Why do JFK assassination forums draw so many nut cases?

[Brian Doyle]

We only have Jarman's hearsay account and you seem unable to provide a source even for that.

The fact Holmes independently verified from Oswald's own mouth that a cop stopped Oswald at the front door refutes every cheap excuse you wrote...What Lovelady told Jarman matches what Holmes described independently and without knowledge of each other...

Your version requires a black man in Texas to decide to go to the most powerful people in America and make up a crazy tale about Lovelady telling him he saw Oswald stopped by a cop at the front door just for the fun of it...

I've won this because you still have no believe-able excuse for why the authorities did no follow-through...I understand you are trying to say Marguerite's dental records were more important than how and where Oswald left the Depository...And while we are at it why should they even take notes at the interrogation of a suspected presidential assassin?...

[John Corbett]

The fact Holmes independently verified from Oswald's own mouth that a cop stopped Oswald at the front door refutes every cheap excuse you wrote...What Lovelady told Jarman matches what Holmes described independently and without knowledge of each other...

Holmes only told us what he heard Oswald say, not to anything Holmes actually knew. Oswald told one lie after another so why would you take his word for it that a cop had stopped him?

Your version requires a black man in Texas to decide to go to the most powerful people in America and make up a crazy tale about Lovelady telling him he saw Oswald stopped by a cop at the front door just for the fun of it...

You've never provided a transcript of that Jarman said in his HSCA statement. You only give us your spin as to what he said.

I've won this

<chuckle. Just what is it you think you've won?

because you still have no believe-able excuse for why the authorities did no follow-through...I understand you are trying to say Marguerite's dental records were more important than how and where Oswald left the Depository...And while we are at it why should they even take notes at the interrogation of a suspected presidential assassin?...

You've never provided any credible evidence that Oswald was stopped by a cop outside the TSBD. All you have is Oswald's claim and a rumor Jarman heard.

[Brian Doyle]

Oswald included details that only a person who was there would know...Like the cop telling him to step aside and wait...We know Baker never told Oswald to step aside and wait because there was no reason to tell him that in the Lunch Room...Truly said after he ID-ed Oswald that Baker said nothing and ran up the stairs...The reason Baker said nothing is because he saw Oswald's lunch on the table...The front door was a main egress that was about to get busy and had a reason to be kept clear...This happened at the front door as Holmes confirmed...Holmes repeated exactly the same description of Oswald being stopped as Lovelady did to Jarman - only Lovelady lied and had Oswald leaving through the front door...These witnessings happened completely independently of each other, yet were described identically...They were then covered-up - which only stands as proof of their danger to the conspiracy...

You're just doing trollish, nit-picking nay-saying Corbett...My case is overwhelmingly the better offering and is winning this debate handily compared to your obnoxious gotcha points...This is what happened and it cracks the conspiracy, despite your gratuitous doubt...

[John Corbett]

Oswald included details that only a person who was there would know...Like the cop telling him to step aside and wait...

That's circular logic. You use Oswald's statement as evidence the a cop stopped him and the cop stopping him as evidence he was telling the truth.  IOW, A proves B, and B proves A. The reality is that neither A nor B is true. A cop did not stop Oswald outside the TSBD and Oswald was not telling the truth.

We know Baker never told Oswald to step aside and wait because there was no reason to tell him that in the Lunch Room...Truly said after he ID-ed Oswald that Baker said nothing and ran up the stairs...The reason Baker said nothing is because he saw Oswald's lunch on the table...

Baker never said he saw a lunch on the table. That is something you have assumed.

The front door was a main egress that was about to get busy and had a reason to be kept clear...This happened at the front door as Holmes confirmed...[/quote[

How the hell could Holmes confirm something he never saw. He only heard Oswald say that happened which isn't proof at all.

Holmes repeated exactly the same description of Oswald being stopped as Lovelady did to Jarman

There is no record of Lovelady saying that to Jarman. We only have Jarman mentioning that 15 years later.

- only Lovelady lied and had Oswald leaving through the front door...These witnessings happened completely independently of each other, yet were described identically...They were then covered-up - which only stands as proof of their danger to the conspiracy...

You simply assume Lovelady lied without considering the real possibility that Jarman's 15 year old recollection of the event could have been less than accurate. There is no other indication that Lovelady ever told Jarman he saw Oswald get stopped by a cop.

You're just doing trollish, nit-picking nay-saying Corbett...My case is overwhelmingly the better offering and is winning this debate handily compared to your obnoxious gotcha points...This is what happened and it cracks the conspiracy, despite your gratuitous doubt...

Your case is FUBAR which is why nobody takes you seriously. Not on this forum. Not on the Ed Forum. Not on McAdams forum when you were posting this same nonsense there. If you had a real case, you would be able to present it to some news organization who would be more than eager to break such a blockbuster news story. As bad as the modern mainstream media is, they would gladly run with this story if you had a credible story to present to them. You don't. Give it up. You will never escape the obscurity of online discussion groups. Very few people know or care what goes on in these forums.