Oswald is the real assassin

[John Iacoletti]

You are missing the point.  If 100 percent of the population believed that Oswald was innocent, that would have no bearing whatsoever on whether he pulled the trigger or not.  He either did or didn't back on 11.22.  No poll will ever change an historical fact.

No handwaving suppositional argument will make any of this a "historical fact".

  They also shed very little light on the truth in this case because most of the public has little or no information about the JFK case.  I think you will find that among those that believe in fake moon landings etc you will find a much higher percentage of JFK CTers than those who accept the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt.

That's an interesting claim.  Any evidence to support it?

[John Mytton]

I believe you will find it is the minority who believe in big foot, flat earth, UFOs (although by definition they are unidentified, I suspect you mean visitors from another world), Bermuda Triangle, fake moon landing etc. Oh and also in that category would be those that believe Oswald acted alone. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your story.

On Youtube, after millions of views and thousands of votes the final tally on the following JFK video seems to reflect the polls.



Which hilariously is reflected in these video voting results. I wonder how the JFK CT's feel to be standing tall next to the Moon non-believers, Reptile people and Chemtrails? You're all KOOKS!






JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Which hilariously is reflected in these video voting results. I wonder how the JFK CT's feel to be standing tall next to the Moon non-believers, Reptile people and Chemtrails? You're all KOOKS!

Wait....what?  Are you trying to claim that the same individual people are making the upvotes on the different videos?  I hope not, because that would be an incredibly ridiculous argument.

[John Mytton]

This is evidence?

LOL

Neither did at least 6 other people in the TSBD alone.

"Lie" defined as contradicting Mytton's assumptions about what happened.

This is "evidence"?

 

Don't ever serve on a jury.

HUH?? You've lost it John, what's any of this got to do with John Mytton in 2019, the point is what they had to work with 2 days later and the case was solid.

The rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.
The rifle of the exact same type was photographed with Oswald.
The rifle was missing from the blanket it was held in.
The rifle was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace.
The rifle had fresh fibers which matched the fibers in Oswald's shirt.
Oswald had no alibi, the other 6+ may have had no alibi but they don't tick the other boxes, see how this works John?
Oswald's desperate attempt of flight out of Dallas.
Oswald being positively identified as the Man who shot a Police Officer.
The shells at scene that were seen being dropped by Oswald was exclusively matched to Oswald's revolver.
Oswald owned the revolver.
Oswald dropped his Jacket in a car park, clearly trying to change his appearance.
When arrested Oswald punched a cop and tried to shoot him.
Oswald lied about owning the rifle.
Oswald lied about the contents of the package.
Oswald lied about where he placed the package.
Oswald lied about the backyard photographs.
And this is just a partial list off the top of my head, what other conclusion could they have come up with?

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Wait....what?  Are you trying to claim that the same individual people are making the upvotes on the different videos?  I hope not, because that would be an incredibly ridiculous argument.

 

How the Feck did you come to that conclusion?
The numbers speak for themselves, you and all your friends are extremely gullible and not incredibly bright.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

HUH?? You've lost it John, what's any of this got to do with John Mytton in 2019, the point is what they had to work with 2 days later and the case was solid.

The rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.

There's no evidence that this particular rifle went through the postal system, was delivered to any particular PO box, or was ever picked up by Oswald or anyone else.

The rifle of the exact same type was photographed with Oswald.

There's no evidence that the rifle in the photograph is the "exact same type".  What does that even mean?

The rifle was missing from the blanket it was held in.

There's no evidence that this particular rifle was ever in that particular blanket.

The rifle was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace.

Not sure what you think this is evidence of.

The rifle had fresh fibers which matched the fibers in Oswald's shirt.

Which couldn't be conclusively matched to any particular shirt.  And where did you get "fresh fibers" from?

Oswald had no alibi, the other 6+ may have had no alibi but they don't tick the other boxes, see how this works John?

Yes they do.  It was their workplace too.

Oswald's desperate attempt of flight out of Dallas.

No evidence of any desperation.

Oswald being positively identified as the Man who shot a Police Officer.

In unfair, biased lineups.  But that tells you nothing about who shot JFK anyway.

The shells at scene that were seen being dropped by Oswald was exclusively matched to Oswald's revolver.

No, the shells that were claimed to have come from the scene were matched to a revolver which was claimed to be Oswald's.

Oswald owned the revolver.

No evidence of that.

Oswald dropped his Jacket in a car park, clearly trying to change his appearance.

No evidence that this was Oswald's jacket or that he dropped it there.

When arrested Oswald punched a cop and tried to shoot him.

No, Oswald tried to defend himself from an illegal search and there is no evidence whatsoever that he tried to shoot anyone in the theater.  Claims aren't evidence.

Oswald lied about owning the rifle.

Preassumes that Oswald owned the rifle.

Oswald lied about the contents of the package.

Preassumes that you know the contents of the package.

Oswald lied about where he placed the package.

Preassumes that you know where he placed the package, and that you know what he said during interrogation.

Oswald lied about the backyard photographs.

Preassumes that you know what he said during interrogation and that you know the photographs are legitimate.

This isn't a "solid case", it's hyperbolic rhetoric.

[John Iacoletti]

How the Feck did you come to that conclusion?
The numbers speak for themselves, you and all your friends are extremely gullible and not incredibly bright.

What gives you the idea that me and all of my friends watched and upvoted even one of these videos much less all of them?  You're making even less sense than usual.