11/22/21

[Bill Chapman]

And on and on it goes down the rabbit hole.  Claim that someone has not provided "evidence."  What exactly are we to make of that since the evidence of Oswald's guilt is well known?  Even to you.  The case against Oswald is known to everyone here.  There is no reason to go over it again and again.  You discount that evidence, imply it is the product of fakery while entertaining all manner of outlandish counter explanations supported by no evidence whatsoever, but then deny you are a CTer because taking any position would expose the absurdity of your lazy contrarian game.  Then you make it personal with a lot of commentary.   Repeat over and over and over...ZZZ.

It's a Catch-22 of sorts here:
Major M.W. Chucklehead continues to pretend that he doesn't insult ppl

Run, Chucky... run

[Richard Smith]

And on and on it goes down the rabbit hole. 

And the broken record plays again......

Claim that someone has not provided "evidence."

Well, you most certainly haven't, so that claim is correct.

What exactly are we to make of that since the evidence of Oswald's guilt is well known?

Hilarious, if it wasn't so sad. You assume Oswald's guilt and then select the evidence that, in your opinion, supports that predetermined conclusion, while at the same time ignoring and dismissing all the problems there are with that evidence.
You clearly have not understood the difference between evidence and proof.

The case against Oswald is known to everyone here.  There is no reason to go over it again and again.

Yes there is. That's what this forum is actually about.

You discount that evidence, imply it is the product of fakery while entertaining all manner of outlandish counter explanations supported by no evidence whatsoever,

No. Wrong on all counts. I don't discount any evidence, but I do question problematic parts of it and want people like you to defend the evidence and the conclusions that can be drawn from it.

I also don't imply that the evidence is the product of fakery, but I do question the validity and authenticity of that evidence when there is good reason to do so.

And I don't present "outlandish counter explanations" because you have never ever presented anything that needed to be countered.

but then deny you are a CTer because taking any position would expose the absurdity of your lazy contrarian game.

How can I be a CTer, when I don't have a theory about any kind of conspiracy. What you can't get through your thick skull is that I couldn't care less about a conspiracy, if there was one. My only interest in this case is to determine if the evidence presented against Oswald can withstand scrutiny and justify the conclusions you and your ilk are drawing from it. You can behave like a cry baby all you want, but that doesn't alter the basic fact that you have demonstrated clearly that you are unable or unwilling to defend the official narrative, which tells me all I need to know.

Then you make it personal with a lot of commentary.

Commentary like me telling you that you are unable to defend the official narrative, is that what you mean? Is that what you call "making it personal"? Did I hurt your feelings?

What makes you the entitled one, thinking that your opinion is always the right one and that everybody else is stupid and beneath you? Who do you think you are to insult people left, right and center, just because they disagree with you?

So many insults.  The case against Oswald is clear and supported by evidence.  There is nothing that I or any other LNer need to do to defend or explain the evidence to you.  It is a matter of public record. You know the evidence (or at least have the same opportunity to understand it as anyone else had you not spent your time here insulting people).  The case against Oswald is clear from the official investigations.  There is nothing further to explain to you.  I'm not playing the game of going through every piece of that evidence so you can roll out your contrarian nonsense.   When you have some explanation or theory for the evidence that links Oswald to the crime get back to us.  Simply playing the defense attorney over and over is rabbit hole nonsense. 

And the bizarre song and dance about not being a CTer is not fooling anyone.  Perhaps thou dost protest too much? If you cast doubt on the mountain of evidence in this case against Oswald, by implication you are a CTer whether you are willing to come out of the closet or not.  If Oswald didn't do it, then someone else did and a considerable number of people would be involved in framing him to account for all the evidence that links Oswald to this crime.  You can't have it both ways.   I can understand your reluctance to take any position on this case since that would require something more of you than just pedantic nitpicking of individual pieces of evidence against Oswald and suggesting others must make the case to your subjective impossible standard of proof.  But therein lies the path down the rabbit hole.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

So many insults.  The case against Oswald is clear and supported by evidence.  There is nothing that I or any other LNer need to do to defend or explain the evidence to you.  It is a matter of public record. You know the evidence (or at least have the same opportunity to understand it as anyone else had you not spent your time here insulting people).  The case against Oswald is clear from the official investigations.  There is nothing further to explain to you.  I'm not playing the game of going through every piece of that evidence so you can roll out your contrarian nonsense.   When you have some explanation or theory for the evidence that links Oswald to the crime get back to us.  Simply playing the defense attorney over and over is rabbit hole nonsense. 

