JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on April 11, 2019, 07:27:03 PM
-
Is there any ?common ground? items that both sides of the controversy can agree upon?
-
Is there any ?common ground? items that both sides of the controversy can agree upon?
IMO, Oswald was possibly/probably a low-level snitch for the CIA. Not valuable enough to be a paid informer, not an asset, certainly not an agent but just someone who, for reasons of grandeur, occasionally passed on info.
Does that count?
-
both sides of the controversy
Like a coin...there are actually 3 sides. There is the edge that goes infinitely around.... the probable, perhaps, maybes, coulda- woulda-shoulda.
-
IMO, Oswald was possibly/probably a low-level snitch for the CIA. Not valuable enough to be a paid informer, not an asset, certainly not an agent but just someone who, for reasons of grandeur, occasionally passed on info.
Does that count?
Thanks for the reply. I am asking for an item that most everyone on both sides of the controversy would agree upon. Is there anything? This argument has been going on for over 55-years now.
-
Like a coin...there are actually 3 sides. There is the edge that goes infinitely around.... the probable, perhaps, maybes, coulda- woulda-shoulda.
But no consensus on anything?
-
I would say that we all agree that JFK was killed. But that's not even true. Patrick Jackson who used to post here had a narrative that involved JFK faking his death.
-
Ruby killed Oswald.
-
I would say that we all agree that JFK was killed. But that's not even true. Patrick Jackson who used to post here had a narrative that involved JFK faking his death.
Yes, there is almost always the exception. But I imagine that not very many folks agree with him.
-
Like a coin...there are actually 3 sides. There is the edge that goes infinitely around.... the probable, perhaps, maybes, coulda- woulda-shoulda.
More honest than claiming to 'know'
-
Ruby killed Oswald.
Yes, a lot of people saw that happen on live television coverage.
-
Ruby killed Oswald.
Too bad no one in that photo saw him until was it was too late... in effect rendering him 'invisible'
;)
-
More honest than claiming to 'know'
Or to probably know
-
Prior to their appearances before the WC, both Jarman and Norman falsely claimed that Williams went with them in the elevator to the 5th floor to watch the motorcade.
-
SS Agent Greer, didn't shoot JFK.
-
JFK's assassination had nothing to do with ET aliens.
-
John Iacoletti:
"I would say that we all agree that JFK was killed. But that's not even true. Patrick Jackson who used to post here had a narrative that involved JFK faking his death."
Yes, there is almost always the exception. But I imagine that not very many folks agree with him.
Hello John, Charles,
I am still here, thank you for remembering.
Yes, not many people believe in theory JFK did not die that day in Dallas but many things, circumstances lead to that conclusion. It is very hard for people to open their minds bit wider and give a chance to research this theory. Genuine and serious researchers have to stick to their own CT/LN theories and people like me do not have opportunities and possibilities to research more seriously and attract more attention to fake assassination theory.
In any case, I am still researching within my possibilities and have a plan to publish a book but there is always a fear present. Fear that I am right. Tend to believe that one of the reasons forum was hacked was my Final Conclusion topic.
All the very best.
PJ
-
Like a coin...there are actually 3 sides.
Assuming that you are referring to a round shaped Coin, then, ...Like a Coin...there are actually 4 sides. Thumb1:
-
Assuming that you are referring to a round shaped Coin, then, ...Like a Coin...there are actually 4 sides. Thumb1:
If the coin is rotating ( rolling) North.... there is a right side ( east) and a left side ( west) ... Thus a coin has only two sides.
-
If the coin is rotating ( rolling) North.... there is a right side ( east) and a left side ( west) ... Thus a coin has only two sides.
A solid cylinder has three sides. Top, bottom and side.
A coin is just a very short cylinder, therefore it has three sides.
-
A solid cylinder has three sides. Top, bottom and side.
A coin is just a very short cylinder, therefore it has three sides.
4 sides, Ray. :)
-
4 sides, Ray. :)
I assume you are going to say it has an outside and an inside, but if it is solid there isn't any inside.
-
I assume you are going to say it has an outside and an inside, but if it is solid there isn't any inside.
Everything solid has an inside.
If you snapped your solid cylinder in two, then the two broken pieces would now consist jointly of 8 sides in total, ie, 6 outsides plus 2 separate insides created from the one original inside, by the snapping of the cylinder.
-
Everything solid has an inside.
If you snapped your solid cylinder in two, then the two broken pieces would now consist jointly of 8 sides in total, ie, 6 outsides plus 2 separate insides created from the one original inside, by the snapping of the cylinder.
Wrong, whilst it has an "inside", a solid object doesn't have a "side" inside it.
-
4 sides, Ray. :)
Maybe we should flip a coin to see who is correct. (Heads I win, tails you lose.)
-
Is there any ?common ground? items that both sides of the controversy can agree upon?
Not much. You have two opposing approaches to the evidence. Those that believe you can derive conclusions from making logical inferences from the facts and evidence and those who don't. The latter do not subscribe to the notion that anything can be proven so long as there is any possibility that something else occurred no matter how improbable or absurd. They grasp at any straw and ignore the mountain of evidence to the contrary presumably as the product of a frame up. On the CTer end it is mostly about nitpicking evidence of Oswald's guilt to imply a conspiracy by default.
-
Maybe we should flip a coin to see who is correct. (Heads I win, tails you loose.)
Or even lose.
-
Or even lose.
Corrected, thanks.
-
Wrong, whilst it has an "inside", a solid object doesn't have a "side" inside it.
Of course it does, it's called the Inside from which two new outsides were created.
Everything that has an outside must have an inside, simple physics. One can't exist without the other.
Even if you can never see it, for example inside a Black Hole, it's still there.
(https://images.theconversation.com/files/155016/original/image-20170131-3253-44rwcq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=926&fit=clip)
-
Assuming that you are referring to a round shaped Coin ....
I was but then maybe the case is more like this...
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQB1ciiS8oZOAL4yZmia7I4vJPfqDpPLUFZfJx9gR7LpPz6HiT3)
Does the edge have one side or eight? The Commission began with a theory...Oswald did it.
Aside from that, there are dozens of other theories that were never really explored. LBJ and JEH did not want this.....
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/miscellaneous-worms-can-tin-opening_a_can_of_worms-opening-jfa2492_low.jpg)
-
I was but then maybe the case is more like this...
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQB1ciiS8oZOAL4yZmia7I4vJPfqDpPLUFZfJx9gR7LpPz6HiT3)
Does the edge have one side or eight? The Commission began with a theory...Oswald did it.
Aside from that, there are dozens of other theories that were never really explored. LBJ and JEH did not want this.....
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/miscellaneous-worms-can-tin-opening_a_can_of_worms-opening-jfa2492_low.jpg)
there are dozens of other theories that were never really explored. LBJ and JEH did not want this.....
