Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: The "smirk"  (Read 26182 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #176 on: December 13, 2019, 02:38:16 AM »
Advertisement
Both Benavides’ and the jeweler’s accounts are evidence that tend to corroborate Tatum’s account. I believe that you are trying to require that any evidence must be conclusive to be considered “evidence” in your opinion.

C’mon Charles. It’s not a corroboration that Benavides said he saw a red car when anybody could have read that and claimed they were there in a red car.

Tatum claimed that he came back and interacted with Markham, Scoggins, and Callaway. Yet none of them mentioned anything about him.

All Myers did was invent a scenario for what Tatum might have been doing on Tenth street when it was not on the way from the jewelry store to the bar, which Tatum didn’t even recall the correct locations of in the first place.

If reciting publicly available details years after the fact is corroboration then you must accept the accounts of Gordon Arnold, Beverly Oliver, and Judyth Vary Baker. Right?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #176 on: December 13, 2019, 02:38:16 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #177 on: December 13, 2019, 02:46:02 AM »
The only reason nutters accept Tatum’s account is because he said it was Oswald. If he said it was someone else they would be falling all over themselves to discredit him, like they do with Clemons.

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #178 on: December 13, 2019, 04:19:46 AM »

Stop trying to make religion (or lack thereof) an issue in these conversations, and there will be no need to respond in kind.
>>> You're the one who brought up religion in order to paint me as a supporter of the Catholic Church's attempted cover-up of their priests/choir boys scandal

Deal?
>>> I'll not support your attempt to wash away the fact that you sunk so low as to depict me as a supporter of child molesters.

You went a bridge too far, John.
That will, and rightly should, stick to you forever.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2019, 04:23:50 AM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #178 on: December 13, 2019, 04:19:46 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #179 on: December 13, 2019, 05:58:31 AM »
You're the one who brought up religion

Wrong again Chapman. Be honest and admit your initial attack that engendered the response in kind. Stop playing the victim with your moral outrage grandstanding and take some damn responsibility for your own actions.

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #180 on: December 13, 2019, 07:09:15 AM »
Wrong again Chapman. Be honest and admit your initial attack that engendered the response in kind. Stop playing the victim with your moral outrage grandstanding and take some damn responsibility for your own actions.

Cite my initial 'attack'

If there are any spoken words lower than falsely accusing someone as being an apologist for child molesters, lets see them.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2019, 07:45:53 AM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #180 on: December 13, 2019, 07:09:15 AM »


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3604
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #181 on: December 13, 2019, 12:33:03 PM »
C’mon Charles. It’s not a corroboration that Benavides said he saw a red car when anybody could have read that and claimed they were there in a red car.

Tatum claimed that he came back and interacted with Markham, Scoggins, and Callaway. Yet none of them mentioned anything about him.

All Myers did was invent a scenario for what Tatum might have been doing on Tenth street when it was not on the way from the jewelry store to the bar, which Tatum didn’t even recall the correct locations of in the first place.

If reciting publicly available details years after the fact is corroboration then you must accept the accounts of Gordon Arnold, Beverly Oliver, and Judyth Vary Baker. Right?


The only reason nutters accept Tatum’s account is because he said it was Oswald. If he said it was someone else they would be falling all over themselves to discredit him, like they do with Clemons.

I understand your skepticism. But if you applied it in an unbiased way, you might ask yourself why would Tatum make this up and then not come forward with it (like the ones in your list above, btw). The HSCA investigation spent considerable time and effort looking for additional witnesses. And they found Tatum, not the other way around.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #182 on: December 13, 2019, 02:51:17 PM »
Cite my initial 'attack'

If there are any spoken words lower than falsely accusing someone as being an apologist for child molesters, lets see them.

You supposedly screenshotted it. Read the damn thing.

You’ve been taking religious swipes at me for months, ever since you discovered TAE. You’ve called me a heathen, and a devil- worshipper, and made false accusations about things I have said there, and falsely claimed that I was “kicked out”. None of which has anything to do with the JFK assassination.

So stop whining and get the halo off your head — it doesn’t suit you.

And yes, it’s no secret that churches, particularly the Catholic Church, enable and cover up child abuse. Maybe your ire should be directed towards them.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #182 on: December 13, 2019, 02:51:17 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #183 on: December 13, 2019, 02:52:56 PM »

I understand your skepticism. But if you applied it in an unbiased way, you might ask yourself why would Tatum make this up and then not come forward with it (like the ones in your list above, btw). The HSCA investigation spent considerable time and effort looking for additional witnesses. And they found Tatum, not the other way around.

I understand your argument, but that’s not evidence that Tatum was actually there.