And the bizarre song and dance about not being a CTer is not fooling anyone.  Perhaps thou dost protest too much? If you cast doubt on the mountain of evidence in this case against Oswald, by implication you are a CTer whether you are willing to come out of the closet or not.  If Oswald didn't do it, then someone else did and a considerable number of people would be involved in framing him to account for all the evidence that links Oswald to this crime.  You can't have it both ways.   I can understand your reluctance to take any position on this case since that would require something more of you than just pedantic nitpicking of individual pieces of evidence against Oswald and suggesting others must make the case to your subjective impossible standard of proof.  But therein lies the path down the rabbit hole.

If he played this weird game with the conspiracists, with those making claims that Oswald was a CIA agent or the rifle was planted or "X" or "Y" (it's a very long list of claims) - if he challenged their evidence and their conclusions - then this game would be acceptable in a strange sort of way. I'm not familiar with people discussing any other event this way; essentially making every piece of evidence for any claim disappear. But challenging everyone on every side equally would be consistent.

But he applies this impossible standard only to the allegation/belief that Oswald, alone, killed JFK. When it comes to that argument we get this absurd standard of proof that must be surmounted. Then when asked okay, how do this evidence come to be?, who created it? where did it come from?, we get the disappearing act.

You meet all sorts of odd people on the internet. This is one of those occasions.

[Jon Banks]

Lee Harvey Oswald never got his day in court.

Much of the so called evidence against him wouldn’t be admissible if his case went to trial and some of the exculpatory evidence that the Warren Commission ignored would’ve had to be addressed by prosecutors.

[Martin Weidmann]

So many insults.  The case against Oswald is clear and supported by evidence.  There is nothing that I or any other LNer need to do to defend or explain the evidence to you.  It is a matter of public record. You know the evidence (or at least have the same opportunity to understand it as anyone else had you not spent your time here insulting people).  The case against Oswald is clear from the official investigations.  There is nothing further to explain to you.  I'm not playing the game of going through every piece of that evidence so you can roll out your contrarian nonsense.   When you have some explanation or theory for the evidence that links Oswald to the crime get back to us.  Simply playing the defense attorney over and over is rabbit hole nonsense. 

And the bizarre song and dance about not being a CTer is not fooling anyone.  Perhaps thou dost protest too much? If you cast doubt on the mountain of evidence in this case against Oswald, by implication you are a CTer whether you are willing to come out of the closet or not.  If Oswald didn't do it, then someone else did and a considerable number of people would be involved in framing him to account for all the evidence that links Oswald to this crime.  You can't have it both ways.   I can understand your reluctance to take any position on this case since that would require something more of you than just pedantic nitpicking of individual pieces of evidence against Oswald and suggesting others must make the case to your subjective impossible standard of proof.  But therein lies the path down the rabbit hole.

So many insults.

Unjustly claiming to be the victim of abuse is something all the entitled ones have in common. Pointing out your failures is not an insult. It's a statement of fact.

The case against Oswald is clear and supported by evidence.

Only in your opinion, which is one you seem unable to defend.

There is nothing that I or any other LNer need to do to defend or explain the evidence to you.

So, what is exactly is your purpose for being active on this forum, if it isn't discussing the case and the evidence?

The case against Oswald is clear from the official investigations.

Ah.. the classic appeal to authority fallacy. What we are discussing here is if the evidence is authentic and conclusive as well as whether the WC "official investigation" got it right. There isn't much point in presenting the conclusions of the official investigations as somehow proof that those investigations got it right. If you feel the official investigations got it right, you need to say why you have that opinion, but you never do. Or should I say can't?

I'm not playing the game of going through every piece of that evidence so you can roll out your contrarian nonsense. 

That's a lame excuse to cover up the fact that your are simply unable to defend the evidence and the conclusions that were based upon it. One could even conclude that you don't have the confidence in the evidence to discuss and examine it.

When you have some explanation or theory for the evidence that links Oswald to the crime get back to us.

And there is the old classic "I am right until you prove me wrong" BS again.... Nothing ever changes with you.

And the bizarre song and dance about not being a CTer is not fooling anyone.

Really? Then show me one post of mine in which I have put forward a conspiracy theory. If you can't do that, your claim is just another strawman.

If you cast doubt on the mountain of evidence in this case against Oswald, by implication you are a CTer

Exactly the point I made earlier. To you anybody who disagrees with your opinion has to be a CT, in your opinion.

If Oswald didn't do it, then someone else did

Did you figure that out by yourself? Wow....

and a considerable number of people would be involved in framing him to account for all the evidence that links Oswald to this crime.

And there's another strawman....

I can understand your reluctance to take any position on this case since that would require something more of you than just pedantic nitpicking of individual pieces of evidence against Oswald and suggesting others must make the case to your subjective impossible standard of proof.

And the usual complaint about the allegedly "impossible standard of proof". In reality, what you are actually saying here is that the case against Oswald is so weak and the evidence so questionable, that there is no way you can defend it in a credible way. It's just another cop out.

