CE 143

[Richard Smith]

No one saw John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln using contrarian logic.  The witnesses just heard a gunshot, immediately looked in that direction to see Booth still pointing a smoking gun at Lincoln's head.  No logical inference can be allowed, but they can imply entirely baseless alternatives to suggest false doubt.  It's all an "assumption" or "opinion" erroneously using those terms out of sheer ignorance or intentional dishonesty.  Perhaps Lincoln committed suicide and Booth just had the misfortune to pick up the gun, then realized things looked bad and fled.  Booth worked there so nothing suspicious about his presence etc.  It's possible unless we prove otherwise to their subjective contrarian satisfaction.  Free John Wilkes Booth!  There is doubt of his guilt.  Contrarians of the world unite!

[Martin Weidmann]

No one saw John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln using contrarian logic.  The witnesses just heard a gunshot, immediately looked in that direction to see Booth still pointing a smoking gun at Lincoln's head.  No logical inference can be allowed, but they can imply entirely baseless alternatives to suggest false doubt.  It's all an "assumption" or "opinion" erroneously using those terms out of sheer ignorance or intentional dishonesty.  Perhaps Lincoln committed suicide and Booth just had the misfortune to pick up the gun, then realized things looked bad and fled.  Booth worked there so nothing suspicious about his presence etc.  It's possible unless we prove otherwise to their subjective contrarian satisfaction.  Free John Wilkes Booth!  There is doubt of his guilt.  Contrarians of the world unite!

We are not discussing the Lincoln shooting. This forum discusses the Kennedy and Tippit murders.

If you want to convince anybody that Oswald killed both men, all you need to do is present the evidence for your claims. Whining about another case, with different circumstances, and "contrarians" will get you nowhere.

But I can answer in kind;

Nobody saw Alfred Dreyfus commit any act of treason, yet a extremely circumstantial and one sided case was presented against him by fanatical "patriots", based, in part, on manipulated evidence and resulting in his wrongful conviction. If it wasn't for a passionate campaign by leading artists and intellectuals such as Émile Zola, Dreyfus would have spend the rest of his life in prison, despite the fact that evidence of his innocence had already been found.

Dreyfus had his day in court and ultimately was officially exonerated by a military commission. Oswald ever had his day in court!

[John Iacoletti]

I made no false claim and you most certainly didn't correct anything.

Your exact words!

Yes, hitting a police officer and pulling out a revolver certainly don’t seem to be the actions that one would expect from an innocent movie goer.

It's impossible to have a conversation with somebody who says something then immediately denies having said it.  But it is there in black and white for all to see.

An honest person should feel obligated to include or dispute important details.

It's not an "important detail" to the issue of your false claim.  I didn't include what the weather was like at the time either.  You were still wrong. Your what-aboutism here is comical.

It was a crime for LHO to be simply carrying a concealed firearm.

Cite, please.

And he admitted that he did and he knew it was a crime.

This is flat out false.  I predict you won't admit this falsehood either.  Besides that, Oswald was neither arrested, nor charged with carrying a concealed firearm.

On top of that McDonald testified that he was drawing it

McDonald's report to Curry merely says that Oswald "reached to his waist".  "He was drawing it" was a later embellishment. It's pretty clear that McDonald merely assumed that Oswald was going to draw it.  All of which is still irrelevant, because your claim was that he pulled out a revolver.

Your freaking innocent LHO wasn't innocent at all, period.

I didn't claim that LHO was innocent.  I said that he didn't pull out a revolver.  You can't be honest about anything.

These are not details that I left out. How could I, they are only delusions in your mind. Witnesses said LHO hit McDonald then grabbed the revolver.

I'm still waiting for the names of these "witnesses" who saw Oswald "grab the revolver", much less anybody who saw him pull one out.

[Charles Collins]

Your exact words!


It's impossible to have a conversation with somebody who says something then immediately denies having said it.  But it is there in black and white for all to see.

It's not an "important detail" to the issue of your false claim.  I didn't include what the weather was like at the time either.  You were still wrong. Your what-aboutism here is comical.

Cite, please.

This is flat out false.  I predict you won't admit this falsehood either.  Besides that, Oswald was neither arrested, nor charged with carrying a concealed firearm.

McDonald's report to Curry merely says that Oswald "reached to his waist".  "He was drawing it" was a later embellishment. It's pretty clear that McDonald merely assumed that Oswald was going to draw it.  All of which is still irrelevant, because your claim was that he pulled out a revolver.

I didn't claim that LHO was innocent.  I said that he didn't pull out a revolver.  You can't be honest about anything.

I'm still waiting for the names of these "witnesses" who saw Oswald "grab the revolver", much less anybody who saw him pull one out.

Your exact words!


It's impossible to have a conversation with somebody who says something then immediately denies having said it.  But it is there in black and white for all to see.


I have not denied ever saying it. I responded by saying that McDonald said the same thing in his sworn testimony, therefore it isn't a falsehood. I cannot help it if you don't like what McDonald swore to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Get over it for crying out loud.



It's not an "important detail" to the issue of your false claim.  I didn't include what the weather was like at the time either.  You were still wrong. Your what-aboutism here is comical.



McDonald swore it to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And it is the same thing that I said, therefore my statement isn't a falsehood. But you claim McDonald's sworn detail isn't an important detail when you are (lamely) trying to claim otherwise?      An honest person should include the details and let others decide for themselves "from a level playing field." Instead of being honest, you just decide that a very important detail, that isn't in agreement with your idea, isn't important. So, you omit that detail. That's dishonest and you should be ashamed.



Cite, please.

