This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument

[Thomas Graves]

What's with your obsession with the KGB? And do you actually believe that Dulles, Angleton, Hoover and Johnson weren't evil, evil, evil enough to pull off a coup? Surely they were just as evil, evil, evil as the KGB.

Did the KGB also set up Thomas Arthur Vallee in Chicago, like they did for Oswald in Dallas? How did those evil, evil, evil KGB pull that one off? And why would they risk nuclear annihilation to whack JFK when they knew Johnson would not be the dove that JFK proved to be? It makes no sense. You have to get over your pet theory that the KGB trained Oswald then he went rogue and became a LN assassin. Is this so you can work in the KGB element and continue to be a LNer? Why would you want that title in the face of a mountain of evidence suggesting otherwise? It just sounds like more evil, evil, evil KGB disinformation to me. 

Jack,

Look at where we are today with a Putin-installed president, and look at all the dumbing-down of American society that had to take place for that to happen, and look at all of the tinfoil hat conspiracy theories on several different issues we have had over the past fifty or so years that have contributed to that dumbing down process, and think about how the JFK assassination gave rise to many of those conspiracy theories, and think about how the recent "Ukraine, not Russia, hacked the DNC's emails," propaganda came out of Russia, and read Tennent H. Bagley's  Spy Wars and Mark Reibling's Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA (especially chapter 10 regarding your contention that the Kremlin wouldn't have risked nuclear war to kill JFK), and read Edward J. Epstein's Deception, and watch PBS's Putin's Way, etc, etc, etc, ... and, ... well, ... connect the dots.

--  MWT 

[Richard Smith]

You know Dishonest John is running scared when he resorts to his new buzz phrase "false equivalency."  LOL.  The only "false equivalency" here is that our dishonest contrarian can't reconcile his use of an impossible standard of proof in the JFK case with the Lincoln assassination (Booth is guilty but there is somehow doubt of Oswald's guilt).  For example, where did Booth buy his gun?  Who saw Booth shoot Lincoln using the pedantic interpretation of that term applied in the JFK assassination?  Who saw Booth carry a gun into Ford's Theatre?  Provide the chain of custody for Booth's pistol (e.g. who discovered it, where was it found etc).  And on and on and on down the rabbit hole.  The obvious equivalency is that it would not be possible to ever prove guilt in any situation if we applied dishonest John's impossible standard of proof to other situations.  The absurdity and hypocrisy of that approach is highlighted by its application to other situations.

btw:  Here is what Dishonest John said about Booth's diary contrary to his most recent lie:

"An entire theater box full of people saw him standing there with a derringer immediately after Lincoln was shot and they knew him.  Rathbone fought with him and was stabbed by Booth.  An entire theater full of people who knew who he was saw him leap from the box shouting "Sic Semper Tyrannus".  He had accomplices who ratted him out.  He had a diary in which he said he did it."

[John Iacoletti]

You know Dishonest John is running scared when he resorts to his new buzz phrase "false equivalency."  LOL.  The only "false equivalency" here is that our dishonest contrarian can't reconcile his use of an impossible standard of proof in the JFK case with the Lincoln assassination (Booth is guilty but there is somehow doubt of Oswald's guilt).

When did I ever say “Booth is guilty”, Strawman “Smith”?

btw:  Here is what Dishonest John said about Booth's diary contrary to his most recent lie:

"An entire theater box full of people saw him standing there with a derringer immediately after Lincoln was shot and they knew him.  Rathbone fought with him and was stabbed by Booth.  An entire theater full of people who knew who he was saw him leap from the box shouting "Sic Semper Tyrannus".  He had accomplices who ratted him out.  He had a diary in which he said he did it."

What “most recent lie”? Be specific.

The evidence in the JFK case is nothing like the evidence in the Lincoln case, which is why it’s a false equivalence. The only reason you’re fixated on Booth is because you can’t prove your case against Oswald so you are desperately trying to divert and distract by changing the subject in a lame attempt to strawman me and shift the burden of proof yet again.

It’s pathetic, really.

[Richard Smith]

So there is doubt of Booth's guilt?  LOL  Do tell!  I can't wait for that one. Particularly when you said:  "An entire theater box full of people saw him standing there with a derringer immediately after Lincoln was shot and they knew him."  And you referenced Booth's handwritten diary as evidence against him.  At the same time you repeatedly claimed handwriting analysis is "unscientific" in the JFK case.  So it's difficult to reconcile how Booth's handwritten diary is evidence of his guilt but anything in Oswald's handwriting is discounted as the product of an "unscientific" process.  Hypocrisy and absurdity. 

[John Iacoletti]

So there is doubt of Booth's guilt?  LOL  Do tell!