All you have written in your last post comes down to this: It is your opinion that the evidence against Oswald is persuasive and your opinion prevails until proven wrong (which will be impossible to prove as you will never accept it).

You are just blowing hot air and are probably doing so without understanding the irony of you desperately defending the fact that you are not defending the evidence against Oswald.

One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is a fairy tale, is the fact that no LN I have ever encountered is able and/or willing to defend the questionable claims made in the narrative with solid conclusive evidence and/or arguments.

[Martin Weidmann]

If he played this weird game with the conspiracists, with those making claims that Oswald was a CIA agent or the rifle was planted or "X" or "Y" (it's a very long list of claims) - if he challenged their evidence and their conclusions - then this game would be acceptable in a strange sort of way. I'm not familiar with people discussing any other event this way; essentially making every piece of evidence for any claim disappear. But challenging everyone on every side equally would be consistent.

But he applies this impossible standard only to the allegation/belief that Oswald, alone, killed JFK. When it comes to that argument we get this absurd standard of proof that must be surmounted. Then when asked okay, how do this evidence come to be?, who created it? where did it come from?, we get the disappearing act.

You meet all sorts of odd people on the internet. This is one of those occasions.

If he played this weird game with the conspiracists, with those making claims that Oswald was a CIA agent or the rifle was planted or "X" or "Y" (it's a very long list of claims) - if he challenged their evidence and their conclusions - then this game would be acceptable in a strange sort of way.

You clearly haven't been paying much attention...

But he applies this impossible standard only to the allegation/belief that Oswald, alone, killed JFK. When it comes to that argument we get this absurd standard of proof that must be surmounted. Then when asked okay, how do this evidence come to be?, who created it? where did it come from?, we get the disappearing act.

I would appreciate it if you stop lying and making up stuff.

Btw what piece of physical evidence do you want to discuss? Just name one and we'll discuss it.... well?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

If he played this weird game with the conspiracists, with those making claims that Oswald was a CIA agent or the rifle was planted or "X" or "Y" (it's a very long list of claims) - if he challenged their evidence and their conclusions - then this game would be acceptable in a strange sort of way.

You clearly haven't been paying much attention...

But he applies this impossible standard only to the allegation/belief that Oswald, alone, killed JFK. When it comes to that argument we get this absurd standard of proof that must be surmounted. Then when asked okay, how do this evidence come to be?, who created it? where did it come from?, we get the disappearing act.

I would appreciate it if you stop lying and making up stuff.

Btw what piece of physical evidence do you want to discuss? Just name one and we'll discuss it.... well?

If you believe you challenge the conspiracists claims with anywhere near the effort you engage in when challenging the claim that Oswald shot JFK then I agree: someone is making things up.

Try this one: There's a thread on the latest Oliver Stone movie claiming a conspiracy. Go there and challenge Stone's allegations. Let's see you use the same skepticism about evidence against Oswald against Stone's claims.

Go ahead.

[Martin Weidmann]

If you believe you challenge the conspiracists claims with anywhere near the effort you engage in when challenging the claim that Oswald shot JFK then I agree: someone is making things up.

Try this one: There's a thread on the latest Oliver Stone movie claiming a conspiracy. Go there and challenge Stone's allegations. Let's see you use the same skepticism about evidence against Oswald against Stone's claims.

Go ahead.

If you believe you challenge the conspiracists claims with anywhere near the effort you engage in when challenging the claim that Oswald shot JFK then I agree: someone is making things up.

So, now you are already changing from implying that I never challenge CTs to that I don't challenge them enough. Shifting the goalposts, as you are doing, confirms that you are the one making stuff up.

It seems that you haven't figured out yet that I am no crusader. If a silly claim pops up in a conversation I'm already having, then I might respond to it, but other than than I couldn't care less if some wacko claims that JFK was killed by aliens. I'm not going to waste my time responding to something like that. Instead I just ignore it. If you feel the need to respond to those wacky theories, be my guest, but don't expect others to do the same.

What I don't understand is why you and Richard Smith are constantly complaining about the evidence being scrutinized. If the evidence is only half as conclusive and persuasive as you two claim it is, then it shouldn't be a problem if somebody takes a closer look, right? Yet, here you are again, complaining about exactly that. What's up with that? Feeling insecure, perhaps?

Try this one: There's a thread on the latest Oliver Stone movie claiming a conspiracy. Go there and challenge Stone's allegations. Let's see you use the same skepticism about evidence against Oswald against Stone's claims.

I haven't seen Stone's latest movie, nor am I interested in watching it. I wasn't impressed by his original JFK movie either.

I take it this means you don't really want to enter into a discussion about the actual physical evidence in this case? Because that's what I asked you, right? Thank you for proving my point.