Explain the logic of Prayer Man please

[John Mytton]

This is your go-to when you cannot respond to the points raised.

Basically what you are doing is whining that we are not arguing within the context of your narrowly defined assumptions, therefore you are going to take your ball and go home.

But not without flouncing with an insult for good measure.  Which is part of the standard LN script.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist.  Why should I be compelled to come up with one?  Just so you can shift the burden away from your own failing narrative?

Like your propaganda is some gift that should be sought out and cherished?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

Hahahaha! Who do you think you're kidding?

You're just copying Weidmann. Of course you're a conspiracy theorist, you continually theorize in over eleven thousand posts that it wasn't Oswald and keep elaborating on this theory by rejecting each piece of the Mountain of evidence that incriminates Oswald and in doing so, you constantly say/imply that the evidence is manipulated, the very definition of a conspiracy.
Just because you're not smart enough to figure out where all your denials lead doesn't stop you from being a grade "A" conspiracy theorist! LOL!

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Hahahaha! Who do you think you're kidding?

You're just copying Weidmann. Of course you're a conspiracy theorist, you continually theorize in over eleven thousand posts that it wasn't Oswald and keep elaborating on this theory by rejecting each piece of the Mountain of evidence that incriminates Oswald and in doing so, you constantly say/imply that the evidence is manipulated, the very definition of a conspiracy.
Just because you're not smart enough to figure out where all your denials lead doesn't stop you from being a grade "A" conspiracy theorist! LOL!

Now you're just flat-out lying the same way you flat-out lie about the evidence.  Cite a single post where I "theorize that it wasn't Oswald" or "say/imply that the evidence is manipulated".

There is no "mountain of evidence that incriminates Oswald".  It's a mountain of "Mytton" bullshit.

[Tom Graves]

"Killed JFK with Oswald's short-rifle".  LOL.

Iacoletti, to whom did the Carcano belong if not Oswald?

[John Mytton]

Now you're just flat-out lying the same way you flat-out lie about the evidence.  Cite a single post where I "theorize that it wasn't Oswald" or "say/imply that the evidence is manipulated".

There is no "mountain of evidence that incriminates Oswald".  It's a mountain of "Mytton" bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns.

You can't be serious!? Just today you posted that CE399 didn't have to found at Parkland and could have come from anytime after the assassination therefore you implied that CE399 which BTW was fired from Oswald's rifle, was manufactured to incriminate Oswald. Don't you even read your own posts?

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Iacoletti, to whom did the Carcano belong if not Oswald?

Silly argument.

To whom did the Carcano belong if not Bozo the Clown?

[John Iacoletti]

You can't be serious!? Just today you posted that CE399 didn't have to found at Parkland and could have come from anytime after the assassination therefore you implied that CE399 which BTW was fired from Oswald's rifle, was manufactured to incriminate Oswald. Don't you even read your own posts?

There's no good reason to believe that CE399 was ever at Parkland.  Do you have any evidence of that whatsoever?

P.S. "Oswald's rifle".  LOL.

[John Mytton]

Silly argument.

To whom did the Carcano belong if not Bozo the Clown?

Perhaps Oswald's rifle was the same rifle that Oswald ordered, paid for, was sent to his PO box, was photographed with a few weeks after receiving it, was discovered on the 6th floor of where he worked and had his palmprint!









JohnM