Exactly right..... Read the Katzenbach memo..... LBJ and JEH wanted the pissants to drink the koolaide......
-
Of course it does, it's called the Inside from which two new outsides were created.
Everything that has an outside must have an inside, simple physics. One can't exist without the other.
Even if you can never see it, for example inside a Black Hole, it's still there.
(https://images.theconversation.com/files/155016/original/image-20170131-3253-44rwcq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=926&fit=clip)
No, Duncan. It may have an inside, but there isn't an inner side in there.
If instead of sides we say faces, please show me where you believe the inner face is.
-
No, Duncan. It may have an inside, but there isn't an inner side in there.
If instead of sides we say faces, please show me where you believe the inner face is.
The 4th side of the Coin can never be seen, just like the inside of a Black Hole can never be seen.
Any outside surface of any solid object must have an inside contained within its mass.
This inside volume is a component of the outside surface just as the outside surface is an exterior component of the inside volume.
Repeat: One can't exist without the other.
-
If instead of sides we say faces, please show me where you believe the inner face is.
Being figurative [because that is what we are doing] I would say that it is the one you can't see.
You cannot find common ground on something that remains hidden. How do we know that the inside of that gold coin is nothing but false metal?
-
The 4th side of the Coin can never be seen, just like the inside of a Black Hole can never be seen.
Any outside surface of any solid object must have an inside contained within its mass.
This inside volume is a component of the outside surface just as the outside surface is an exterior component of the inside volume.
Repeat: One can't exist without the other.
Repeat..... show me where you think the inside face is in a solid cylinder.
https://www.reference.com/math/many-faces-cylinder-c94b7f73ecbe3745
Quote
"A cylinder has three faces or individual surfaces. It is a tube-shaped object that is solid on both ends, rather than hollow. It has one face on each end of the cylinder and a third face that wraps continuously around its shaft."
-
Or to probably know
You're probably right that Oswald probably did it
-
Not much. You have two opposing approaches to the evidence. Those that believe you can derive conclusions from making logical inferences from the facts and evidence and those who don't.
You have two opposing approaches to the evidence. Those that believe that wild-ass speculations are ?logical inferences? and those who don't.
-
Repeat..... show me where you think the inside face is in a solid cylinder.
https://www.reference.com/math/many-faces-cylinder-c94b7f73ecbe3745
Quote
"A cylinder has three faces or individual surfaces. It is a tube-shaped object that is solid on both ends, rather than hollow. It has one face on each end of the cylinder and a third face that wraps continuously around its shaft."
I have answered your question already.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/inside (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/inside)
Quote [usually in singular] "The inner side or surface of something"
-
I have answered your question already.
Where?
I would sooner believe mathematicians.
Lee Kleir, PhD Electrical Engineering and Computer Science & Girls, The University of Texas at Austin (1976)
Originally Answered: In number how many sides does a cylinder have?
"A cylinder has 1 side which wraps around circular areas in the two ends. If the ends are enclosed then there are 2 circular sides for a total of 3 sides, two of which are flat circles and one curved side."
or....
"If it's a solid cylinder then it has three - a circular face at each end and a single surface that goes all the way round the middle which can be 'opened up' as a rectangle
If the cylinder is hollow (technically a tube) then it has two faces - an inner one and an outer one."
-
Where?
I would sooner believe mathematicians.
Lee Kleir, PhD Electrical Engineering and Computer Science & Girls, The University of Texas at Austin (1976)
Originally Answered: In number how many sides does a cylinder have?
"A cylinder has 1 side which wraps around circular areas in the two ends. If the ends are enclosed then there are 2 circular sides for a total of 3 sides, two of which are flat circles and one curved side."
or....
"If it's a solid cylinder then it has three - a circular face at each end and a single surface that goes all the way round the middle which can be 'opened up' as a rectangle
If the cylinder is hollow (technically a tube) then it has two faces - an inner one and an outer one."
In an earlier post.
Like a Black Hole, the Solid Cylinder has an inside but it can never be seen by the naked eye.
Your Mathematician's logic makes as much sense as putting Harold Shipman in charge of Help The Aged.
-
In an earlier post.
Repeatedly saying the cylinder has an inside, doesn't prove that it has a side (or face ) inside.
-
Repeatedly saying the cylinder has an inside, doesn't prove that it has a side (or face ) inside.
If you inject a solid object with another smaller object and seal the injection point of entry, then, in order to escape from the inside of the solid object, the injected object would be required to pierce any point where the injected object touches the inside of any outer edge, ie, the inner side. :)
-
Not weally, Dennis, I'm just vewy cwever.
Let's put it slightly differently. Every Scotsman has a face on the outside of his head. With your reasoning, he also has a face on the inside, proving that all Scotsman are two faced. I'll settle for that argument over.
Q.E.D.
-
Let's put it slightly differently. Every Scotsman has a face on the outside of his head. With your reasoning, he also has a face on the inside, proving that all Scotsman are two faced. I'll settle for that argument over.
Q.E.D.
Thanks for conceding, Ray. I admire your honesty. Thumb1:
-
What if you have a cylinder that is 1 atom thick?
-
What if you have a cylinder that is 1 atom thick?
Ray's the only one who can answer that, he's the Forum's expert on anything thick. :D
-
Thanks for conceding, Ray. I admire your honesty. Thumb1:
What makes you think I have conceded? But glad to see you accept my conclusion. :D Just pointing out the illogicality of your argument.
-
What hope of solving the puzzles in this case, if we can't agree on the sides of a cylinder.
-
I would say that we all agree that JFK was killed. But that's not even true. Patrick Jackson who used to post here had a narrative that involved JFK faking his death.
He's not alone John as there are some who think that JFK lived and he became Jimmy Carter!
-
Is there any ?common ground? items that both sides of the controversy can agree upon?
I can believe that LHO was involved, but exactly how isn't known since it was never looked into as the authorities only considered him as the assassin. He was NOT the shooter though as the existing evidence makes this clear.
-
He's not alone John as there are some who think that JFK lived and he became Jimmy Carter!
JFK was too ill to live long as Jimmy Carter. I believe he died in 1967 and lived in Florida, in Summer White House.
-
JFK was too ill to live long as Jimmy Carter. I believe he died in 1967 and lived in Florida, in Summer White House.
Your saying he was so sick that he would only make it to 49 or 50? What illness did he have?
-
Your saying he was so sick that he would only make it to 49 or 50? What illness did he have?
You can google yourself and find many info on JFK illnesess.
-
Ruby killed Oswald.
Ironically, the only thing that we appear to agree on was technically still not settled. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction and death sentence and ordered a new trial. Ruby?s death from cancer intervened. So technically, Jack Ruby died an innocent man.
-
You can google yourself and find many info on JFK illnesess.
I already know what illnesses he had and none would have done him in by 50. He was rich and had access to great medical care.
It sounds like you're just making this up.
