Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: What Is Iacoletti's Definition Of "Evidence"?  (Read 3685 times)

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1241
Re: What Is Iacoletti's Definition Of "Evidence"?
« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2019, 03:01:38 AM »
Do you think Karen Westbrook correctly identified herself and Gloria Calvery in the Zapruder film, from behind and 54 years after-the-fact?
What does that have to do with this thread?
 

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: What Is Iacoletti's Definition Of "Evidence"?
« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2019, 03:01:38 AM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1209
Re: What Is Iacoletti's Definition Of "Evidence"?
« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2019, 03:12:06 AM »
Dear Marty,
 
Go xxxx xxx, mate.

(British English with a little German thrown in for good measure.)

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

PS  Btw, that's my point, isn't it, mate.

Why is it that the Great Self-Appointed Arbiter Of What Is And What Isn't "Evidence" is unswayed by my, and Sandy Larsen's, and, up to a certain point ... gulp ... Brian Doyle's evidence pertaining to the identification of Calvery, Jacob, Holt, Simmons, et al.?

Why is it that the Great Self-Appointed Arbiter Of What Is And What Isn't "Evidence" is unswayed by my, and Sandy Larsen's, and, up to a certain point ... gulp ... Brian Doyle's evidence pertaining to the identification of Calvery, Jacob, Holt, Simmons, et al.?


First of all, John is not a "self-appointed arbiter" of anything and, secondly, he (as I am) isn't swayed by the crap you call "evidence".

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 746
Re: What Is Iacoletti's Definition Of "Evidence"?
« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2019, 03:34:03 AM »
I think that I have no reason or desire to discuss anything with somebody who started our interaction with "Go xxxx xxx, mate"

And yes, I am well aquainted with "British English" but there is no need to throw in German "for good measure" as it isn't my origin.

Dear Marty Mate,

I think you forgot some "x"s.

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: What Is Iacoletti's Definition Of "Evidence"?
« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2019, 03:34:03 AM »


Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 746
Re: What Is Iacoletti's Definition Of "Evidence"?
« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2019, 03:48:27 AM »
Why is it that the Great Self-Appointed Arbiter Of What Is And What Isn't "Evidence" is unswayed by my, and Sandy Larsen's, and, up to a certain point ... gulp ... Brian Doyle's evidence pertaining to the identification of Calvery, Jacob, Holt, Simmons, et al.?


First of all, John is not a "self-appointed arbiter" of anything and, secondly, he (as I am) isn't swayed by the crap you call "evidence".

Dear Marty Mate,

Why do you call, for example, my observations in and cross-referencing of various sources, like Zframe-60     https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z060.jpg  (in which you can see self-described American Indian Stella Mae Jacob's dark complexion and Sharron Simmon's light-blue headscarf, etc), and uncropped Bronson-5 (in which you can see Jacob's dark complexion and the light-blue headscarf Sharron Simmons is wearing), and the Darnell frames (in one of which is visible Jacob's dark complexion, poofed-up black hair, and ... gasp ... her American Indian nose), etc, as "crap"?

Do you really believe that Karen Westbrook correctly identified herself and Gloria Calvery in the Z-film, albeit from behind and 54 years after-the fact?

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 03:52:07 AM by Thomas Graves »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
What Is Iacoletti's Definition Of "Evidence"?
« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2019, 03:53:05 AM »
In my opinion it is foolish to take Iacoletti's naysay trolling seriously or respond to it...

He'll never admit to correct evidence and is just here to make it difficult to present evidence...

Larry Grayson doppleganger Bart " Ooooh...Shut That Door" Kamp lied when he said he would change his mind on Westbrook's Calvery if shown good evidence...
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 03:54:00 AM by Brian Doyle »

JFK Assassination Forum

What Is Iacoletti's Definition Of "Evidence"?
« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2019, 03:53:05 AM »


Offline Tom Scully

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 369
Re: What Is Iacoletti's Definition Of "Evidence"?
« Reply #25 on: March 06, 2019, 04:01:31 AM »
Why is it that the Great Self-Appointed Arbiter Of What Is And What Isn't "Evidence" is unswayed by my, and Sandy Larsen's, and, up to a certain point ... gulp ... Brian Doyle's evidence pertaining to the identification of Calvery, Jacob, Holt, Simmons, et al.?


First of all, John is not a "self-appointed arbiter" of anything and, secondly, he (as I am) isn't swayed by the crap you call "evidence".

Most posters cannot discern verifiable evidence from a hole in the ground. Doyle speculates. Doyle disrupts. Doyle presents no
verifiable evidence. Doyle offers no path towards resolving issues related to images beyond unpersuasive interpretation. Doyle
and his intended audience fail the reasonable person standard. They are unimpressed with BYP and Z-Film image evidence authenticity,
and scoff at the 55 year old, voluminous, uniform testimonial evidence contradicting the claim Oswald was outside the TSBD at or near the time the JFK motorcade passed by. Yet, Doyle and like minded theorists posture with hopes they will someday change the historical
narrative. This is obviously unreasonable to reasonable people. Who does Doyle REALISTICALLY expect to persuade, beyond those already
leaning towards believing Doyle has realistic goals or practical methods to accomplish them.

Contrast Doyle's attempt to create his own Truman Show-esque alternative reality/insular narrative which requires a busload and a half
of witnessess, many of which were employees of TSBD and its textbook vendors, to trip over themselves attempting to testify with the consequence of giving a free pass (escape, scot-free) to the actual assassin(s), with reasonably settling a question with reasonable (verifiable) evidence.

