Letters from Russia

[Bill Chapman]

Most of these clowns would wilt under the pressure of having to say to her face what they say about her online.

She made mincemeat out of Jerry Spence via a mere chortle or two.

[John Iacoletti]

*Gerry

[Steve M. Galbraith]

To repeat: "We [those of us who accuse Oswald of shooting JFK and Tippit] cite the volumes of evidence against Oswald. Multiple government investigations over several generations of people - Democrats and Republicans - and multiple news media investigations over several generations of people. Again and again and again we cite this evidence [usually sworn testimony]. And each time it's dismissed like we are some heretic challenging the orthodoxy of a religious sect. The Church of Lee.

Yet the most absurd charges against others like Ruth Paine are not even questioned. Not the slightest of objection to the smears. You can accuse Ruth Paine of treason. And Michael. And dozens of others of going along with it. And you are not challenged at all."

Those upset at the allegations against Oswald made here (he's a dead man!!) - based on documented evidence - and remain silent when Ruth Paine and dozens of others are smeared - smear means unsubstantiated - of essentially engaging in treason and murder have no grounds to complain about the supposed inconsistency of anyone.

And to note again: I cited those absurd comments by one of the leading conspiracy advocates, a man praised by the major figures among the conspiracists  - Vincent Salandria - and not one Oswald defender criticized them.

[Richard Smith]

To repeat: "We [those of us who accuse Oswald of shooting JFK and Tippit] cite the volumes of evidence against Oswald. Multiple government investigations over several generations of people - Democrats and Republicans - and multiple news media investigations over several generations of people. Again and again and again we cite this evidence [usually sworn testimony]. And each time it's dismissed like we are some heretic challenging the orthodoxy of a religious sect. The Church of Lee.

Yet the most absurd charges against others like Ruth Paine are not even questioned. Not the slightest of objection to the smears. You can accuse Ruth Paine of treason. And Michael. And dozens of others of going along with it. And you are not challenged at all."

Those upset at the allegations against Oswald made here (he's a dead man!!) - based on documented evidence - and remain silent when Ruth Paine and dozens of others are smeared - smear means unsubstantiated - of essentially engaging in treason and murder have no grounds to complain about the supposed inconsistency of anyone.

And to note again: I cited those absurd comments by one of the leading conspiracy advocates, a man praised by the major figures among the conspiracists  - Vincent Salandria - and not one Oswald defender criticized them.

You are using common sense and logic on folks who are impervious to such concepts.  And, again, Ruth Paine didn't provide much in the way of evidence against Oswald relating to his involvement in the assassination.  She certainly would have said many incriminatory things if she was playing a role to frame him.  Why these contrarians are no unhinged about her is all the bigger mystery. 

[John Iacoletti]

Again and again and again we cite this evidence [usually sworn testimony]. And each time it's dismissed like we are some heretic challenging the orthodoxy of a religious sect.

No, it’s dismissed because the evidence you cite is either not evidence at all, or if it is evidence it is weak, circumstantial, and tainted in some way. Your solution to this dilemma is to just cite the same old crap claims again and again as if repetition somehow makes it better.

Yet the most absurd charges against others like Ruth Paine are not even questioned.

Sorry, but this is a red herring fallacy. Nobody is obligated to comment on your pet righteous indignation. And last time I checked, Vincent Salandria is not making any charges on this forum to respond to.

[Bill Chapman]

*Gerry

Sounds exactly the same 

[Bill Chapman]

No, it’s dismissed because the evidence you cite is either not evidence at all, or if it is evidence it is weak, circumstantial, and tainted in some way. Your solution to this dilemma is to just cite the same old crap claims again and again as if repetition somehow makes it better.

Sorry, but this is a red herring fallacy. Nobody is obligated to comment on your pet righteous indignation. And last time I checked, Vincent Salandria is not making any charges on this forum to respond to.

'tainted'

Oswald tainted his drawers when the cops showed up @ the movies

[John Iacoletti]

'tainted'

Oswald tainted his drawers when the cops showed up @ the movies

Thanks once again for another vapid and irrelevant contribution.