Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"

[John Iacoletti]

CTers shouldn't pretend to be lawyers or scientists
Or pretend that they care about the truth while at the same time twisting what witnesses and other people on the forum said or what they meant. Or what the witnesses saw or didn't see.

Et tu, Brute'

[Bill Chapman]

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

'Pretty sure' that's another hollow CTroll response

[John Iacoletti]

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

No, your "pretty sure" bar has reach the earth's core.

[Bill Chapman]

 

What a flagrantly tacky statement it is to say that someone that you don't even really know only "pretends to care about the truth". Or do you just pretend to not care?
Hundreds of members and guests will read this blanket broad brush statement and see it as a brazenly barefaced and obviously glaring mental distortion.
You can believe what you want but don't dare to stand in judgment like that towards someone that doesn't seem to agree with your way of thinking. 
In other words...what a crappy thing to say.
It reminds me of Clinton calling all the Trump supporters a bunch of deplorables.

Boo-hoo

It's the 'Kidnapper-In-Chief' who is deplorable
And you claimed in another thread that LNers are not interested in the truth

The problem with your way of thinking is that you for some strange reason think you are 'educating' us. You have stated as much.

Now, what was that about 'you can believe what you want'

Hypocrite

[Bill Chapman]

No, your "pretty sure" bar has reach the earth's core.

No, my standard remains at reasonable, both-feet-on-the-ground levels...

[John Mytton]

Especially when you don't have any proof.

You've said it yourself Iacoletti, "All the evidence leads to Oswald" and until you can convince anyone that this evidence was fabricated, we have evidence that by your definition must be accepted in Court as proof as Oswald's guilt.



JohnM

[Jerry Freeman]

You've said it yourself Iacoletti, "All the evidence leads to Oswald" and until you can convince anyone that this evidence was fabricated, we have evidence that by your definition must be accepted in Court as proof as Oswald's guilt.

Reminds me of a Henry Fonda movie called '12 Angry Men'.
Anyone ever see it?
Eleven guys just simply refused to believe in a reasonable doubt.
But after hours of deliberation...jurist Fonda got the unanimous acquittal that the lawyers couldn't seem to demonstrate....