Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence

[John Iacoletti]

I don't need to explain what happened between 1963 and 1975. My statement that assassins of US Presidents were overwhelmingly likely to be males in 1963 was based on the historical record since 1865 (Booth/Lincoln).

And therefore somebody who saw a rifle (or a projection) saw a man firing it whether they actually did or not?  Really?

Aaaagh... there were shots being fired in Dealey Plaza when Euins and Jackson saw a rifle.
There were shots being fired when Brennan saw a man aiming a rifle.
Your argument that the rifle seen by Euins, Jackson and Brennan was only aimed but not fired is absurd.

That's not my argument -- that's your strawman.  You said "several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD".  The amount of gymnastics you're doing to try to rhetorically justify that is amazing.  No, Ross, you're wrong.  Brennan didn't see a man firing a rifle.  Jackson did not see a man at all.  He said so.

It doesn't matter what you guess that 1963 people would assume.  Jackson did NOT see a man firing a rifle.  And no amount of gymnastics will change the fact that Jackson said "I saw no one in the window".  And it's mind boggling that you would try to claim otherwise.

You named Squeaky Fromme as an example of a female assassin to counter my point that in 1963 people would assume that an assassin was a man. Fromme did not try to kill President Gerald Ford until 1975 (12 years later). Let's agree that you "implied" that Squeaky Fromme's attempt to assassinate President Ford (1975) proved that my statement about "people assuming that assassins were males" was wrong. You accused me of being a liar. Using the same parameters: your implied statement utilizing Fromme as an example was either an error or a lie. Which was it John... an error or a lie?

I'm not responsible for what you think I implied.  You are a liar, because you said "several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD", and continue to defend that in spite of all evidence to the contrary.  It's not splitting hairs -- it's called being truthful.  If you can't even tell the truth about the evidence, then where does that leave you?

[Jack Trojan]

For debaters who play fast and loose with logic buzzwords

Argument: a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Proof: evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
Fact: a thing that is indisputably the case.
Truth: the quality or state of being true.
Speculation: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Proposition: a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion.
Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Conjecture: an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
Judgment: the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.
Conclusion: a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.
Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something.
Hypothesis: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
Supposition: an uncertain belief.
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Validity: the quality of being logically or factually sound.
Soundness: the quality of being based on valid reason or good judgment.
Cogency: the quality of being clear, logical, and convincing.
Lucidity: clarity of expression.
Intelligible: ability to comprehend.
Comprehend: grasp mentally; understand.
Fallacy: a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.

[Ross Lidell]

And therefore somebody who saw a rifle (or a projection) saw a man firing it whether they actually did or not?  Really?

That's not my argument -- that's your strawman.  You said "several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD".  The amount of gymnastics you're doing to try to rhetorically justify that is amazing.  No, Ross, you're wrong.  Brennan didn't see a man firing a rifle.  Jackson did not see a man at all.  He said so.

It doesn't matter what you guess that 1963 people would assume.  Jackson did NOT see a man firing a rifle.  And no amount of gymnastics will change the fact that Jackson said "I saw no one in the window".  And it's mind boggling that you would try to claim otherwise.

I'm not responsible for what you think I implied.  You are a liar, because you said "several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD", and continue to defend that in spite of all evidence to the contrary.  It's not splitting hairs -- it's called being truthful.  If you can't even tell the truth about the evidence, then where does that leave you?

John... set aside your hair-splitting contrariness for a moment.

Who do you think was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 CST on 22 November 1963?

[John Iacoletti]

John... set aside your hair-splitting contrariness for a moment.

Who do you think was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 CST on 22 November 1963?

Sigh....

Did "several witnesses see a man firing a rifle from the TSBD"?  Or is that a false statement?

[Ross Lidell]

Sigh....

Did "several witnesses see a man firing a rifle from the TSBD"?  Or is that a false statement?

John... You're one of the most prolific contributors to the JFK Assassination Forum. It's inconceivable that you don't have an opinion on the most fundamental aspect of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

I ask again: Who do you think was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 CST on 22 November 1963? 

[John Iacoletti]

John... You're one of the most prolific contributors to the JFK Assassination Forum. It's inconceivable that you don't have an opinion on the most fundamental aspect of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

I ask again: Who do you think was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 CST on 22 November 1963?

So you're going to change the subject, rather than admit that you made a false claim about the witnesses?  Noted.

I have no idea who was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 CST on 22 November 1963, or even if anybody was.  There is insufficient evidence to make a determination.

[Howard Gee]

I have no idea who was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 CST on 22 November 1963, or even if anybody was.  There is insufficient evidence to make a determination.

That's because at least one witness reported what he thought was a gun barrel being withdrawn into the window, Euins and Brennan reporting they saw a man shooting from there, witnesses on the fifth floor reporting they could hear the rifle being worked directly above them and particles from the rifle concussion falling on them -- in addition to 3 expended cartridges being found in the SE corner exactly where they said the shots came from is 'insufficient evidence' to conclude shots were fired from there.