CIA Wallets at Tenth and Patton

[John Corbett]

This whole discussion is a perfect example of CTs trying to find significance in the most insignificant things. They have no real evidence that anybody except Oswald took part in the crime so they think if they can come up with some unexplained event, that proves conspiracy. It is a completely illogical approach, but this is all the CTs have after 62 years.

[Martin Weidmann]

This whole discussion is a perfect example of CTs trying to find significance in the most insignificant things. They have no real evidence that anybody except Oswald took part in the crime so they think if they can come up with some unexplained event, that proves conspiracy. It is a completely illogical approach, but this is all the CTs have after 62 years.

Contradictions in the evidence are not insignificant, but I fully understand why you would like them to be.

Perhaps you should stop complaining about "CTs" and (for once) try to answer a question. Your constant lack of answers shows just how weak your superficial case really is.

[Michael Capasse]

This whole discussion is a perfect example of CTs trying to find significance in the most insignificant things. They have no real evidence that anybody except Oswald took part in the crime so they think if they can come up with some unexplained event, that proves conspiracy. It is a completely illogical approach, but this is all the CTs have after 62 years.

such is the empty you pass out here every day.

[John Corbett]

such is the empty you pass out here every day.

I figured out the JFKA a long time ago. The CTs are still grasping at straws.

The AI definition of the phrase "grasping at straws" perfectly defines the CT efforts over the past six decades:

The phrase "grasping at straws" means to make a desperate attempt to save oneself or succeed in a situation where the chances are very slim, often by resorting to unlikely or flimsy solutions

It can also refer to trying desperately to support an argument with irrelevant points

Essentially, it describes a futile effort to find a solution when all options seem ineffective

[Michael Capasse]

I figured out the JFKA a long time ago. The CTs are still grasping at straws.

The AI definition of the phrase "grasping at straws" perfectly defines the CT efforts over the past six decades:

The phrase "grasping at straws" means to make a desperate attempt to save oneself or succeed in a situation where the chances are very slim, often by resorting to unlikely or flimsy solutions

It can also refer to trying desperately to support an argument with irrelevant points

Essentially, it describes a futile effort to find a solution when all options seem ineffective

...and the dolling out your BS is pretty self-explanatory in itself. No A-I is needed.
 
meanwhile....Michael T Griffith fills this forum with legitimate questions and doubts about the case.
His postings are backed up by solid documents, statements, and testimony. He continues posting in the face of your blatant insults.
His work will remain here as a testament to his dedication to the truth. John Corbett; not so much

Here are just a few of your "greatest hits" in reply;

Total BS.

Because of a confused witness.

No, the error is in your FUBAR figuring. As long as you have been analyzing the evidence in this case, it's amazing how bad you are at it.

Oh, goody for you. You caught one of my typos. I bet that made your day.

I think you had already posted plenty of nonsense. You didn't need to add on.

[Martin Weidmann]

I figured out the JFKA a long time ago. The CTs are still grasping at straws.

The AI definition of the phrase "grasping at straws" perfectly defines the CT efforts over the past six decades:

The phrase "grasping at straws" means to make a desperate attempt to save oneself or succeed in a situation where the chances are very slim, often by resorting to unlikely or flimsy solutions

It can also refer to trying desperately to support an argument with irrelevant points

Essentially, it describes a futile effort to find a solution when all options seem ineffective

I figured out the JFKA a long time ago.

No you didn't, but you are simply too superficial to ever figure that out.

You can't even provide a plausible answer for a question that is 100% based on the available evidence.

[John Corbett]

...and the dolling out your BS is pretty self-explanatory in itself. No A-I is needed.
 
meanwhile....Michael T Griffith fills this forum with legitimate questions and doubts about the case.
His postings are backed up by solid documents, statements, and testimony. He continues posting in the face of your blatant insults.
His work will remain here as a testament to his dedication to the truth. John Corbett; not so much

Here are just a few of your "greatest hits" in reply;

I've been reading MTG's crap for 35 years and the word "legitimate" never crossed my mind. He keeps recycling the same old debunked BS he was trying to sell way back in the early 1990s. He's still trying to polish the same old turds. His work never has and never will amount to a hill of beans. It will be forgotten soon after he goes belly up. The WC will remain the definitive account of the JFKA. It has stood the test of time and will continue to do so even as misinformed people continue to reject it. 

Just what has the CT community done collectively over the past six decades. Has it produced any credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald took part in the assassination. A big fat NO. Some have pointed the finger of suspicion at various individuals or groups but have never been able to back it up with actual evidence. All they can do is invent lame excuses for rejecting the findings of the WC. Those efforts have been about as effective as shooting spit wads at tanks. History has recorded that Oswald was the assassin and will continue to do so long after any of us have passed on. Nothing has changed and nothing ever will. It has been 62 years of futility and still counting.