-
Ironically, the only thing that we appear to agree on was technically still not settled. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction and death sentence and ordered a new trial. Ruby?s death from cancer intervened. So technically, Jack Ruby died an innocent man.
So technically, Jack Ruby died an innocent man.
As did Oswald, right?
-
So technically, Jack Ruby died an innocent man.
As did Oswald, right?
Yes
-
I always thought it was a legitimate to question to ask ' what happened to the bullet if it entered through the front of JFK's throat?'
-
Is there any ?common ground? items that both sides of the controversy can agree upon?
If JFK was alive today he would have been kicked out of the Democrat Party for being too conservative.
-
Ironically, the only thing that we appear to agree on was technically still not settled. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction and death sentence and ordered a new trial. Ruby?s death from cancer intervened. So technically, Jack Ruby died an innocent man.
You must have a peculiar interpretation of innocence. By that standard Hitler, Jack the Ripper, and John Wilkes Booth were are innocent if by that you mean they died before being convicted in a criminal trial. That is absurd. A criminal trial is not like the hand of God deciding if someone committed an act or not. Even a not guilty verdict doesn't mean the defendant is innocent. Do you think there is any doubt that Ruby shot Oswald or that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln simply because they died before they could be convicted? Oswald killed JFK. The fact that he died before he was convicted in a court doesn't negate the evidence that he was the assassin by even one iota.
-
You must have a peculiar interpretation of innocence. By that standard Hitler, Jack the Ripper, and John Wilkes Booth were are innocent if by that you mean they died before being convicted in a criminal trial. That is absurd. A criminal trial is not like the hand of God deciding if someone committed an act or not. Even a not guilty verdict doesn't mean the defendant is innocent. Do you think there is any doubt that Ruby shot Oswald or that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln simply because they died before they could be convicted? Oswald killed JFK. The fact that he died before he was convicted in a court doesn't negate the evidence that he was the assassin by even one iota.
Well there you have it ladies and gentlemen. No need for trials anymore. No need for juries..send them home. Just let Agent Smith do a glance-through look at everybody's charges and let him decide who swings. Let's shut down the forum...Why go on any further? (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/deadhorsebeat_2.gif)
BTW...Who was Jack the Ripper really?
-
Which begs the statement...JTR was never apprehended...His widow, companions, and audience saw JWB shoot Lincoln, and the whole world witnessed Hitler attacking civilians but no one ever saw LHO shoot JFK....or did ARS?
-
You must have a peculiar interpretation of innocence. By that standard Hitler, Jack the Ripper, and John Wilkes Booth were are innocent if by that you mean they died before being convicted in a criminal trial. That is absurd. A criminal trial is not like the hand of God deciding if someone committed an act or not. Even a not guilty verdict doesn't mean the defendant is innocent. Do you think there is any doubt that Ruby shot Oswald or that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln simply because they died before they could be convicted? Oswald killed JFK. The fact that he died before he was convicted in a court doesn't negate the evidence that he was the assassin by even one iota.
So when Lincoln was assassinated they had the Chase Commission? Did Lincoln's VP Johnson ask Chief Justice Chase to head a commission? How did that work?
-
Well there you have it ladies and gentlemen. No need for trials anymore. No need for juries..send them home. Just let Agent Smith do a glance-through look at everybody's charges and let him decide who swings. Let's shut down the forum...Why go on any further? (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/deadhorsebeat_2.gif)
BTW...Who was Jack the Ripper really?
LOL. Try to follow along. No one is arguing that there should not be criminal trials. Where do you come up that kind of nonsense? Where is Capt. Strawman now that we need him? The obvious point is that an individual is not "innocent" merely because they die before a trial. That is absurd. We know John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln even though he was never convicted of that act. To suggest he must be considered "innocent" because he was killed before getting a trial is false logic. The same principle goes for Oswald. Even if a defendant is found "not guilty" in a criminal trial that doesn't mean they are innocent. It simply means that a judge or jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of their guilt. They could, however, still be responsible for the crime. I've dumbed it down as much as possible for you.
-
Quote by Richard Smith
"We know John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln even though he was never convicted of that act. To suggest he must be considered "innocent" because he was killed before getting a trial is false logic. The same principle goes for Oswald."
Apples and oranges, Richard. We don't know that Oswald killed JFK, so the same principle doesn't go.
-
In fact, JFK was afflicted by a plethora of illnesses that nearly cost him his life before ever setting foot into the WH. He was administered last rites from a priest on 4 separate occasions not including his assassination. You don?t know this as you NEVER do ANY research. Ever.
-
LOL. Try to follow along. No one is arguing that there should not be criminal trials. Where do you come up that kind of nonsense? Where is Capt. Strawman now that we need him? The obvious point is that an individual is not "innocent" merely because they die before a trial.
Actually, you?re Captain Strawman, but in this case I agree with you. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.
That is absurd. We know John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln even though he was never convicted of that act.
Stop it with the false equivalence. We don?t know that Oswald assassinated Kennedy.
-
In fact, JFK was afflicted by a plethora of illnesses that nearly cost him his life before ever setting foot into the WH. He was administered last rites from a priest on 4 separate occasions not including his assassination. You don?t know this as you NEVER do ANY research. Ever.
What does this have to do with anything?
-
LOL. Try to follow along. ...I've dumbed it down as much as possible for you.
Bloodhounds couldn't follow your 'logic'. Try not to dumb down any more than you already are have.
-
LOL. Try to follow along. No one is arguing that there should not be criminal trials. Where do you come up that kind of nonsense? Where is Capt. Strawman now that we need him? The obvious point is that an individual is not "innocent" merely because they die before a trial. That is absurd. We know John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln even though he was never convicted of that act. To suggest he must be considered "innocent" because he was killed before getting a trial is false logic. The same principle goes for Oswald. Even if a defendant is found "not guilty" in a criminal trial that doesn't mean they are innocent. It simply means that a judge or jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of their guilt. They could, however, still be responsible for the crime. I've dumbed it down as much as possible for you.
The obvious point is that an individual is not "innocent" merely because they die before a trial. That is absurd.
True, just as not all men convicted at trial are indeed guilty of the crime they were charged with. A jury verdict is a judgment call. One jury may convict, another may aquit
We know John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln even though he was never convicted of that act. To suggest he must be considered "innocent" because he was killed before getting a trial is false logic.
So the concept of innocent until proven guilty is false logic? I am not sure where you get it from that "we know" anything about this case? It seems to me it's far more a matter of assuming that what we are told is indeed correct. Having said that, I find the evidence for Wilkes Booth killing Lincoln persuasive enough to accept the premise that he did indeed kill the President.
The same principle goes for Oswald.
No it doesn't. The flawed circumstantial case against Oswald is a lot less persuasive than the evidence against Wilkes Booth.
