Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"

[Bill Chapman]

Do you learn The Bug's text off by heart, John? Seems you have `a love affair with whatever rubbish he spouted.

Concrete, cited research is definitely seductive. Seems you lot are more hooked on fly-by-night cheap, easy speculation. Fun being a CTer isn't it.

If you have cited information revealing Bug's research into Dirty Harvey's job hunting is erroneous in some manner, by all means feel free to post it.

[Bill Chapman]

No it doesn't, but I understand why a LN would think so?.

... yes, given that an estimated 42 groups, 82 assassins and 214 people have been accused in various conspiracy theories on the assassination.

What... too soon, Martin?

[Martin Weidmann]

... yes, given that an estimated 42 groups, 82 assassins and 214 people have been accused in various conspiracy theories on the assassination.

What... too soon, Martin?

You seem to be under the foolish notion that, no matter how weak and inconclusive it truly is, the LN argument nevertheless wins by default unless conclusively proven wrong on all accounts.

As usual, you are wrong.

[Ray Mitcham]

Concrete, cited research is definitely seductive. Seems you lot are more hooked on fly-by-night cheap, easy speculation. Fun being a CTer isn't it.

If you have cited information revealing Bug's research into Dirty Harvey's job hunting is erroneous in some manner, by all means feel free to post it.

Bugs research that the conspiracists would never have chosen Oswald  could be right. He might never have been part of the plot, just ( as he said) the "patsy".

As for it being fun being a Ct. It certainly is better than to have to parrot the WC endlessly, and mindlessly,  even though it has been shown to be a one sided investigation. But then you feluccas don't believe that do you?

[Bill Chapman]

Bugs research that the conspiracists would never have chosen Oswald  could be right. He might never have been part of the plot, just ( as he said) the "patsy".

As for it being fun being a Ct. It certainly is better than to have to parrot the WC endlessly, and mindlessly,  even though it has been shown to be a one sided investigation. But then you feluccas don't believe that do you?

Sour grapes, Ray?

[Jack Trojan]

Bug Non Sequitur #23: Oswald's job seeking proves he wasn't part of a conspiracy.

You guys keep assuming his job at the TSBD was a fluke and there were no handlers ready to relocate him to the TSBD if Plan A in Chicago got nixed, which it did.

That said, October 4, 1963 Oswald applied for a job at Padgett Printing but was not hired because of a poor recommendation by the owner of Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. Stovall was a police detective with the DPD who was involved with the search of the Paine household in November 1963. He used 2 negatives to make a 5"x8"print of the BYP CE 133-A and an 8"x10" print of the infamous CE 133-C. WTF? Did Stovall prevent Oswald from getting the job so he would be available for the TSBD? And how did Stovall know Oswald?

[Bill Chapman]

You seem to be under the foolish notion that, no matter how weak and inconclusive it truly is, the LN argument nevertheless wins by default unless conclusively proven wrong on all accounts.

As usual, you are wrong.

A lot of 'inconclusives' in this case, aren't there.
Pretty sure 'can't rule out' equates with 'inconclusive'

In the meantime, while we wait for your 'truth' to show up, Dirty Harvey remains prime suspect.

Tick-tock, tick-tock...