"November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury" by David Belin, page 466: "Carrying a concealed gun is a crime."

You can research the statutes yourself if you want to try to claim Belin was wrong. I'm not that interested.



This is flat out false.  I predict you won't admit this falsehood either.  Besides that, Oswald was neither arrested, nor charged with carrying a concealed firearm.


Mr. HILL. ...about the time Bentley reached in his pocket and got his billfold, the suspect made the statement, "I don't know why you are treating me like this. The only thing I have done is carry a pistol in a movie."

I believe that there are others who testified similarly...



McDonald's report to Curry merely says that Oswald "reached to his waist".  "He was drawing it" was a later embellishment. It's pretty clear that McDonald merely assumed that Oswald was going to draw it.  All of which is still irrelevant, because your claim was that he pulled out a revolver.


There (dishonest) you go again, leaving out (aka: omitting) the details that you don't like. The report to Curry doesn't merely say that. It goes on (in the same freaking sentence) to say "and both of our hands were on a pistol that was stuck in his belt under his shirt." The very next sentence states: "We both fell into the seats struggling for the pistol." You will probably try to claim that the struggle was an assumption by McDonald also. Surely it couldn't possibly be that LHO was struggling for the pistol because he was drawing it. He "just had to" have been trying to keep in in his belt.    McDonald's later testimony was a question and answer examination designed to bring out more details. Just because you don't like the important details, doesn't mean they were an embellishment. My statement says ...pulling out... and so does McDonald. Put your glasses on if you need them to be able to read correctly.



I didn't claim that LHO was innocent.  I said that he didn't pull out a revolver.  You can't be honest about anything.


McDonald said LHO was drawing the revolver. So did I. And, if you were honest, you should also.



I'm still waiting for the names of these "witnesses" who saw Oswald "grab the revolver", much less anybody who saw him pull one out.


McDonald is one and CT Walker is another one. I believe the relevant testimonies are already posted earlier in this thread.

[Jerry Freeman]

Quote from: Jerry Freeman on October 27, 2022, 09:54:41 PM --I mentioned McDonald and you bring up Walker?

Yes, I sure did. Is that a problem for you?

Hey...it's your silly [as usual] thread...you can disjoint it any way you want.

[Richard Smith]

We are not discussing the Lincoln shooting. This forum discusses the Kennedy and Tippit murders.

If you want to convince anybody that Oswald killed both men, all you need to do is present the evidence for your claims. Whining about another case, with different circumstances, and "contrarians" will get you nowhere.

But I can answer in kind;

Nobody saw Alfred Dreyfus commit any act of treason, yet a extremely circumstantial and one sided case was presented against him by fanatical "patriots", based, in part, on manipulated evidence and resulting in his wrongful conviction. If it wasn't for a passionate campaign by leading artists and intellectuals such as Émile Zola, Dreyfus would have spend the rest of his life in prison, despite the fact that evidence of his innocence had already been found.

Dreyfus had his day in court and ultimately was officially exonerated by a military commission. Oswald ever had his day in court!

LOL.  It's an analogy.  And you unintentionally bolstered it here.  Booth never had his day in court but no one doubts his guilt.   Your contrarian nonsense is only applied to evidence that links Oswald to the crime. 

[Martin Weidmann]

LOL.  It's an analogy.  And you unintentionally bolstered it here.  Booth never had his day in court but no one doubts his guilt.   Your contrarian nonsense is only applied to evidence that links Oswald to the crime.

It's an analogy.

And a very poor one. Where hardly anybody doubts Booth's guilt, the majority of people still doubt Oswald's guilt.

The reason: Booth was seen jumping out of Lincoln's theater box (where at least three people had seen him shoot Lincoln) with a revolver in his hand, just after the shots were fired. Oswald, on the other hand was not seen on the 6th floor prior, during and after the shots were fired, nor was he seen holding the murder weapon or coming down the stairs. If you don't understand the difference, you're even dumber than you have shown yourself to be.

Your contrarian nonsense is only applied to evidence that links Oswald to the crime.

And what evidence would that be?

Oh yeah, that's right, you can't say, at least not without making a complete fool of yourself.

[John Iacoletti]

I have not denied ever saying it. I responded by saying that McDonald said the same thing in his sworn testimony, therefore it isn't a falsehood. I cannot help it if you don't like what McDonald swore to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Get over it for crying out loud.

This is also flat out false.  McDonald did not say that Oswald "pulled out a revolver" in his sworn testimony.  But you said that on this forum.  You're wrong but you refuse to admit it.

"November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury" by David Belin, page 466: "Carrying a concealed gun is a crime."

You can research the statutes yourself if you want to try to claim Belin was wrong. I'm not that interested.

Of course you're not.  Just another unsubstantiated claim, and a false appeal to authority.

Mr. HILL. ...about the time Bentley reached in his pocket and got his billfold, the suspect made the statement, "I don't know why you are treating me like this. The only thing I have done is carry a pistol in a movie."

Note that your claim was "he admitted that he did and he knew it was a crime".  This quote does not support your claim.  At all.

There (dishonest) you go again, leaving out (aka: omitting) the details that you don't like. The report to Curry doesn't merely say that. It goes on (in the same freaking sentence) to say "and both of our hands were on a pistol that was stuck in his belt under his shirt." The very next sentence states: "We both fell into the seats struggling for the pistol."

What does this have to do with either "pulled out a revolver", or "was drawing it"?  Absolutely nothing.

McDonald said LHO was drawing the revolver. So did I. And, if you were honest, you should also.

You claimed that Oswald "pulled out a revolver".  If you were honest you'd admit that this is wrong instead of diverting.