Even if a defendant is found "not guilty" in a criminal trial that doesn't mean they are innocent. It simply means that a judge or jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of their guilt.
True. Nevertheless, the law says in such an event that the person who is found not guilty has to be considered innocent, regardless of what other opinion a third party may have about that.
I've dumbed it down as much as possible for you.
You've done a good job of showing that your opinion about Oswald has nothing to do with whether he would be found guilty or innocent in a court of law. You would consider him to be guilty regardless. Who cares about reasonable doubt, prosecutorial misconduct, possible tampering with evidence? None of it matters to you. In your eyes, Oswald is guilty, period! The true mark of a religious zealot on a mission.....
-
To convict you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was capable of comitting the crime, one factor is his presence at the crime scene.
Between Garner and Dougherty, there are at least 2 people plausibly in the only possible path of Oswald from the crime scene to where he was discovered.
The failure to narrow Dougherty's movements, along with the appearant neglect of Garner's evidence (whether through neglect or malice) leaves doubt as to Oswald presence at he crime scene, the level of doubt is up to an individual but for me it reaches the level of reasonable doubt.
Another factor is their another suspect who could have committed the crime, whilst their is not enough evidence to convict Dougherty, he is IMHO a plausible alternative shooter.
This doesn't mean I don't think Oswald may have been the shooter, just that I have a reasonable level of doubt.
-
You must have a peculiar interpretation of innocence. By that standard Hitler, Jack the Ripper, and John Wilkes Booth were are innocent if by that you mean they died before being convicted in a criminal trial. That is absurd. A criminal trial is not like the hand of God deciding if someone committed an act or not. Even a not guilty verdict doesn't mean the defendant is innocent. Do you think there is any doubt that Ruby shot Oswald or that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln simply because they died before they could be convicted? Oswald killed JFK. The fact that he died before he was convicted in a court doesn't negate the evidence that he was the assassin by even one iota.
The statement has a qualifier included, the word ?technically.?
-
You must have a peculiar interpretation of innocence. By that standard Hitler, Jack the Ripper, and John Wilkes Booth were are innocent if by that you mean they died before being convicted in a criminal trial. That is absurd. A criminal trial is not like the hand of God deciding if someone committed an act or not. Even a not guilty verdict doesn't mean the defendant is innocent. Do you think there is any doubt that Ruby shot Oswald or that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln simply because they died before they could be convicted? Oswald killed JFK. The fact that he died before he was convicted in a court doesn't negate the evidence that he was the assassin by even one iota.
Comedy gold in bold. Yes, a person who has never cited one piece of supporting evidence for the claim that LHO killed JFK just declared it as a fact. Priceless.
-
Quote by Richard Smith
"We know John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln even though he was never convicted of that act. To suggest he must be considered "innocent" because he was killed before getting a trial is false logic. The same principle goes for Oswald."
Apples and oranges, Richard. We don't know that Oswald killed JFK, so the same principle doesn't go.
Ray, don't put facts in the way of Smith's delusions.
-
What does this have to do with anything?
None of his posts have to do with anything. This is the logic used by the cover-up gang. JFK was sickly and would have dropped dead in a few years anyway, so why care about his assassination?
-
Ray, don't put facts in the way of Smith's delusions.
Caprio using the word ?facts?. Seriously? Why don?t you and I debate the ?facts?? Up to it or will you run and hide once again?
-
Caprio using the word ?facts?. Seriously? Why don?t you and I debate the ?facts?? Up to it or will you run and hide once again?
I don't think it's possible for you to know if someone is hiding when you yourself are hiding. You answer questions with questions which is another form of hiding. That would fit the profile of a headcase
-
Any question asked here has been asked and answered several thousand times before. Why the need to defend Caprio? Who are u?
-
"Thousands of times before"?
That is impossible, you only have a couple of hundred posts
You asked, "Who are you?"
As I said, you answer a question with a question Who am I? So, checkers, it is... ok your turn
As usual, you change the subject.
-
"Thousands of times before"?
That is impossible, you only have a couple of hundred posts
You asked, "Who are you?"
As I said, you answer a question with a question Who am I? So, checkers, it is... ok your turn
As usual, you change the subject.
You?ve asked me no question. I?ll ask one however. As Caprio is a known identity thief, are you Caprio? Regardless of your response, it will be a lie. Good bye, oh, and good riddance.
-
You?ve asked me no question. I?ll ask one however. As Caprio is a known identity thief, are you Caprio? Regardless of your response, it will be a lie. Good bye, oh, and good riddance.
Still waiting for your "known identity thief" evidence. Maybe that won't also be lacking for 56 years...
-
You?ve asked me no question. I?ll ask one however. As Caprio is a known identity thief, are you Caprio? Regardless of your response, it will be a lie. Good bye, oh, and good riddance.
Thank you for adding another example of you changing the subject. This happens when a person lacks credibility.
So now you are a mind reader. You know more than anyone yet you offer nothing unless it's irrelevant.
TWO EXAMPLES OF PAULY PROJECTING
(1) Talk about conspiracies, you seem to have a few of your own.
(2) Talk about running away and hiding.
Lighten up Pauly
-
"Thousands of times before"?
That is impossible, you only have a couple of hundred posts
Actually, Paul is probably the longest serving member here. He's one of the founding members of the forum. Paul has far more than a "couple of hundred posts" but all posts were wiped out by a hack attack a few months back. A fact you would know if you weren't a know-nothing, ignorant newbie. Just saying.
;)
-
Sarcasm meter on this thread... (https://www.raptureforums.com/forums/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/SarcasmMeter.gif)
-
"Thousands of times before"?
That is impossible, you only have a couple of hundred posts
You asked, "Who are you?"
As I said, you answer a question with a question Who am I? So, checkers, it is... ok your turn
As usual, you change the subject.
Post count doesn't necessarily have a bearing on what a given observer knows about this forum and its topics.
-
Paul has far more than a "couple of hundred posts" but all posts were wiped out by a hack attack a few months back
And pretty much every post since has been about Caprio.
-
Actually, Paul is probably the longest serving member here. He's one of the founding members of the forum. Paul has far more than a "couple of hundred posts" but all posts were wiped out by a hack attack a few months back. A fact you would know if you weren't a know-nothing, ignorant newbie. Just saying.
;)
Denny, you are another subject changer. Quite a few LNers who seem to have their own little CTs. Hacked? Sure, of course
Are you suggesting the Russians were involved? It is always somebody else's fault. The first person I would question is the person making the claim.
You guys would believe anything. Sounds like you create false victims and you expect others to believe it. I don't listen to what people say I watch what they do.
-
"Are you suggesting the Russians were involved? It is always somebody else's fault. The first person I would question is the person making the claim. You guys would believe anything. Sounds like you create false victims and you expect others to believe it."
.....
Dear (whatever your name is),
What makes you think the Russians weren't involved?
