Oak Cliff Time Trials

[John Iacoletti]

Your problem, Bill - well, actually his and the others doing this - is that you are trying to reconstruct what happened, to solve a murder. Sure, you have biases like we all do. Confirmation bias, motivated reasoning. All of that fancy sounding stuff. But you are looking at the totality of evidence and trying as best as you can, again given our human failings, to explain what happened.

No, what he is doing is concocting fantasy stories out of thin air in order to fit his predetermined narrative.

He's trying to exonerate Oswald. He's not interested in trying to figure out what happened. He's trying to clear his guy. So, Oswald is totally innocent, all of his actions can be dismissed or ignored while everyone else's actions are given sinister explanations. Why Oswald? Heck if I know.

No need to "clear" anybody.  You can either prove he committed a crime without appealing to fantasy or you cannot.

[John Iacoletti]

Yessir.  Iacoletti does everything he can (and suspends all common sense) to try to get Saint Lee of the Oswalds off the hook.

There's also no need to get somebody "off the hook" when nobody has gotten him on any hook to begin with.  And "common sense" is not evidence.  It's what people appeal to when they don't have actual evidence.

[Bill Brown]

Bullsh!t.  If she had actually seen him "duck in", why didn't she stop him and make him buy a ticket?  Why did she tell both Brewer and the FBI that she wasn't sure whether she sold Oswald a ticket or not?

Who said Postal saw the guy duck in?  You're confused.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Yessir.  Iacoletti does everything he can (and suspends all common sense) to try to get Saint Lee of the Oswalds off the hook.

He may be the most obvious doing this but, as you know, it's not just him. A dominant JFK conspiracy hobbyist view (there are exceptions but they are just that: exceptions) expressed at the conspiracy sites is that there is more evidence that Ruth Paine was involved in the assassination of JFK then there is evidence that Oswald was involved. My guess is that 90+% believe she was a conspirator; and 90+% believe Oswald was totally innocent. Remarkable.

That sounds tongue-in-cheek, like a strawman argument: but it's absolutely true.

[John Iacoletti]

Who said Postal saw the guy duck in?  You're confused.

Julia Postal did.  And you call me confused...

[John Iacoletti]

He may be the most obvious doing this but, as you know, it's not just him. A dominant JFK conspiracy hobbyist view (there are exceptions but they are just that: exceptions) expressed at the conspiracy sites is that there is more evidence that Ruth Paine was involved in the assassination of JFK then there is evidence that Oswald was involved. My guess is that 90+% believe she was a conspirator; and 90+% believe Oswald was totally innocent. Remarkable.

That sounds tongue-in-cheek, like a strawman argument: but it's absolutely true.

"My guess" does not equate with "absolutely true".

[Bill Brown]

Bullsh!t.  If she had actually seen him "duck in", why didn't she stop him and make him buy a ticket?  Why did she tell both Brewer and the FBI that she wasn't sure whether she sold Oswald a ticket or not?

Who said Postal saw the guy duck in?  You're confused.

Julia Postal did.  And you call me confused...

Quote her saying she saw the guy duck in.