One of the most important books in this case is free and online!

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes, the CIA pays me well.

Thanks John.

Yet you still reply to almost every one of my posts, is it to show the Forum how much of an Adult you are?

I thought we were here to debate the evidence?

JohnM

Yet you still reply to almost every one of my posts,


Yes, I do. It's a character flaw on my part. Very often against my better judgment I always try to help seriously misguided people to find their way again. Unfortunately, it frequently doesn't work because the worst idiots just don't want to be helped. So, tonight it hit me... John's "LOL" option is the best way to go with clowns like you.

I thought we were here to debate the evidence?

Why don't you get that dictionary you love using so much and find out what the word "debate" actually means, because up until now you've been pretty clueless and totally unable to have any kind of a debate.

[John Mytton]

This is not ambiguous to anyone without an agenda to read things that aren’t there:

“the Panel's forensic photographic specialist considered this mark to be a random patterning sufficient to warrant a positive identification.”

That’s Cecil Kirk. It’s not anybody else.

Because it tilts the scales. Because moon craters. Because wishful thinking.

“the Panel's forensic photographic specialist considered this mark to be a random patterning sufficient to warrant a positive identification.”

Yes, because Kirk was a Forensic Photographic Specialist who had the qualifications to make that specific final assertion, which was as McCamy tells us, based on the Photographic Panels measurements of a particular chip being in the right place.

Because it tilts the scales. Because moon craters. Because wishful thinking.

And decades have passed and one of the most important HSCA discoveries and still no rebuttal from any photographic expert within or hired by the rabid CT community, why is that John?

And further to that, just after Kleins sent an Italian Carcano to Oswald's PO Box, Oswald was photographed with an Italian Carcano, that poor Oswald must be the unluckiest guy in the World.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Yet you still reply to almost every one of my posts,


Yes, I do. It's a character flaw on my part. Very often against my better judgment I always try to help seriously misguided people to find their way again. Unfortunately, it frequently doesn't work because the worst idiots just don't want to be helped. So, tonight it hit me... John's "LOL" option is the best way to go with clowns like you.

"Seriously misguided"
"worst idiots"
"clowns like you"

OMG, I didn't think that anyone could fit so many insults into a single short paragraph, congrats!

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Thanks for clarifying your belief of what constitutes as evidence.

Thanks for your opinion on who killed Kennedy.

When did I claim to be funny?

How are you measuring the “sense of humour” that you whinged about?

[John Iacoletti]

Yes, because Kirk was a Forensic Photographic Specialist who had the qualifications to make that specific final assertion,

False appeal to authority. Next?

And decades have passed and one of the most important HSCA discoveries and still no rebuttal from any photographic expert within or hired by the rabid CT community, why is that John?

The rebuttal is trivial. Neither Kirk nor anybody else proved that it was the same rifle to the exclusion of all others.

And further to that, just after Kleins sent an Italian Carcano to Oswald's PO Box, Oswald was photographed with an Italian Carcano, that poor Oswald must be the unluckiest guy in the World.

Says the guy who has no evidence of anything being sent to “Oswald’s PO Box”. Will you ever grasp the concept that claims are not evidence?

[John Mytton]

Thanks for your opinion on who killed Kennedy.

No worries and fortunately for histories sake it's an opinion supported by two in depth investigations!

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Says the guy who has no evidence of anything being sent to “Oswald’s PO Box”. Will you ever grasp the concept that claims are not evidence?

Yawn, the old "he has no evidence" mantra, I'm the only person supplying the connected mountain of evidence and you desperately claim it's ALL flawed in some way or another, for example;

The money order in Oswald's handwriting for the exact amount of the cost of the rifle with postage is somehow not connected?
The money order payed to Kleins Sporting Goods is somehow not connected?
The date of the stamped money order and dated the exact same day as the envelope was posted is somehow not connected?
The coupon and the accompanying envelope(CE773) is somehow not connected?
The coupon with two matching block letters with Oswald's PO Box is somehow not connected?
Kleins records(Waldman7) of when and where the rifle was sent with Oswald's PO box is somehow not connected?
And on and on it goes, every piece of evidence is examined without context and each time we receive an absurd biased conclusion.

Now I fully expect as usual, Iacoletti will separate each piece of evidence with his ever so boring "LOL"s and he will simply ignore all the obvious connections but as Weidman says "connect the dots", and in this case all the dots lead straight to Lee Harvey Oswald.   







JohnM