Notice the dishonest “Smith” two-step here. He fashions a strawman and when called on it, he shifts the goalposts without missing a beat. This is not a forum about Lincoln’s assassination. Stop diverting.

  I can't wait for that one. Particularly when you said:  "An entire theater box full of people saw him standing there with a derringer immediately after Lincoln was shot and they knew him." 

Are you disputing that? How is this anything like Oswald?

And you referenced Booth's handwritten diary as evidence against him.  At the same time you repeatedly claimed handwriting analysis is "unscientific" in the JFK case.  So it's difficult to reconcile how Booth's handwritten diary is evidence of his guilt but anything in Oswald's handwriting is discounted as the product of an "unscientific" process.  Hypocrisy and absurdity.

Again, Strawman “Smith”, no handwriting “analysis” was done on Booth’s diary, so nobody is claiming that it was somehow scientific or reliable in Booth’s case when handwriting “analysis” didn’t even exist.

Now tell me this: was the Klein’s order coupon found on Oswald’s dead body after he was shot, or was it “found” on a piece of microfilm 1000 miles away that is now “missing”? Did this order coupon contain a confession of murder, or was it just an order for a rifle that was similar but not identical to a rifle that may or may not have even been the murder weapon? Your desperate attempts to equate the two cases just gets more and more ridiculous.

[Jack Trojan]

Jack,

Look at where we are today with a Putin-installed president, and look at all the dumbing-down of American society that had to take place for that to happen, and look at all of the tinfoil hat conspiracy theories on several different issues we have had over the past fifty or so years that have contributed to that dumbing down process, and think about how the JFK assassination gave rise to many of those conspiracy theories, and think about how the recent "Ukraine, not Russia, hacked the DNC's emails," propaganda came out of Russia, and read Tennent H. Bagley's  Spy Wars and Mark Reibling's Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA (especially chapter 10 regarding your contention that the Kremlin wouldn't have risked nuclear war to kill JFK), and read Edward J. Epstein's Deception, and watch PBS's Putin's Way, etc, etc, etc, ... and, ... well, ... connect the dots.

--  MWT 

But you never address how the KGB could have set up the Big Event because you are a CT (Coincidence Theorist) who thinks Oswald acted alone. If this wasn't a conspiracy then you have failed to refute a ton of evidence suggesting it was. And if this was a conspiracy then there is no way the KGB could have sheep-dipped Oswald to be the patsy. Only the CIA & FBI could have done that, not the KGB. The CIA/FBI may have recruited Khrushchev to participate but they reassured him he would not be blamed for the Big Event and they were portraying Oswald as a lone nut assassin. But other than that the Rooskies were just happy to watch it all play out. What else could they do?

If Johnson actually suspected the Rooskies were behind the Big Event, then why didn't he have the nuclear football with him on AF1?

[Thomas Graves]

But you never address how the KGB could have set up the Big Event because you are a CT (Coincidence Theorist) who thinks Oswald acted alone. If this wasn't a conspiracy then you have failed to refute a ton of evidence suggesting it was. And if this was a conspiracy then there is no way the KGB could have sheep-dipped Oswald to be the patsy. Only the CIA & FBI could have done that, not the KGB. The CIA/FBI may have recruited Khrushchev to participate but they reassured him he would not be blamed for the Big Event and they were portraying Oswald as a lone nut assassin. But other than that the Rooskies were just happy to watch it all play out. What else could they do?

If Johnson actually suspected the Rooskies were behind the Big Event, then why didn't he have the nuclear football with him on AF1?

Jack,

Oswald probably killed JFK all by him widdle self, and the Kremlin took advantage of the assassination propaganda-wise to convince you and others that the the evil, evil, evil CIA did the foul deed, and the evil, evil FBI helped with the cover up.

Ergo oodles and gobs of FBI and CIA-bashing Tinfoil Hat Conspiracy Theories, and ergo, eventually, Russia-loving Donald J. Trump as president, voted into office (with a little help from those nice Russians) by an electorate dumbed-down and made apathetic by decades and decades of said CTs.

--  MWT 

PS  I don't have to try to refute anything, Jack. If you have any questions, refer to the likes of David Von Pein and that McAdams guy.

"But, but, but ... Oswald got 'Maggie's Drawers' at five hundred yards!"

LOL

[Jack Trojan]

PS  I don't have to try to refute anything, Jack. If you have any questions, refer to the likes of David Von Pein and that McAdams guy.

Then you are a typical LNer that obfuscates when the facts don't fit your pet theory. Ok. And all this time I thought you were a CTer (Coincidence Theorist). Don't you think you need to put down all that Roosky propaganda you've been reading and back away from the Kremlin? I'm starting to worry about you.