Because false defector Yuri Nosenko said so?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
Post count doesn't necessarily have a bearing on what a given observer knows about this forum and its topics.
I sincerely appreciate that Bill. You are able to recognize the quality and substance of my 140 posts., yet admit your 1800 posts are meaningless or lacking in quality compared to mine. Thanks, again
-
Denny, you are another subject changer. Quite a few LNers who seem to have their own little CTs. Hacked? Sure, of course
Are you suggesting the Russians were involved? It is always somebody else's fault. The first person I would question is the person making the claim.
You guys would believe anything. Sounds like you create false victims and you expect others to believe it. I don't listen to what people say I watch what they do.
What I'm telling you is a fact. Any member that's been here longer than a few months knows about the hack. As for the "person making the claim" that would be Duncan, the forum owner, do you believe him a teller of non truths? You really are ignorant.
-
"Are you suggesting the Russians were involved? It is always somebody else's fault. The first person I would question is the person making the claim. You guys would believe anything. Sounds like you create false victims and you expect others to believe it."
.....
Dear (whatever your name is),
What makes you think the Russians weren't involved?
Because false defector Yuri Nosenko said so?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
Do you think it was Yuri?
Very interesting. I never thought of it, but maybe this is a case where you are taking what said out of context and carelessly running with it.
Consider a career in tabloid journalism.
-
Do you think it was Yuri?
Very interesting. I never thought of it, but maybe this is a case where you are taking what said out of context and carelessly running with it.
Consider a career in tabloid journalism.
Do I think WHAT was Yuri Nosenko?
-- MWT ;)
PS You sarcastically asked Denis Pointing on this JFK Assassination forum whether or not he thinks the Russians were behind the hacking of the posts here, so yes, I extrapolated your question to include the JFK assassination, itself.
Do you think the evil, evil, evil CIA killed Kennedy?
Oswald by him widdle self?
-- MWT ;)
-
What I'm telling you is a fact. Any member that's been here longer than a few months knows about the hack. As for the "person making the claim" that would be Duncan, the forum owner, do you believe him a teller of non truths? You really are ignorant.
One thing is for sure you are a brown noser, but your real job seems to be "Professionally offended 24/7"
It has only been a few hours since I read the post and you are drooling at the first possible "gotcha moment' This would be your other part-time job as the official site grandstander. Your first attempt is the quote below
" Paul has far more than a "couple of hundred posts" but all posts were wiped out by a hack attack a few months back. A fact you would know if you weren't a know-nothing, ignorant newbie. Just saying."
Here again, hack or no hack has nothing to do with JFK, But you would rather gossip or cry when someone doesn't agree with you. You certainly lacked attention as a child and now as an adult self-aggrandizing is your issue
-
Do I think WHAT was Yuri Nosenko?
-- MWT ;)
PS You sarcastically asked Denis Pointing on this JFK Assassination forum whether or not he thinks the Russians were behind the hacking of the posts here, so yes, I extrapolated your question to include the JFK assassination, itself.
Do you think the evil, evil, evil CIA killed Kennedy?
Oswald by him widdle self?
-- MWT ;)
I think sometimes you interpret and assume things that are not there. It was you who added Yuri to the conversation. It was me who kept Yuri in the conversation. Now we are back to you being confused again. You are probably frustrated
-
I think sometimes you interpret and assume things that are not there. It was you who added Yuri to the conversation. It was me who kept Yuri in the conversation. Now we are back to you being confused again. You are probably frustrated
*your being
Remember: The Gerund Takes The Possessive
(Nice deflection, btw.)
-- MWT ;)
-
Denny, you are another subject changer. Quite a few LNers who seem to have their own little CTs. Hacked? Sure, of course
Are you suggesting the Russians were involved? It is always somebody else's fault. The first person I would question is the person making the claim.
You guys would believe anything. Sounds like you create false victims and you expect others to believe it. I don't listen to what people say I watch what they do.
Pauly? Denny? This guy is a DiEugenio wannabe.
-
Pauly? Denny? This guy is a DiEugenio wannabe.
Speaking of DiEugenio, it's interesting how Jumbo Duh refused to applaud at the conclusion of John Newman's excellent "Spy Wars" presentation in San Francisco in March 2018, and how he picked his nose during the whole two-part lecture/slide-show/Q & A session.
Google "John Newman" "Spy Wars".
-- MWT ;)
PS It's a pity PDS is so confused about true-defector Golitsyn.
-
And pretty much every post since has been about Caprio.
More interesting is the fact you have no issue with Caprio?s internet history of constant lying and identity theft. As long as he spews the CT mantra, he?s fine to you. My proof of his larceny is a dialogue with an ED Forum admin. He was dismissed from said forum for that larcenous behavior. I will NOT post that conversation in this forum without permission from Duncan. In addition, I have repeatedly challenged Caprio to debate the facts of the assassination LIVE on the internet for all to view. He RUNS from debate. Again, YOU have no issue with him doing so. The FACT that Caprio is a liar, an identity thief and lacks even basic knowledge of 11/22 is more interesting to me than the repetitive crap your side posts daily and has for 50+ years. When you can present a logical scientific alternative to the SBT, let me know. Until such time, you and I have nothing to discuss. As we await ANY CT producing anything new or enlightening you might ask Caprio why he?s the coward he is. Don?t expect an answer anytime soon.
-
More interesting is the fact you (John Iacoletti) have no issue with Caprio?s internet history of constant lying and identity theft. As long as he spews the CT mantra, he?s fine to you. My proof of his larceny is a dialogue with an ED Forum admin. He was dismissed from said forum for that larcenous behavior. I will NOT post that conversation in this forum without permission from Duncan. In addition, I have repeatedly challenged Caprio to debate the facts of the assassination LIVE on the internet for all to view. He RUNS from debate. Again, YOU have no issue with him doing so. The FACT that Caprio is a teller of non truths, an identity thief and lacks even basic knowledge of 11/22 is more interesting to me than the repetitive crap your side posts daily and has for 50+ years. When you can present a logical scientific alternative to the SBT, let me know. Until such time, you and I have nothing to discuss. As we await ANY CT producing anything new or enlightening you might ask Caprio why he?s the coward he is. Don?t expect an answer anytime soon.
Paul,
Yep.
Spot on.
Iacoletti only attacks what he perceives to be LNer evidence.
-- MWT :)
-
More interesting is the fact you have no issue with Caprio?s internet history of constant lying and identity theft. As long as he spews the CT mantra, he?s fine to you. My proof of his larceny is a dialogue with an ED Forum admin. He was dismissed from said forum for that larcenous behavior. I will NOT post that conversation in this forum without permission from Duncan.
Great. You have "evidence" that nobody can see, but we should trust you, there's evidence. Sounds a lot like your case against Oswald. :D
In addition, I have repeatedly challenged Caprio to debate the facts of the assassination LIVE on the internet for all to view. He RUNS from debate. Again, YOU have no issue with him doing so.
