Iacoletti v Bug53


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

Author Topic: Iacoletti v Bug53  (Read 2173 times)

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6507
  • 'Pristine'..yeah, sure
Iacoletti v Bug53
« on: November 30, 2022, 08:48:10 PM »
You're playing off Bug's self-admitted massive exaggerations.
In fact he said he would need only 3-4 of those 53 items to convict.


billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next

« Last Edit: November 30, 2022, 08:57:20 PM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Iacoletti v Bug53
« on: November 30, 2022, 08:48:10 PM »


Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2022, 02:44:53 PM »
Of the many humorous ways that our contrarian CTers attempt to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt, perhaps the most pathetic is to analyze each piece of evidence as though it exists in a complete vacuum and has no context or connection to any other evidence.  The classic example is Oswald leaving his wedding ring and most of his money at home on the morning of the assassination.  We are told by our resident Inspector Clouseau that many people have left or forgotten their wedding ring on any given day without intending to assassinate a president. Therefore, Oswald doing so is not evidence of an intent to assassinate JFK.  But how many of those people also left their rifle at the scene of the crime?  How many left their prints in the SN's from which the shots were fired with bullet casings from their rifle by the window?  How many fled the scene and were arrested for murdering a police officer on that same day?  None except Oswald.  All of this adds context to Oswald having left his wedding ring at home that morning.  A highly symbolic act that demonstrates foreknowledge of his not coming home again after that day.  As a result, this has incriminatory significance for Oswald's involvement in the assassination when taken in full context.   

This would all be painfully obvious to any honest and reasonable person but when the evidence overwhelmingly supports Oswald's guilt, the only way to attack that evidence is to operate in a type of contrarian fantasy world where every event has no association to any other.   Do they really believe their own nonsense, or is this just a game to play an endless devil's advocate for attention?  Only a psychiatrist could sort out that one, but the fact that they never consider taking their "evidence" to the NY Times or other mainstream media outlet to exonerate Oswald, prove a conspiracy, or however they attempt to frame their purpose for this shell game demonstrates some dim self-awareness of the absurdity of their own approach.  I would love to witness our contrarians go through their analysis of the case with a reporter from the NY Times or any mainstream media outlet.  To avoid that humiliation these types always lurk here on the Internet.

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10115
Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2022, 08:37:29 PM »
Of the many humorous ways that our contrarian CTers attempt to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt

Nobody is “casting doubt”. There just is doubt. That doubt is not somehow alleviated by somebody who casts no evidence.

Quote
perhaps the most pathetic is to analyze each piece of evidence as though it exists in a complete vacuum and has no context or connection to any other evidence.

What’s pathetic is the delusion that several things that are not evidence of anything somehow magically combine to form evidence.

And here we go with the regurgitated litany of misinformation again…

Quote
The classic example is Oswald leaving his wedding ring and most of his money at home on the morning of the assassination.  We are told by our resident Inspector Clouseau that many people have left or forgotten their wedding ring on any given day without intending to assassinate a president. Therefore, Oswald doing so is not evidence of an intent to assassinate JFK.  But how many of those people also left their rifle at the scene of the crime? 

“Left their rifle”. LOL.

Quote
How many left their prints in the SN's from which the shots were fired with bullet casings from their rifle by the window?

How unusual to leave prints on boxes when your job literally is getting books out of boxes.

Quote
How many fled the scene and were arrested for murdering a police officer on that same day? 

“Fled”. LOL. Here we learn from our resident fortune teller that if you are arrested for something, not only did you necessarily commit that crime, you committed a different crime as well. By the way, how would you even know how many people left their wedding rings at home in order to evaluate this inane question? A speculation about a ring doesn’t just somehow turn into evidence just because you think some other unrelated thing is evidence.

Quote
All of this adds context to Oswald having left his wedding ring at home that morning.

The only context it adds is that people without good reasons for their faith-based beliefs will cling to any ridiculous thing to try to justify them.

Quote
A highly symbolic act that demonstrates foreknowledge of his not coming home again after that day. 

It demonstrates your confirmation bias, nothing more.

Quote
This would all be painfully obvious to any honest and reasonable person but when the evidence overwhelmingly supports Oswald's guilt, the only way to attack that evidence is to operate in a type of contrarian fantasy world where every event has no association to any other.

You can pretend to “associate” any two things. That doesn’t mean there is any connection between them. If your case was really “overwhelming”, you wouldn’t have to resort to nonsense like this for your “evidence”.

By the way, who made the New York Times the arbiter of truth? I have to say, it’s really amusing to see a Trump acolyte so fond of the mainstream media when it suits him.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2022, 08:40:24 PM by John Iacoletti »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2022, 08:37:29 PM »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6507
  • 'Pristine'..yeah, sure
Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2022, 11:33:06 AM »
By the way, who appointed Iacoletti arbiter of the truth?
« Last Edit: December 02, 2022, 12:18:17 PM by Bill Chapman »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6507
  • 'Pristine'..yeah, sure
Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2022, 12:15:38 PM »
BUG 1. Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on a Thursday - NE
_What are the chances that JudgeJohnny is ever going to get around to mentioning that for the first time ever, Oswald #FAILED to call Ruth and ask her permission to visit.
_Answer: A camel has a better chance of getting through the eye of a needle.

Offline Jim Brunsman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2022, 09:33:35 PM »
Chapman is a fact free troll while Iacoletti is well versed on the facts of the case.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2022, 09:33:35 PM »


Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7235
Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2022, 07:07:14 PM »
Nobody is “casting doubt”. There just is doubt. That doubt is not somehow alleviated by somebody who casts no evidence.

What’s pathetic is the delusion that several things that are not evidence of anything somehow magically combine to form evidence.

And here we go with the regurgitated litany of misinformation again…

“Left their rifle”. LOL.

How unusual to leave prints on boxes when your job literally is getting books out of boxes.

“Fled”. LOL. Here we learn from our resident fortune teller that if you are arrested for something, not only did you necessarily commit that crime, you committed a different crime as well. By the way, how would you even know how many people left their wedding rings at home in order to evaluate this inane question? A speculation about a ring doesn’t just somehow turn into evidence just because you think some other unrelated thing is evidence.

The only context it adds is that people without good reasons for their faith-based beliefs will cling to any ridiculous thing to try to justify them.

It demonstrates your confirmation bias, nothing more.

You can pretend to “associate” any two things. That doesn’t mean there is any connection between them. If your case was really “overwhelming”, you wouldn’t have to resort to nonsense like this for your “evidence”.

By the way, who made the New York Times the arbiter of truth? I have to say, it’s really amusing to see a Trump acolyte so fond of the mainstream media when it suits him.

A speculation about a ring doesn’t just somehow turn into evidence......

That is probably true..... However....    I believe that the FACT that Lee wore his Marine Corps Ring until the Dpd took it away is EVIDENCE of his true loyalty ..... I believe that he was  a loyal American ( an intelligence agent) and he merely posed as a an admirer of Fidel Castro.   

Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2022, 08:53:22 PM »
A speculation about a ring doesn’t just somehow turn into evidence......

That is probably true..... However....    I believe that the FACT that Lee wore his Marine Corps Ring until the Dpd took it away is EVIDENCE of his true loyalty ..... I believe that he was  a loyal American ( an intelligence agent) and he merely posed as a an admirer of Fidel Castro.

Other people "believe" in Bigfoot.  What is lacking is evidence of the involvement of anyone other than Oswald. 

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2022, 08:53:22 PM »


 

Mobile View