The Lone-Gunman Theory Collapses without the Single-Bullet Theory

[Bill Chapman]

You don't know anything.  And you have no basis for your "likely/probable" assertion.  You can't even correctly articulate the evidence.  Your "knowledge" is pure faith.

All major investigative bodies pointed to Oswald as killer.
A damn solid basis in my estimation.

Your history of arrogantly dissing the way others express
themselves is firmly established here:

A) Brewer's 'looked funny' comment
B) Euins's 'bald spot' comment
C) Markham's offbeat way of expression
 

[Michael Walton]

Didn't several WC members not agree with the conclusions of the WC? Seriously, the WC - even when it came out in Sept 64 - did not have a 100% agreement on the final conclusions.

Yet, here we are with plenty of people who continue on believing that the conclusions are rock solid.

Sure, sure.

[Bill Chapman]

Didn't several WC members not agree with the conclusions of the WC? Seriously, the WC - even when it came out in Sept 64 - did not have a 100% agreement on the final conclusions.

Yet, here we are with plenty of people who continue on believing that the conclusions are rock solid.

Sure, sure.

Feel free to name your... oh, never mind.
Been there, tried that.

[John Iacoletti]

All major investigative bodies pointed to Oswald as killer.
A damn solid basis in my estimation.

Your appeal to authority fallacy is noted.

Your history of arrogantly dissing the way others express
themselves is firmly established here:

A) Brewer's 'looked funny' comment
B) Euins's 'bald spot' comment
C) Markham's offbeat way of expression

There's nothing arrogant about pointing out that these things don't constitute evidence that Oswald shot JFK.

[John Iacoletti]

Feel free to name your... oh, never mind.
Sigh. Been there, tried that.

Yeah, because that does nothing to demonstrate that the WC conclusions are supported by the evidence.  It's just shifting the burden of proof.

The WC said it, you believe it and that settles it.

[Bill Chapman]

Your appeal to authority fallacy is noted.

There's nothing arrogant about pointing out that these things don't constitute evidence that Oswald shot JFK.

Your LOLing Brewer/Euins/Markham means of expression remains noted.
Your posting history of isolating the single-from-the-whole remains noted.

[John Iacoletti]

Your LOLing Brewer/Euins/Markham means of expression remains noted

Back to the trademark incomprehensible gibberish.

I never "LOLed" anybody's "means of expression".