And you run from debating Weidmann. So what? Are we interested in studying the facts?
And if you think I've never disagreed with Caprio then you weren't paying much attention on that old forum that Denis praises your participation in. The difference between me and you is that I disagree by providing evidence for why I disagree. You disagree by chiding people for discussing a case that you think has been settled and insulting people who dare to have a different conclusion.
-
I sincerely appreciate that Bill. You are able to recognize the quality and substance of my 140 posts., yet admit your 1800 posts are meaningless or lacking in quality compared to mine. Thanks, again
I don't see anyone here agreeing with either of those claims..
My reference was to Paul (not 'Paulie') May, who as Denis (not Dennie') has been 'pointing' ;) out, has been a member here since well before the prior version of this site was hacked, which in turn caused the permanent loss of all posts. And as just as Paul May said, these JFK issues have been raised over-and-over again.
And 'may' ;) I add, no one has yet proven that anyone but the shooter knew there was going to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
-
Great. You have "evidence" that nobody can see, but we should trust you, there's evidence. Sounds a lot like your case against Oswald. :D
And you run from debating Weidmann. So f-ing what? Are we interested in studying the facts, or having a d*ck-measuring contest?
And if you think I've never disagreed with Caprio then you weren't paying much attention on that old forum that Denis praises your participation in. The difference between me and you is that I disagree by providing evidence for why I disagree. You disagree by chiding people for discussing a case that you think has been settled and insulting people who dare to have a different conclusion.
And you run from debating Weidmann.
May, as usual, overestimates his own importance, thinking he is better than others. Like a high school bully he thinks Caprio would be an easy mark, but when I challenged him to a debate he ran, just like any high school bully would do. May's stance is a sign of weakness. The guy is a pathetic loser who once claimed he had been involved in over 200 murder investigation when in fact he was involved in none. He uses and has been using aliases for years and proclaims himself to be a researcher, yet he has never ever revealed any of the results of his "research". It's kinda sad, really?.
Btw the real reason why he ran from debating me is that it would expose his real identity and thus his real background.
-
More interesting is the fact you have no issue with Caprio?s internet history of constant lying and identity theft. As long as he spews the CT mantra, he?s fine to you. My proof of his larceny is a dialogue with an ED Forum admin. He was dismissed from said forum for that larcenous behavior. I will NOT post that conversation in this forum without permission from Duncan. In addition, I have repeatedly challenged Caprio to debate the facts of the assassination LIVE on the internet for all to view. He RUNS from debate. Again, YOU have no issue with him doing so. The FACT that Caprio is a teller of non truths, an identity thief and lacks even basic knowledge of 11/22 is more interesting to me than the repetitive crap your side posts daily and has for 50+ years. When you can present a logical scientific alternative to the SBT, let me know. Until such time, you and I have nothing to discuss. As we await ANY CT producing anything new or enlightening you might ask Caprio why he?s the coward he is. Don?t expect an answer anytime soon.
More interesting is the fact you have no issue with Caprio?s internet history of constant lying and identity theft.
Perhaps we would have an issue with that if you provided evidence for it. But you don't, so all the crap you post should be considered to be hot air.
-
I don't see anyone here agreeing with either of those claims..
My reference was to Paul (not 'Paulie') May, who as Denis (not Dennie') has been 'pointing' ;) out, has been a member here since well before the prior version of this site was hacked, which in turn caused the permanent loss of all posts. And as just as Paul May said, these JFK issues have been raised over-and-over again.
And 'may' ;) I add, no one has yet proven that anyone but the shooter knew there was going to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
So Paulie's work is done? I get it if this sensitive victim is asked a question he moves to his default answer "my posts were hacked"
The shooter? That sucks since Oswald was not the shooter might have been different if he was a shooter. I am sure you agree
-
When you can present a logical scientific alternative to the SBT, let me know.
Uhh two bullets..from two shooters. Always seemed logical to me.
-
More interesting is the fact you have no issue with Caprio?s internet history of constant lying and identity theft. As long as he spews the CT mantra, he?s fine to you. My proof of his larceny is a dialogue with an ED Forum admin. He was dismissed from said forum for that larcenous behavior. I will NOT post that conversation in this forum without permission from Duncan. In addition, I have repeatedly challenged Caprio to debate the facts of the assassination LIVE on the internet for all to view. He RUNS from debate. Again, YOU have no issue with him doing so. The FACT that Caprio is a teller of non truths, an identity thief and lacks even basic knowledge of 11/22 is more interesting to me than the repetitive crap your side posts daily and has for 50+ years. When you can present a logical scientific alternative to the SBT, let me know. Until such time, you and I have nothing to discuss. As we await ANY CT producing anything new or enlightening you might ask Caprio why he?s the coward he is. Don?t expect an answer anytime soon.
On and on you go. I think a candlelight vigil should take place as soon as possible before you indict others.
You are an interesting guy. Everything you complain about you happen to be guilty of. And the Silly Bullet Theory is a silly theory, hence the name, Silly Bullet Theory. One which lacks any logic unless, of course, your logic formula is
"logic = convenience + senseless substitution". You subscribe to "making the rules up as you go along" and then say it is scientific. The fact that Spector reacted with a Silly Bullet Theory and turns out to be the perfect amount of comfort for Paul is marvelous. Bravo to Spector. Hilarious Arnie sure had some goofy parameters to work with, just "make them up as you go along" If E. Howard Hunt can have a career as a CIA nut then overnight turn into a plumber, then Arnie can go from a being Lawyer to being a liar, I mean, science guru
-
On and on you go. I think a candlelight vigil should take place as soon as possible before you indict others.
You are an interesting guy. Everything you complain about you happen to be guilty of. And the Silly Bullet Theory is a silly theory, hence the name, Silly Bullet Theory. One which lacks any logic unless, of course, your logic formula is
"logic = convenience + senseless substitution". You subscribe to "making the rules up as you go along" and then say it is scientific. The fact that Spector reacted with a Silly Bullet Theory and turns out to be the perfect amount of comfort for Paul is marvelous. Bravo to Spector. Hilarious Arnie sure had some goofy parameters to work with, just "make them up as you go along" If E. Howard Hunt can have a career as a CIA nut then overnight turn into a plumber, then Arnie can go from a being Lawyer to being a teller of non truths, I mean, science guru
"Paulie" "Dennie" "You are an interesting guy" Are you a pillow biter? :D :D :D
-
Hello Denny, I see you have so much to offer today. Remember to go to church today.
-
Hello Denny, I see you have so much to offer today. Remember to go to church today.
Yeah, thought so. :D :D :D
-
Yeah, thought so. :D :D :D
Not good if you can't remember. I feel sorry for you
-
And you run from debating Weidmann.
