Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Lame LN excuses  (Read 4262 times)

Online John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2429
Re: Lame LN excuses
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2018, 02:31:20 AM »






I thought the shot had come from the garden directly behind me, that it was on an elevation from where I was as I was right on the curb. I do not recall looking toward the Texas School Book Depository. I looked back in the vacinity [sic] of the garden.
William Eugene Newman's affidavit






JohnM

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Lame LN excuses
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2018, 02:31:20 AM »

Offline John Anderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: Lame LN excuses
« Reply #21 on: January 14, 2018, 03:20:53 AM »
He didn't say he heard it from behind though.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6766
Re: Lame LN excuses
« Reply #22 on: January 16, 2018, 08:28:18 PM »
Brennan's first day affidavit of seeing a slender man white with a rifle in the very window where a sniper's nest with shells was found is supported by the Police Broadcast at 12:45 and proves that Brennan saw Oswald.

"slender white man" is proof that he saw Oswald

Quote
Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.


Cool, now you get to explain how he knew it was the same person.

Quote
Right back at ya, the conspirators only had one job to and they even stuffed that up!

What conspirators?  You can either prove that the money order found in Virginia was deposited after March 13 or you cannot.

Quote
The other two shells were marked and verified.

You mean the other shells that were handed to the police by civilians who couldn't tell if they were the same shells?

Quote
Mr. BALL. Did you make a mark?
Mr. POE. I can't swear to it; no, sir.
Mr. BALL. But there is a mark on two of these?
Mr. POE. There is a mark. I believe I put on them, but I couldn't swear to it. I couldn't make them out any more.


So I was accurate then.  Your position is that Poe forgot to mark the shells, because they are not marked.

Quote

 the brown paper bag must have been accidentally moved and following strict Police procedure wasn't replaced for the photo because that would be naughty.

Or CE142 was not there at all when the SN was discovered...

Quote
You rely on a Police report to tell that you that the very same Police discovered bullets on Oswald a couple of hours later, where does that go?

They don't search a suspected double murderer's pockets immediately?  Even by DPD standards, that's incredibly stupid.  Or maybe those bullets were never in his pockets.

Quote
On the first weekend she told the FBI that the package was 3 feet long.

Correction:  Bookhout wrote in his report that on the first weekend she told the FBI that the package was 3 feet long.

Quote
Really???, the garage was enclosed by slats.

Point out the car on the other side of the slats.

Quote
So what?

Essie Mae looked out the same window that Linnie Mae did.

Quote
Anyway so far from your compiled list I see the usual misrepresentations, ignorance and lies

On that we agree.  That's why they are lame LN excuses.

Quote
which don't seem to lead to any specific conclusion.

The conclusion is that LN-ers will go through all sorts of silly contortions to try to "explain" away conflicting or contradictory evidence.  It's called special pleading.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Lame LN excuses
« Reply #22 on: January 16, 2018, 08:28:18 PM »

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6766
Re: Lame LN excuses
« Reply #23 on: January 16, 2018, 08:30:41 PM »
No matter which Bill Newman statement you go with, they all result in an LNer conclusion that he was mistaken about the source of the shots, right?

Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 817
Re: Lame LN excuses
« Reply #24 on: January 16, 2018, 10:11:27 PM »
Lame John I. excuses:

1) Everyone lied or planted evidence if it implicates Oswald (repeat in every instance but then deny this is what you are doing).
2) Suggest that every explanation that addresses an insane CTer claim is a "strawman" argument (demonstrating either a traumatic childhood experience with The Wizard of Oz or a way to avoid acknowledging the lunacy of these claims without having to address the substance)
3)  Suggest all evidence is the product of an "opinion, "assumption," or "speculation." Fingerprints, hand writing, document, pictures - any inference drawn from this evidence is merely an opinion.  This limitation does not, however, apparently apply to any nutty counter-alternative to Oswald's guilt no matter how improbable or baseless.  If it is possible, then it can be entertained or implied so long as it lends itself to doubt about Oswald's guilt.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Lame LN excuses
« Reply #24 on: January 16, 2018, 10:11:27 PM »

