What?s the MINIMUM number of people required for your CT to work?

[Michael Walton]

All you need to know to reply to this thread:

As one commenter on the above page said: "That's what's so frightening about it. Once you've seen this footage it's hard to think of him as the killer of President Kennedy, he seems genuinely scared."

This is nothing like Tim McVeigh, who you can reasonably compare to a supposed Lone Nut like Oswald. And one of the first things out of McVeigh's mouth when the FBI visited him in jail: "Is this about the bombing?" And he had a tyrants shirt on. And him coming out of the courthouse, chin jutted outward.

Compare and contrast.  The thing that gets me about people who still believe the nonsense of the WC is they all hate Kennedy or the Kennedys which creates a huge amount of bias regarding this case.  The Kennedys were too this or too that. In other words, "XXXX the Kennedys...of course Oswald did it!"

Ask yourself - if John McAdams loved the Kennedys, do you really think he'd be a pro-WC apologist? No.

So there you have it.

[Richard Rubio]

If you go that route, then Oz held up the "worker's fist"...



All of these coincidences,  by  themselves, proving nothing.

[Richard Rubio]

All you need to know to reply to this thread:

As one commenter on the above page said: "That's what's so frightening about it. Once you've seen this footage it's hard to think of him as the killer of President Kennedy, he seems genuinely scared."

This is nothing like Tim McVeigh, who you can reasonably compare to a supposed Lone Nut like Oswald. And one of the first things out of McVeigh's mouth when the FBI visited him in jail: "Is this about the bombing?" And he had a tyrants shirt on. And him coming out of the courthouse, chin jutted outward.

Compare and contrast.  The thing that gets me about people who still believe the nonsense of the WC is they all hate Kennedy or the Kennedys which creates a huge amount of bias regarding this case.  The Kennedys were too this or too that. In other words, "XXXX the Kennedys...of course Oswald did it!"

Ask yourself - if John McAdams loved the Kennedys, do you really think he'd be a pro-WC apologist? No.

So there you have it.

What's your excuse for Bugliosi? He wanted to press charges against George W. Bush for war crimes, Bugliosi was hardly a Kennedy hater.

Yes, we got it.

Patsy, Schmatsy, nothing dictates we understand that in a certain way, except the FBI watched him, doesn't he also say something about "because my wife is Russian"? Nice to take things out of context.

[Steve Howsley]

I think what you mean is that your strawman version of the rifle requires a massive cast.

Do you even have a theory? You seem to be like 99% of CTers who like to go to the CT supermarket and pick whatever you need to suit whatever argument you want at any particular time. You have no credibility. You chop and change but never put your cards on the table because you aren't even in the game. You're just a heckler in the background bleating BS.

So, here's a chance for you to participate rather than act as a tosser; how many people as a minimum make up your conspiracy?

[John Iacoletti]

Do you even have a theory? You seem to be like 99% of CTers who like to go to the CT supermarket and pick whatever you need to suit whatever argument you want at any particular time. You have no credibility. You chop and change but never put your cards on the table because you aren't even in the game. You're just a heckler in the background bleating BS.

So, here's a chance for you to participate rather than act as a tosser; how many people as a minimum make up your conspiracy?

I don't think you've been around long enough to have the slightest clue about what I think.  When have I ever "chopped and changed"?  What does that even mean?

If you guys spent anywhere near the time demonstrating that what you believe on faith is actually true as you do making up strawmen to argue against, you might get somewhere.

[Steve Howsley]

I don't think you've been around long enough to have the slightest clue about what I think.  When have I ever "chopped and changed"?  What does that even mean?

If you guys spent anywhere near the time demonstrating that what you believe on faith is actually true as you do making up strawmen to argue against, you might get somewhere.

So, in short, you've got nothing.

[John Iacoletti]

So, in short, you've got nothing.

You mean I've got no response to your contrived question.  You've got nothing besides a lot of unsubstantiated claims and contrived questions like "What?s the minimum number of people required for your CT to work?"

Mitch knocked it out of the park in the first reply on the thread.  Two.  And then you started deciding what "conspiracy theory" should mean to conspiracy theorists.

[Steve Howsley]

You mean I've got no response to your contrived question.  You've got nothing besides a lot of unsubstantiated claims and contrived questions like "What?s the minimum number of people required for your CT to work?"

Mitch knocked it out of the park in the first reply on the thread.  Two.  And then you started deciding what "conspiracy theory" should mean to conspiracy theorists.

So can I take it that you subscribe to a total of two in the conspiracy? I'm not asking for a definition of what constitutes a conspiracy in minimum numbers as two as a minimum is simply a truism.

You will not not step up to the mound and pitch the ball. You simply sit in the stands bleating nonsense.

Here's you chance to provide an answer to the question but let's make it easy for you. Is the minimum number less that 40?