May, as usual, overestimates his own importance, thinking he is better than others. Like a high school bully he thinks Caprio would be an easy mark, but when I challenged him to a debate he ran, just like any high school bully would do. May's stance is a sign of weakness. The guy is a pathetic loser who once claimed he had been involved in over 200 murder investigation when in fact he was involved in none. He uses and has been using aliases for years and proclaims himself to be a researcher, yet he has never ever revealed any of the results of his "research". It's kinda sad, really?.
Btw the real reason why he ran from debating me is that it would expose his real identity and thus his real background.
My real identity? Ah, the raging paranoia of the kooks. Damn entertaining. Short story. I?m a member at Jeff Morley?s jfkfacts.org.
Tom Scully was the admin at the time. I frequently engaged Jim DieEugenio, who on multiple occasions accused me of being 3 different posters. Each time a new member joined, per Jim D., it was me. It got almost comical. Unfortunately, the brazen paranoia of those such as DiEugenio and ?certain? members of this site is scary. It?s a mental health issue. Back to the story. I got an email from Jeff Morley asking if we could speak via phone. Having nothing to hide, I said sure. Morley called me and we had a conversation covering multiple subjects. We agreed to have a beer next time I was in D.C. My identity was later confirmed by Tom Scully.
Weidmann is an irritant often ignored and justifiably so. Not only by myself, by many on this site. He wants to debate me to give him the credibility he so desperately seeks. I have stated repeatedly after years in this site, I will no longer engage in discussion of 50 year old evidence long ago put to rest which happens to be the specialty of those such as Weidmann. When he actually comes up with something new or relevant (don?t hold your breath), a new day may brighten. Until such time, his brooding, dark, raging paranoia will be ignored. Wait for it. An ignorant response is forthcoming.
-
And you run from debating Weidmann.
May, as usual, overestimates his own importance, thinking he is better than others. Like a high school bully he thinks Caprio would be an easy mark, but when I challenged him to a debate he ran, just like any high school bully would do. May's stance is a sign of weakness. The guy is a pathetic loser who once claimed he had been involved in over 200 murder investigation when in fact he was involved in none. He uses and has been using aliases for years and proclaims himself to be a researcher, yet he has never ever revealed any of the results of his "research". It's kinda sad, really?.
Btw the real reason why he ran from debating me is that it would expose his real identity and thus his real background.
My real identity? Ah, the raging paranoia of the kooks. Damn entertaining. Short story. I?m a member at Jeff Morley?s jfkfacts.org.
Tom Scully was the admin at the time. I frequently engaged Jim DieEugenio, who on multiple occasions accused me of being 3 different posters. Each time a new member joined, per Jim D., it was me. It got almost comical. Unfortunately, the brazen paranoia of those such as DiEugenio and ?certain? members of this site is scary. It?s a mental health issue. Back to the story. I got an email from Jeff Morley asking if we could speak via phone. Having nothing to hide, I said sure. Morley called me and we had a conversation covering multiple subjects. We agreed to have a beer next time I was in D.C. My identity was later confirmed by Tom Scully.
Weidmann is an irritant often ignored and justifiably so. Not only by myself, by many on this site. He wants to debate me to give him the credibility he so desperately seeks. I have stated repeatedly after years in this site, I will no longer engage in discussion of 50 year old evidence long ago put to rest which happens to be the specialty of those such as Weidmann. When he actually comes up with something new or relevant (don?t hold your breath), a new day may brighten. Until such time, his brooding, dark, raging paranoia will be ignored. Wait for it. An ignorant response is forthcoming.
Paul,
You may find interesting the one-star review of Morley's book The Ghost I posted at Amazon under my username dumptrumpputin, or some-such thing.
Eighteen people have found it useful, so far. My review, that is.
LOL
-- MWT :)
-
So Paulie's work is done? I get it if this sensitive victim is asked a question he moves to his default answer "my posts were hacked"
The shooter? That sucks since Oswald was not the shooter might have been different if he was a shooter. I am sure you agree
I didn't see where Paul May said anything about his posts being hacked, other than that the previous version of this forum was hacked and everybody lost their posts. You are erroneously trying to separate Paul from the same fate that every member suffered.
And since you are certain that Oswald wasn't the assassin, by all means feel free to name your shooter, and show proof that anyone else but your shooter knew that there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
It seems your work is not done.
;)
-
Great. You have "evidence" that nobody can see, but we should trust you, there's evidence. Sounds a lot like your case against Oswald. :D
And you run from debating Weidmann. So what? Are we interested in studying the facts?
And if you think I've never disagreed with Caprio then you weren't paying much attention on that old forum that Denis praises your participation in. The difference between me and you is that I disagree by providing evidence for why I disagree. You disagree by chiding people for discussing a case that you think has been settled and insulting people who dare to have a different conclusion.
We have disagreed on a number of issues so as usual his comments are wrong.
The email communication that I had with Education Forum was with Kathy Beckett and not Paul May. How would a LNer know what was discussed in these emails (and I still have them) when he wasn't included in them? The charge of identity theft is ludicrous since he has no idea what I look like. He decided that I had to look a certain way, and posted that picture, but that doesn't make it so.
For the record, I decided to leave Education Forum because Beckett would only accept a photo of the person May claimed I was. Let that sink in in regards to who is really running that board.
-
And you run from debating Weidmann.
May, as usual, overestimates his own importance, thinking he is better than others. Like a high school bully he thinks Caprio would be an easy mark, but when I challenged him to a debate he ran, just like any high school bully would do. May's stance is a sign of weakness. The guy is a pathetic loser who once claimed he had been involved in over 200 murder investigation when in fact he was involved in none. He uses and has been using aliases for years and proclaims himself to be a researcher, yet he has never ever revealed any of the results of his "research". It's kinda sad, really?.
Btw the real reason why he ran from debating me is that it would expose his real identity and thus his real background.
My real identity? Ah, the raging paranoia of the kooks. Damn entertaining. Short story. I?m a member at Jeff Morley?s jfkfacts.org.
Tom Scully was the admin at the time. I frequently engaged Jim DieEugenio, who on multiple occasions accused me of being 3 different posters. Each time a new member joined, per Jim D., it was me. It got almost comical. Unfortunately, the brazen paranoia of those such as DiEugenio and ?certain? members of this site is scary. It?s a mental health issue. Back to the story. I got an email from Jeff Morley asking if we could speak via phone. Having nothing to hide, I said sure. Morley called me and we had a conversation covering multiple subjects. We agreed to have a beer next time I was in D.C. My identity was later confirmed by Tom Scully.
Weidmann is an irritant often ignored and justifiably so. Not only by myself, by many on this site. He wants to debate me to give him the credibility he so desperately seeks. I have stated repeatedly after years in this site, I will no longer engage in discussion of 50 year old evidence long ago put to rest which happens to be the specialty of those such as Weidmann. When he actually comes up with something new or relevant (don?t hold your breath), a new day may brighten. Until such time, his brooding, dark, raging paranoia will be ignored. Wait for it. An ignorant response is forthcoming.
