The Ed Forum is having a total Meltdown and chicken bones!

[David Von Pein]

Probably correct=very likely=common sense=The way DVP determines what a fact is.

As opposed to the "CTer" way of solving the case, which would include:

Inventing conspiracy scenarios that make no sense (e.g., having FRONTAL gunmen shoot at Kennedy within a "LET'S FRAME ONLY OSWALD" plot)....

Pretending everybody's a liar (or pert-near everybody anyway)....

Pretending that Oswald's actions and movements on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63 weren't the slightest bit unusual or out of the ordinary....

Pretending Oswald never told any lies at all to the police....

Pretending that certain events just never happened at all (e.g., the Lunchroom Encounter....and Oswald carrying a large-ish brown package into the Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63)....

Etc. (to CT infinity).

[David Von Pein]

As already exemplified in assortment #193, all Nutter-speak, zero evidence.

Good boy! Just pretend that each of the points I presented in my Part 193 are based on "zero evidence" whatsoever. After all, that's what CTers do best---ignore the actual verified evidence of Oswald's guilt. Why should Otto Beck be any different, right?

Coincidentally (or maybe not) the crushing rebuttal only two days later by Rob Caprio was not included in the installment.

I'll provide the link below to Caprio's "crushing rebuttal" that Otto Beck seems to have a hard-on for. It's actually an embarrassingly flimsy "rebuttal", with Caprio (as usual) merely ignoring the evidence once more. Plus, Caprio even flat-out lies at one point in that "rebuttal" (re: the prints of Oswald that were found on Rifle C2766, with Caprio lying and insisting that no LHO prints were found on the gun at all)....

Feel the Pein?

I'd have to be a member of the Houston Astros or the Chicago Cubs to do that. (See if you can figure that one out.)

[Colin Crow]

Refreshing to see some diversity from the LN's at long last......

"you believe that Williams actually saw the killer and that's why they all lied, and as I remember I agreed with you and said that Williams must have seen Oswald and then you disagreed that it was Oswald, am I right?"

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1266.msg30391.html#msg30391

Seems JohnM agrees with me that Williams and the others lied. If you like I can get some quotes from other LN's that agree that Jarman and Norman lied too.

David you might like to update your 914 entry for accuracy......

"I doubt there was ever any chicken bones right AT or IN the Sniper's Nest. Or on the SN boxes. The chicken bones and lunch sack and Dr. Pepper bottle were further WEST, where Bonnie Ray Williams said he ate lunch.

I think Luke Mooney was incorrect about the precise location where the bones were found."

You need to include the numerous officers I have quoted on more than one occasion. Mooney was not the only one to make the claim as your entry implies. In addition a number of LN posters Have previously agreed that, given the circumstances, it was highly likely that Williams lied.

Your simplistic attempt at rebuttal to the suggestion that Williams lied......

"Beautiful. One more "liar" to add to a CTer's list. What a surprise. Everybody's a liar except Lee Harvey."

Is apparently a modified form of your response offered earlier in this thread and could be equally challenged by how many witnesses you believe were "mistaken" or lied without motive to do so. Can we start with those officers quoted who saw Williams lunch in the SN? We could add Arnold Rowland, Buell Frazier, Jack Dougherty, Earlene Roberts, Tom Alyea, Carolyn Arnold, Roger Craig....

[John Iacoletti]

Is apparently a modified form of your response offered earlier in this thread and could be equally challenged by how many witnesses you believe were "mistaken" or lied without motive to do so. Can we start with those officers quoted who saw Williams lunch in the SN? We could add Arnold Rowland, Buell Frazier, Jack Dougherty, Earlene Roberts, Tom Alyea, Carolyn Arnold, Roger Craig....

The LN list of liars and/or “mistaken” witnesses is way more extensive than that of any CT.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=100.0

[Bill Chapman]

This is the guy who had a hissy-fit when he thought he was being called a lemming.

Tell us how simply asking you to explain who 'you guys' are — and why you brought up lemmings in the first place — qualifies as a 'hissy fit'



Iacoletti, from above graphic*
"Not particularly interesting.You guys rely on faith rather than evidence, march in lock-step, and never deviate from your holy book. Since when is it a virtue to jump off the cliff with the other lemmings?"

-----------------------------------------
*@Lurkers: My bolding, for emphasis

[John Iacoletti]

I'd have to be a member of the Houston Astros or the Chicago Cubs to do that. (See if you can figure that one out.)

Maple?

[John Iacoletti]

Tell us how simply asking you to explain who 'you guys' are — and why you brought up lemmings in the first place — qualifies as a 'hissy fit'

Who said it did?  This, however, is a hissy fit:

More worthless rhetoric from PaidToTrollHereJohnny, who tells us what witnesses saw or didn't see, LN posters what they meant or didn't mean, and that everyone who disagrees with him is a liar, lemming, and stupid.

From the same giant hypocrite who calls people who disagree with him offensive slurs like “OswaldBitches” and “CTard” and then accuses them of saying things that they never said ("sheeple", anyone?).