Lame LN excuses

[John Mytton]

Lame John I. excuses:

1) Everyone lied or planted evidence if it implicates Oswald (repeat in every instance but then deny this is what you are doing).
2) Suggest that every explanation that addresses an insane CTer claim is a "strawman" argument (demonstrating either a traumatic childhood experience with The Wizard of Oz or a way to avoid acknowledging the lunacy of these claims without having to address the substance)
3)  Suggest all evidence is the product of an "opinion, "assumption," or "speculation." Fingerprints, hand writing, document, pictures - any inference drawn from this evidence is merely an opinion.  This limitation does not, however, apparently apply to any nutty counter-alternative to Oswald's guilt no matter how improbable or baseless.  If it is possible, then it can be entertained or implied so long as it lends itself to doubt about Oswald's guilt.

Nice work Richard, I couldn't have put it better myself.



JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Lame John I. excuses:

1) Everyone lied or planted evidence if it implicates Oswald (repeat in every instance but then deny this is what you are doing).

Which you still haven't been able to substantiate with a single quote.  Because it's a flat out lie.

2) Suggest that every explanation that addresses an insane CTer claim is a "strawman" argument

No, Richard's "vast conspiracy" that nobody actually ever claims there is is a strawman argument.

3)  Suggest all evidence is the product of an "opinion, "assumption," or "speculation." Fingerprints, hand writing, document, pictures - any inference drawn from this evidence is merely an opinion.

LOL.  Your "inferences" aren't any different from anyone else's opinion.  You just pretend they are.

This limitation does not, however, apparently apply to any nutty counter-alternative to Oswald's guilt no matter how improbable or baseless.  If it is possible, then it can be entertained or implied so long as it lends itself to doubt about Oswald's guilt.

Demonstrably false.  See my Walt's Fabrications thread or my responses to Patrick Jackson's "blood cannons" or Alan Fritzke's "Malcolm Summers was the assassin".  On the other hand, you endorse every lame LN excuse without question and you think that insults make your lame arguments more convincing.

[Jerry Freeman]

Bump....This was one spicy thread.
Way to go Richard..Atta boy John I couldn't have choked any better myself

[Martin Weidmann]

Kinda explains why LNs don't like (or "get tired" of) questions being asked about the evidence and perhaps even why some get a "courtroom feel" when faced with those questions?.

Much easier to "demand" theories to be put forward (even those that do not exist) because those they can attack.

[Jack Trojan]

Sheriff John I. is the only one keeping you LNers honest. He doesn't propose CTs, he only calls out the LNer BS lame excuses and it drives them nuts. That's because foremost he is a logistician and he calls out all the fallacies, of which there are many, and destroys their arguments thru logic. The LNers only recourse is to accuse him of dishonesty and try to discredit him with extreme prejudice. They take all this so personally it's comical. It's all a frustrating game for them because they have the untenable position of defending the WC 100%. Oswald was a lone nut, period. No collusion, no conspiracy. All other evidence to the contrary must be attacked, dismissed or ignored. Oswald can't be the shooter in a conspiracy. Nope, the LNers are diehard WC defenders all the way baby! If they have to embarrass themselves via lame excuses, then so be it. It makes the JFK forum what it is. John I. tries to debate the LNers but they never give an inch because it is baked into their ideology, so their lame excuses get destroyed every time.

[Bill Chapman]

Sheriff John I. is the only one keeping you LNers honest. He doesn't propose CTs, he only calls out the LNer BS lame excuses and it drives them nuts. That's because foremost he is a logistician and he calls out all the fallacies, of which there are many, and destroys their arguments thru logic. The LNers only recourse is to accuse him of dishonesty and try to discredit him with extreme prejudice. They take all this so personally it's comical. It's all a frustrating game for them because they have the untenable position of defending the WC 100%. Oswald was a lone nut, period. No collusion, no conspiracy. All other evidence to the contrary must be attacked, dismissed or ignored. Oswald can't be the shooter in a conspiracy. Nope, the LNers are diehard WC defenders all the way baby! If they have to embarrass themselves via lame excuses, then so be it. It makes the JFK forum what it is. John I. tries to debate the LNers but they never give an inch because it is baked into their ideology, so their lame excuses get destroyed every time.

Now that is some major league arse-kissing... by a career minor leaguer about a paid gaslighter

All other evidence to the contrary
>>> What other 'evidence' might that be, Sherlock?

[Martin Weidmann]

Now that is some major league arse-kissing... by a career minor leaguer about a paid gaslighter

All other evidence to the contrary
>>> What other 'evidence' might that be, Sherlock?

Now that is some major league arse-kissing... by a career minor leaguer about a paid gaslighter

This tells a great deal about the world you live in. 

[Jack Trojan]

Now that is some major league arse-kissing... by a career minor leaguer about a paid gaslighter

Minor leaguer???  I know you are but what am I? Like you've never high-fived a fellow nutter? Isn't that all you do, every day, 24/7 on a JFK forum? Who is the career minor leaguer here?

All other evidence to the contrary
>>> What other 'evidence' might that be, Sherlock?

All the evidence that you respond to with lame excuses, of course Watson.