Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"

[Michael Walton]

His head was blown off? I didn't know that.

Yes, it was "blown off." Figuratively speaking. Were you not aware of that? Or because you don't like the Kennedys, he was merely "shot."

[Bill Chapman]

Yes, it was "blown off." Figuratively speaking. Were you not aware of that? Or because you don't like the Kennedys, he was merely "shot."

Show us photographs of JFK's head in its 'blown off' state.

[John Iacoletti]

Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #28

Another round of "I know what a real conspiracy would do and that doesn't match what happened" with a new number attached to it.

...and apparently he thinks a conspiracy would try not to be caught but a lone gunman wouldn't. 

[John Iacoletti]

No one can prove anything to a CTroll

Especially when you don't have any proof.

[John Iacoletti]

Whoa. Maybe bench your Wikipedia Strawman for a second here, professor: Pretty sure the psychological take on conspiracy-mongers is their seeming need to make sense of a pipsqueak/loser/nobody taking down the most powerful man in the world. Thus the 42 groups-84 shooters-214-people-accused of being involved pretty much puts to the lie any lack of vastiosity (as Woody Allen might say) from the fringers.

Oswald  = David
Kennedy = Goliath

Who'da thunk it?
Definitely not CTers

"Pretty sure" you're making even less sense than usual.

[John Iacoletti]

Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #27

Yet another "I know what a real conspiracy would do and that doesn't match what happened" argument with a new number.

This is really how the LN mind works:

"Oswald never went anywhere or talked to anybody"

"What about all of those sightings where he met with people?"

"They were all lying or mistaken, because Oswald never went anywhere or talked to anybody"

[Bill Chapman]

Especially when you don't have any proof.

Pretty sure your standard-of-proof bar has reached the Kuiper Belt by now..