Online John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2429
Re: Lame LN excuses
« Reply #25 on: January 16, 2018, 10:29:48 PM »
Lame John I. excuses:

1) Everyone lied or planted evidence if it implicates Oswald (repeat in every instance but then deny this is what you are doing).
2) Suggest that every explanation that addresses an insane CTer claim is a "strawman" argument (demonstrating either a traumatic childhood experience with The Wizard of Oz or a way to avoid acknowledging the lunacy of these claims without having to address the substance)
3)  Suggest all evidence is the product of an "opinion, "assumption," or "speculation." Fingerprints, hand writing, document, pictures - any inference drawn from this evidence is merely an opinion.  This limitation does not, however, apparently apply to any nutty counter-alternative to Oswald's guilt no matter how improbable or baseless.  If it is possible, then it can be entertained or implied so long as it lends itself to doubt about Oswald's guilt.






Nice work Richard, I couldn't have put it better myself.



JohnM

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6766
Re: Lame LN excuses
« Reply #26 on: January 16, 2018, 11:39:37 PM »
Lame John I. excuses:

1) Everyone lied or planted evidence if it implicates Oswald (repeat in every instance but then deny this is what you are doing).

Which you still haven't been able to substantiate with a single quote.  Because it's a flat out lie.

Quote
2) Suggest that every explanation that addresses an insane CTer claim is a "strawman" argument

No, Richard's "vast conspiracy" that nobody actually ever claims there is is a strawman argument.

Quote
3)  Suggest all evidence is the product of an "opinion, "assumption," or "speculation." Fingerprints, hand writing, document, pictures - any inference drawn from this evidence is merely an opinion.

LOL.  Your "inferences" aren't any different from anyone else's opinion.  You just pretend they are.

Quote
This limitation does not, however, apparently apply to any nutty counter-alternative to Oswald's guilt no matter how improbable or baseless.  If it is possible, then it can be entertained or implied so long as it lends itself to doubt about Oswald's guilt.

Demonstrably false.  See my Walt's Fabrications thread or my responses to Patrick Jackson's "blood cannons" or Alan Fritzke's "Malcolm Summers was the assassin".  On the other hand, you endorse every lame LN excuse without question and you think that insults make your lame arguments more convincing.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Lame LN excuses
« Reply #26 on: January 16, 2018, 11:39:37 PM »

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1791
Re: Lame LN excuses
« Reply #27 on: December 05, 2018, 02:02:46 AM »
Bump....This was one spicy thread.
Way to go Richard..Atta boy John I couldn't have choked any better myself ;)

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Lame LN excuses
« Reply #27 on: December 05, 2018, 02:02:46 AM »

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
Re: Lame LN excuses
« Reply #28 on: December 05, 2018, 03:20:53 AM »
Kinda explains why LNs don't like (or "get tired" of) questions being asked about the evidence and perhaps even why some get a "courtroom feel" when faced with those questions?.

Much easier to "demand" theories to be put forward (even those that do not exist) because those they can attack.

Offline Jack Trojan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
Re: Lame LN excuses
« Reply #29 on: December 05, 2018, 06:52:10 PM »
Sheriff John I. is the only one keeping you LNers honest. He doesn't propose CTs, he only calls out the LNer BS lame excuses and it drives them nuts. That's because foremost he is a logistician and he calls out all the fallacies, of which there are many, and destroys their arguments thru logic. The LNers only recourse is to accuse him of dishonesty and try to discredit him with extreme prejudice. They take all this so personally it's comical. It's all a frustrating game for them because they have the untenable position of defending the WC 100%. Oswald was a lone nut, period. No collusion, no conspiracy. All other evidence to the contrary must be attacked, dismissed or ignored. Oswald can't be the shooter in a conspiracy. Nope, the LNers are diehard WC defenders all the way baby! If they have to embarrass themselves via lame excuses, then so be it. It makes the JFK forum what it is. John I. tries to debate the LNers but they never give an inch because it is baked into their ideology, so their lame excuses get destroyed every time.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Lame LN excuses
« Reply #29 on: December 05, 2018, 06:52:10 PM »

 

Mobile View