CE 143

[Charles Collins]

This is doublespeak. The distortion is claiming that Oswald did something that he did not do. People interested in the truth describe events and evidence accurately instead of doubling down when they’re wrong, whining about “what is important and meaningful”, and gaslighting.

Distortion by omission is most definitely distortion. Your omission of the evidence that LHO was drawing the revolver is most definitely distortion. The result is an obvious intentional attempt to imply that LHO didn’t do anything. You are being dishonest and should be ashamed.

[John Iacoletti]

Distortion by omission is most definitely distortion.

I didn’t omit anything. You made a false claim about Oswald and I corrected you. All the whining and deflection in the world does not change that. Honest people admit it when they make a mistake — they don’t try to change the subject.

The shame is all yours.

[Jerry Freeman]

Walker testified that he had his gun drawn. But he put it in his holster to search the two people in front of LHO.

I mentioned McDonald and you bring up Walker?

[Charles Collins]

I mentioned McDonald and you bring up Walker?

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

[Charles Collins]

I didn’t omit anything. You made a false claim about Oswald and I corrected you. All the whining and deflection in the world does not change that. Honest people admit it when they make a mistake — they don’t try to change the subject.

The shame is all yours.

I didn’t omit anything.

Yes you did. McDonald testified that LHO was drawing the revolver. You haven’t accounted for this very important detail by disputing it or including it in your claim. That is omission. All the whining and deflection in the world does not change that.



You made a false claim about Oswald and I corrected you.


I made no false claim. McDonald testified that LHO was drawing the revolver. That’s what I said.

Your “correction” might be better understood if it didn’t omit important details. And it might “have a leg to stand on” if it accounted for the omissions. An honest person would admit his omission - and not try to mislead others.

If you had simply claimed that he didn’t completely pull out a revolver because McDonald intervened, it would be more inclusive of some of McDonald’s important details. Your claim that: He didn't "pull out a revolver" is incomplete and therefore misleading. Intentionally misleading others is dishonest.

[John Iacoletti]

Yes you did. McDonald testified that LHO was drawing the revolver. You haven’t accounted for this very important detail by disputing it or including it in your claim. That is omission. All the whining and deflection in the world does not change that.

You made a false claim which you still have yet to admit. You claimed that Oswald pulled out a revolver. He did not. I corrected your false claim. That doesn’t obligate me to mention any other detail just because you would like me to.

I made no false claim. McDonald testified that LHO was drawing the revolver. That’s what I said.

No, you said “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 is irrelevant what you think he wanted to do. Even if that could somehow be proven, wanting to commit a crime is not actually a crime.

Your “correction” might be better understood if it didn’t omit important details. And it might “have a leg to stand on” if it accounted for the omissions. An honest person would admit his omission - and not try to mislead others.

Misleading others is claiming that somebody “pulled out a revolver” when he did not.

If you had simply claimed that he didn’t completely pull out a revolver because McDonald intervened, it would be more inclusive of some of McDonald’s important details.

He didn’t even partially pull out a revolver. McDonald just thought he was going to. You characterize this as “pulling out a revolver” and you accuse me of leaving out details? You made a statement that was blatantly false. I made a true statement that you wish I had elaborated more on.

[Richard Smith]

I didn’t omit anything.

Yes you did. McDonald testified that LHO was drawing the revolver. You haven’t accounted for this very important detail by disputing it or including it in your claim. That is omission. All the whining and deflection in the world does not change that.



You made a false claim about Oswald and I corrected you.


I made no false claim. McDonald testified that LHO was drawing the revolver. That’s what I said.

Your “correction” might be better understood if it didn’t omit important details. And it might “have a leg to stand on” if it accounted for the omissions. An honest person would admit his omission - and not try to mislead others.

If you had simply claimed that he didn’t completely pull out a revolver because McDonald intervened, it would be more inclusive of some of McDonald’s important details. Your claim that: He didn't "pull out a revolver" is incomplete and therefore misleading. Intentionally misleading others is dishonest.

This is where the contrarians go round and round deflecting the discussion onto some pedantic point to ignore the evidence that Oswald fled the TSBD, got a gun, shot a police officer, snuck into a movie theatre, and then engaged in a struggle with police officers without even bothering to find out what they wanted.  Nothing to see there.  Just a normal day.  Instead page after page will be filled with pedantic nitpicking as to whether Oswald drew his gun or only had his hand on it.  LOL.  No logical inference can be allowed when it comes to Oswald's guilt.