The "smirk"

[John Iacoletti]

Further, you assume that I'm a believer in religious dogma

Obviously you do — to wit, the Warren Commission Report.

Stop trying to make religion (or lack thereof) an issue in these conversations, and there will be no need to respond in kind.

Deal?

[John Iacoletti]

It is evidence that your "sum total" was derived using "biased math."

No. Claiming that he was in the red car that Benavides mentioned is not evidence.

The jeweler wouldn’t know if Tatum was at the scene that day either.

[Charles Collins]

No. Claiming that he was in the red car that Benavides mentioned is not evidence.

The jeweler wouldn’t know if Tatum was at the scene that day either.

Both Benavides’ and the jeweler’s accounts are evidence that tend to corroborate Tatum’s account. I believe that you are trying to require that any evidence must be conclusive to be considered “evidence” in your opinion.

[John Iacoletti]

Both Benavides’ and the jeweler’s accounts are evidence that tend to corroborate Tatum’s account. I believe that you are trying to require that any evidence must be conclusive to be considered “evidence” in your opinion.

C’mon Charles. It’s not a corroboration that Benavides said he saw a red car when anybody could have read that and claimed they were there in a red car.

Tatum claimed that he came back and interacted with Markham, Scoggins, and Callaway. Yet none of them mentioned anything about him.

All Myers did was invent a scenario for what Tatum might have been doing on Tenth street when it was not on the way from the jewelry store to the bar, which Tatum didn’t even recall the correct locations of in the first place.

If reciting publicly available details years after the fact is corroboration then you must accept the accounts of Gordon Arnold, Beverly Oliver, and Judyth Vary Baker. Right?

[John Iacoletti]

The only reason nutters accept Tatum’s account is because he said it was Oswald. If he said it was someone else they would be falling all over themselves to discredit him, like they do with Clemons.

[Bill Chapman]

Stop trying to make religion (or lack thereof) an issue in these conversations, and there will be no need to respond in kind.
>>> You're the one who brought up religion in order to paint me as a supporter of the Catholic Church's attempted cover-up of their priests/choir boys scandal

Deal?
>>> I'll not support your attempt to wash away the fact that you sunk so low as to depict me as a supporter of child molesters.

You went a bridge too far, John.
That will, and rightly should, stick to you forever.

[John Iacoletti]

You're the one who brought up religion

Wrong again Chapman. Be honest and admit your initial attack that engendered the response in kind. Stop playing the victim with your moral outrage grandstanding and take some damn responsibility for your own actions.

[Bill Chapman]

Wrong again Chapman. Be honest and admit your initial attack that engendered the response in kind. Stop playing the victim with your moral outrage grandstanding and take some damn responsibility for your own actions.

Cite my initial 'attack'

If there are any spoken words lower than falsely accusing someone as being an apologist for child molesters, lets see them.