anomalies and then claim to ?not take anything at face value?.

 

Mr.CHAPMAN: You're awfully needy for a guy who claims nothing points to Oswald as killer
Mr.IACOLETTI: When did I claim that? You?re still batting .000
Mr.CHAPMAN: Then lets see what evidence you accept as pointing to Oswald as killer.

Mr.CHAPMAN: You continue to weaponize the word 'believe' from your TAE foxhole.
Mr.IACOLETTI: No idea what you?re talking about. How is it a ?weapon??
Mr.CHAPMAN: 'Belief', weaponized to put down people as simply swallowing the WC narrative without question. (You have just demonstrated that attitude in the ?at face value? sequence)

Mr.CHAPMAN: I know what I call you characters. You just don't appear to know what 'you lot' means.
Mr.IACOLETTI: I know why you use the expression. It?s so you can claim someone said something that he never actually said. Like this for example:
Quote
"What will it take for you
To start opening your eyes"
--- Shelley Segal
I?m not Shelley Segal, nor do I help her write her songs. So you can?t cite me ever saying that, then?
Mr.CHAPMAN: Where did you get the idea that I said you helped write the lyrics? I asked you if you were involved in assessing the lyrics, not writing them.

Mr.CHAPMAN: I personally do not take anything at face value.
Mr.IACOLETTI: You mean other than the Warren Commission?
Mr.CHAPMAN: Prove that I haven't considered the efficacy of the WC.

Mr.CHAPMAN: Do you take anomaly-hunting and seeing every last bit of minutae as sinister and loaded with malicious intent as a virtue?
Mr.IACOLETTI: Why would you ask? Can you cite me ever saying that every last bit of minutae is sinister and loaded with malicious intent? You can?t ignore anomalies and then claim to ?not take anything at face value?.
Mr.CHAPMAN: Wow, you?ve just shown how important anomalies are to you, and have not thought them sinister or malicious? And where did I say you take minutia sinister and loaded with malicious intent. I asked you if you do that. FFS. And where have I taken anomalies at face value?

While I'm on the subject, the biggest, most important single anomaly that day was the murder of Kennedy. The second biggest anomaly on the day was the killing of Tippit. But, arguably, the biggest anomaly of all was that Lee Harvey Oswald was positively identified as being at both scenes during both murders.

Mr.CHAPMAN: Your continued need to diminish my take on the events (and in the way I often express that take) is duly noted.
Mr.IACOLETTI:
Mr.CHAPMAN: TAE: ?What will it take for you to start opening your eyes??

[Thomas Graves]

Being perhaps overly charitable by not calling him an outright prevaricator (synonym for a word that rhymes with "tire") on a multitude of JFK assassination issues, all I can say is that Iacoletti is not nearly as rational, objective and unbiased as he, Captain Ahab-like, fervently believe he is.

Whichever is the case, he's a sad "piece of work," indeed.

He only attacks pro-"Oswald did it" evidence.


-- MWT

[Bill Chapman]

Being perhaps overly charitable by not calling him an outright prevaricator (synonym for a word that rhymes with "tire") on a multitude of JFK assassination issues, all I can say is that Iacoletti is not nearly as rational, objective and unbiased as he, Captain Ahab-like, fervently believe he is.

Whichever is the case, he's a sad "piece of work," indeed.
-- MWT

Well, John represents himself as a Devil's Advocate after all. You should expect a tussle.

[Thomas Graves]

Well, John represents himself as a Devil's Advocate after all. You should expect a tussle.

LOL

Good one!

Uhh ... How can one "tussle" with a dude who can't tell men from women (as in the Towner film)?

Who backtracks from his statement that the black-blouse and black-headscarf-wearing gal in Betzner-3 "is wearing glasses" by enlarging the crop so much that the glasses look like a dragonfly, a tree branch, too much mascara, or a floating shadow, ... "how the hell should I know"?

Who refuses to admit that the gal on the left in the Zapruder Trio is dark-complected?

He's intellectually dishonest, and that's all there is to it.

-- MWT   

[Bill Chapman]

How can you tussle with a dude who can't tell men from women (as in the Towner film)?

And who backtracks from his statement that the black-blouse and black-headscarf-wearing gal in Betzner-3 "is wearing glasses" by enlarging the crop so much that the glasses look like a dragonfly, or a tree branch, or too much mascara, or a floating shadow ... "how the hell should I know?"?

Sounds like a tussle to me.

[Thomas Graves]

Sounds like a tussle to me.

Does it, now?

LOL

A "tussle" my you-know-what.

He should be banned (or at least shunned) for intellectual dishonesty.

My previous post:

LOL

Good one!

Uhh ... How can one "tussle" with a dude who can't tell men from women (as in the Towner film)?

Who backtracks from his statement that the black-blouse and black-headscarf-wearing gal in Betzner-3 "is wearing glasses" by enlarging the crop so much that the glasses look like a dragonfly, a tree branch, too much mascara, or a floating shadow, ... "how the hell should I know"?

Who refuses to admit that the gal on the left in the Zapruder Trio is dark-complected?

He's intellectually dishonest, and that's all there is to it.

-- MWT 

[Thomas Graves]

Chapman,

Isn't your saying "sounds like a tussle to me" a rather lame way of saying that you don't care, because, you know, those particular issues aren't important to you?

--  MWT