Did A.C. Johnson lie to an FBI agent? Unless Doyle is as impaired as John's research of the details of Doyle's posts indicates to
John that he is, Doyle presumably picks his shots, i.e., what issue he targets for resolution, as I am choosing to do in this example.:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10730&relPageId=118&search=johnson_and%20humble


Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 746
Re: What Is Iacoletti's Definition Of "Evidence"?
« Reply #26 on: March 06, 2019, 04:36:06 AM »
Martin Weidmann wrote:

John Iacolleti (as am I) isn't swayed by the crap you call "evidence".
.....

My reply:

Dear Marty Mate,

Why do you call my observations in (and cross-referencing of) various sources, like, for example, Zapruder Frame-60    https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z060.jpg

In which you can see self-described American Indian Stella Mae Jacob's dark complexion and Sharron Simmon's light-blue headscarf, etc,

And uncropped Bronson-5   
https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=12716&fullsize=1

In which you can see Jacob's dark complexion and the light-blue headscarf Sharron Simmons is wearing, to boot.

And the Darnell frames, in one of which https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=1575&fullsize=1
is visible Jacob's dark complexion, poofed-up black hair, and ... gasp ... her American Indian nose, and the (light-blue) headscarf Sharron Simmons was wearing, to boot, redux.

... "crap"?


Looking at it from a different perspective, do you really believe that Karen Westbrook correctly identified herself and Gloria Calvery in the Z-film, albeit from behind and 54 years after-the fact?

LOL

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
[/quote]
.....

Bumped, in an attempt to keep this thread on subject; i.e., to discern what John Iacolletti (and Marty Mate, evidently) requires for so-called evidence to be considered REAL DEAL EVIDENCE in his "book".

I intuit that it must at least appear to exonerate Oswald and/or implicate the evil, evil, evil "Military Industrial Intelligence Community Complex," and that's about it ...

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 05:58:23 AM by Thomas Graves »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: What Is Iacoletti's Definition Of "Evidence"?
« Reply #26 on: March 06, 2019, 04:36:06 AM »


Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 746
Re: What Is Iacoletti's Definition Of "Evidence"?
« Reply #27 on: March 06, 2019, 05:25:36 AM »
What does that have to do with this thread?

Well, Jerry, if you haven't noticed, John Iacoletti claims that I'm wrong, wrong, wrong to insist that the three women under discussion in the Z-film (labeled by Robin Unger many years ago as, from left to right, "Gloria Calvery, Karan Hicks, and Carol Reed") are actually self-described American Indian Stella Mae Jacob, and her workplace friends Gloria Holt, and Sharron Simmons, i.e., that their little motorcade-watching group was comprised of three colleagues at the Texas School Book Company who, unfortunately, said in their FBI statements that they'd been standing near the street on the south side of Elm Street when in fact they were on the north side of Elm Street ...

For whatever reason, John's deferring to Karen Westbrook's memory of where she was (from behind and 54 years after-the-fact), and concomitantly consistently rejecting the evidence, the methodology, and the interpretations I've used to arrive at a contrary conclusion, and frankly, his inability or simple unwillingness to "grasp the big picture" as I and Larsen and Stancak (sp?), and Prudhomme, et al., see it regarding where Jacob, Holt, and Simmons were during the motorcade, and, therefore, where Calvary, Hicks, and Reed weren't (or, if you prefer, where "probably Carol Reed," "definitely Gloria Calvery," and "definitely me, Karen Westbrook" ... weren't .. well, it boggles the mind.

Does that help, or shall I spell it ALL out for you?

LOL

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 05:53:43 AM by Thomas Graves »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
What Is Iacoletti's Definition Of "Evidence"?
« Reply #28 on: March 06, 2019, 05:25:48 AM »
We have provided reasonable evidence of the 3 Women being Simmons, Holt, and Jacob...

Iacoletti tries to control the conversation by attacking what he sees as weaknesses but in the process he doesn't answer your main evidence...Iacoletti ignores the part where they said they were together and there they are together in both Darnell and Zapruder...

Don't make the mistake of thinking Iacoletti is seriously looking Thomas...

JFK Assassination Forum

What Is Iacoletti's Definition Of "Evidence"?
« Reply #28 on: March 06, 2019, 05:25:48 AM »


Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 746
Re: What Is Iacoletti's Definition Of "Evidence"?
« Reply #29 on: March 06, 2019, 05:41:24 AM »
We have provided reasonable evidence of the 3 Women being Simmons, Holt, and Jacob...

Iacoletti tries to control the conversation by attacking what he sees as weaknesses but in the process he doesn't answer your main evidence...Iacoletti ignores the part where they said they were together and there they are together in both Darnell and Zapruder...

Don't make the mistake of thinking Iacoletti is seriously looking Thomas...

Brian,

I'm actually glad that Iacoletti has given me this opportunity to try to educate members and guests about where it's pretty obvious Jacob, Holt, and Simmons were standing during the motorcade (and, logically, where Carol Reed, Gloria Calvery, and Karen Westbrook couldn't possibly have been standing).

The last time I looked, a couple of members and more than 100 guests were reading this thread.

Thank you, John Iacoletti!

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)


« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 06:30:56 AM by Thomas Graves »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: What Is Iacoletti's Definition Of "Evidence"?
« Reply #29 on: March 06, 2019, 05:41:24 AM »