Weidmann is an irritant often ignored and justifiably so. Not only by myself, by many on this site.
Name the people that are ignoring me. And how are you one of them, when you are responding to my post?
He wants to debate me to give him the credibility he so desperately seeks.
As I said earlier; May overestimates his own importance. And no, the reason for wanting to debate him is to expose him as the loser he is. Which is of course why he is running and offering pathetic excuses for it.
I have stated repeatedly after years in this site, I will no longer engage in discussion of 50 year old evidence long ago put to rest
Yet you want to debate Rob Caprio about exactly that? Go figure
-
I didn't see where Paul May said anything about his posts being hacked, other than that the previous version of this forum was hacked and everybody lost their posts. You are erroneously trying to separate Paul from the same fate that every member suffered.
And since you are certain that Oswald wasn't the assassin, by all means feel free to name your shooter, and show proof that anyone else but your shooter knew that there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
It seems your work is not done.
;)
Actually you need to come up with the shooter or shooters. You forget something the WC never proved. Answer shooter(s) - that means singular or plural
-
You hesitate to admit that Gloria Calvery is standing on a lower step in Couch-Darnell because you seem to be afraid that to do so would be tantamount to declaring Oswald the assassin.
No, I "hesitate to admit" that Gloria Calvery is standing on a lower step in Couch-Darnell, because your "I think I see two faint bars on her lower half" argument is not at all compelling.
Ironically, the only thing you "accomplish" by being so irrational and stubborn regarding the correct identification in the photographic images of Stella Mae Jacob and her two colleagues, and Gloria Calvery and her three colleagues, as well as outliers John Templeton and Ernest Brandt, is the holding back of clear-headed, correct-track research and progress on this case.
Translation: "you have a lot of nerve not accepting my 'identifications', which are correct, because I say so, dammit!"
Let it go, Captain Obsession.
-
And 'may' ;) I add, no one has yet proven that anyone but the shooter knew there was going to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
No one has proven much of anything about this case. Hence this attempt to find common ground.
-
I have stated repeatedly after years in this site, I will no longer engage in discussion of 50 year old evidence long ago put to rest
Yet you want to debate Rob Caprio about exactly that? Go figure
Yup. Or does he want to debate Caprio about the weather?
-
We have disagreed on a number of issues so as usual his comments are wrong.
The email communication that I had with Education Forum was with Kathy Beckett and not Paul May. How would a LNer know what was discussed in these emails (and I still have them) when he wasn't included in them? The charge of identity theft is ludicrous since he has no idea what I look like. He decided that I had to look a certain way, and posted that picture, but that doesn't make it so.
For the record, I decided to leave Education Forum because Beckett would only accept a photo of the person May claimed I was. Let that sink in in regards to who is really running that board.
Wow. Caprio is lying on so many levels here, one has to think about how to respond. First I was not privy to emails between Beckett and Caprio. My conversation with Kathy Beckett regarded the ED Forum, the Photo Caprio stole from Facebook and the phony name he used to register. What Caprio fails to comprehend is one fact: on his own FB site, he had some 20 photos he claimed was himself, POSING in front of his mirror as he claims to be a body builder. I have copies of those photos. If, as he claims those photos are not of himself, then he also stole those photos for his FB Page. When he heard I had the photos, he blocked me.
Next lie, Caprio was DISMISSED, he did NOT decide to leave the ED Forum. He violated, as usual TOS. He has this history. He was found useless at DPF and poof, gone from there also. The fact Caprio believes I have any input into the policies of the ED Forum when not even a member once again defines his paranoia. On a personal note, if you looked like Caprio, you too would avoid live debate on line.
-
Great. You have "evidence" that nobody can see, but we should trust you, there's evidence. Sounds a lot like your case against Oswald. :D
And you run from debating Weidmann. So what? Are we interested in studying the facts?
And if you think I've never disagreed with Caprio then you weren't paying much attention on that old forum that Denis praises your participation in. The difference between me and you is that I disagree by providing evidence for why I disagree. You disagree by chiding people for discussing a case that you think has been settled and insulting people who dare to have a different conclusion.
I don?t run from debating Weidmann. He?s not interesting enough to debate. He?s boring, nor do I read many of his comments. I provided enough evidence in this case when I first joined 10-12 years ago. Unfortunately, you kooks are still debating the same old crap long ago discarded by serious researchers. No fun there. Advance the case. You cannot even do that. Iacoletti, you?re such a cliche?. I insult nobody. Kooks insult EVERYBODY by continuing to discuss the very same garbage year after year, decade after decade. What?s it get you? THINK before you answer. Be introspective. At this point for me, understanding the mentality and psychology of why you believe your crap with NOTHING new in decades is more interesting in a case solved long ago. That?s the point, you have NO hard nor credible evidence for your positions. It?s frustrating you people to death.
-
I don?t run from debating Weidmann. He?s not interesting enough to debate. He?s boring, nor do I read many of his comments. I provided enough evidence in this case when I first joined 10-12 years ago. Unfortunately, you kooks are still debating the same old crap long ago discarded by serious researchers. No fun there. Advance the case. You cannot even do that. Iacoletti, you?re such a cliche?. I insult nobody. Kooks insult EVERYBODY by continuing to discuss the very same garbage year after year, decade after decade. What?s it get you? THINK before you answer. Be introspective. At this point for me, understanding the mentality and psychology of why you believe your crap with NOTHING new in decades is more interesting in a case solved long ago. That?s the point, you have NO hard nor credible evidence for your positions. It?s frustrating you people to death.
You talk about boring, no fun, etc. yet you just used "I" 4 times in one line. You are above it all, you provided all the evidence in 10-12 years? Really? Maybe your work is done. Can you do anything besides repeating your standard self-aggrandizing posts? Soapbox champion. Who cares?
-
You talk about boring, no fun, etc. yet you just used "I" 4 times in one line. You are above it all, you provided all the evidence in 10-12 years? Really? Maybe your work is done. Can you do anything besides repeating your standard self-aggrandizing posts? Soapbox champion. Who cares?
You are above it all, you provided all the evidence in 10-12 years? Really?
Yes, that's exactly what he thinks. A clown feeling superior than others is still only just a clown with a delusion.
Can you do anything besides repeating your standard self-aggrandizing posts?
No he can't.
Soapbox champion. Who cares?
Exactly right
While running away from it as fast as he can, the weasel calling himself May says I am "not interesting enough" to debate, yet at the same time he claims he does not read many of my comments. How in the world would he know that I am "not interesting enough" when he doesn't read most of what I write?
May's claim is just as wacky as his pathetic claim that he does not want to discuss old evidence whilst at the same time wanting to debate exactly that with Rob Caprio. He is full of crap. His obsession with Rob Caprio is comical and sick at the same time.