Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"

[Bill Chapman]

Royal we.

Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #32

Nobody can show that Oswald had any association or connection with any of these groups, except for those times that he did.  Oh, but those are "explainable".  And anything else is "not credible".  Because . . . because . . . Oswald did it alone.  After all, "we know this".

It's mind boggling that anybody actually buys into this painful exercise in circular argumentation.

Tell us the groups with which Oswald had connections
By the way, in case you should try to claim Fair Play for Cuba as a one of your 'groups', pretty sure a 'group'' needs more than one hombre to qualify as such.

Oh, wait... Lee, Harvey, Oswald, O.H. Lee, and Alex Hidell can certainly qualify as a group of sorts in CT Wonderland... where anything at all can happen and doesn't have to be proven; just dreamed up by people who for the most part should be under psychiatric care.

Oh, by the way.... I haven't seen any indication that you have resolved your charge of plagiarism against me, while at the time giving a free pass to Sorenson who also posted an uncited article from the same source.

Is this where you use your recent favorite chickensh*t word 'deflection' now, John?

[John Iacoletti]

If that's the case, then the fallacy is:

"I'm going to take every conspiracy theory I've ever heard, mash them all up into one giant inclusive conspiracy, pretend that every CT believes in the mashup and point out how silly I think that is.  Therefore there was no conspiracy."

[John Iacoletti]

Tell us the groups with which Oswald had connections
By the way, in case you should try to claim Fair Play for Cuba as a one of your 'groups', pretty sure a 'group'' needs more than one hombre to qualify as such.

Where did you get the silly idea that Fair Play for Cuba only had one "hombre"?

Oh, wait... Lee, Harvey, Oswald, O.H. Lee, and Alex Hidell can certainly qualify as a group of sorts in CT Wonderland...

Still trying to figure our where from your wonderland you plucked the name Alex Hidell.  Must be that "research" we hear so much about.

Oh, by the way.... I haven't seen any indication that you have resolved your charge of plagiarism against me, while at the time giving a free pass to Sorenson who also posted an uncited article from the same source.

Is this where you use your recent favorite chickensh*t word 'deflection' now, John?

It absolutely is deflection.  You post another person's words without attribution and your chickensh*t response is "somebody else did it once too".

[Ross Lidell]

If that's the case, then the fallacy is:

"I'm going to take every conspiracy theory I've ever heard, mash them all up into one giant inclusive conspiracy, pretend that every CT believes in the mashup and point out how silly I think that is.  Therefore there was no conspiracy."

So John: What conspiracy (to murder JFK) do you believe in?

[Bill Chapman]

  "We" refers to those of us with common sense.

The thing about 'common sense' is that it's not 'common' at all. Yet both sides use the term as if it is.

[John Iacoletti]

So John: What conspiracy (to murder JFK) do you believe in?

None.  The time to believe a claim like "Oswald murdered JFK" or "there was a conspiracy to murder JFK" is when there is sufficient reason to do so.  Bugliosi's arguments are still fallacious.

[John Iacoletti]

I noticed you didn't cite your post so assumed that everyone posting on this thread knew about the affidavit. My bad, though, for getting lazy about it.

Rotten tomatoes should be hurled at Iacoletti for throwing one of his own under the bus, in an abundantly transparent attempt to belittle LNers at all costs.

Iacoletti only comes here to gaslight.

I didn't throw anybody under the bus.  Since a large percentage of your posts are lazy cut-and-paste jobs, the least you could do is give credit to the people who did the work.

[Ross Lidell]

None.  The time to believe a claim like "Oswald murdered JFK" or "there was a conspiracy to murder JFK" is when there is sufficient reason to do so.  Bugliosi's arguments are still fallacious.

So John, you are:

- a fence sitter?

- a contrarian?