Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Iacoletti v Bug53  (Read 9754 times)

Offline Larry Baldwin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #40 on: January 11, 2023, 12:31:43 PM »
Advertisement
This thread confirms why I stopped frequenting this forum.  The same old thin arguments and pontification from the same old group of clearly dillusional lone nutters, and the same old CTs believing that they can convice them otherwise.  Both are excersizing futility. Remember how Einstein defined insanity?  Y'all need to be fit for straight jackets.

Special mention goes to Organ for posting a pic of a baseball stadium and stating that 1 person could slip past thousands of people as evidence that Oswald could have slipped past TWELVE.  Please tell me you were joking.  Either way, thank you for the laugh.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #40 on: January 11, 2023, 12:31:43 PM »


Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2414
Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #41 on: January 11, 2023, 03:03:25 PM »
This thread confirms why I stopped frequenting this forum.  The same old thin arguments and pontification from the same old group of clearly dillusional lone nutters, and the same old CTs believing that they can convice them otherwise.  Both are excersizing futility. Remember how Einstein defined insanity?  Y'all need to be fit for straight jackets.

And you're above all that? ::)

Quote
Special mention goes to Organ for posting a pic of a baseball stadium and stating that 1 person could slip past thousands of people as evidence that Oswald could have slipped past TWELVE.  Please tell me you were joking.  Either way, thank you for the laugh.

Keep the laughs going, Chuckles. Who are the 12 people eye-locked on the backstairs in the minute after the assassination?

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #42 on: January 11, 2023, 03:48:26 PM »
This thread confirms why I stopped frequenting this forum.  The same old thin arguments and pontification from the same old group of clearly dillusional lone nutters, and the same old CTs believing that they can convice them otherwise.  Both are excersizing futility. Remember how Einstein defined insanity?  Y'all need to be fit for straight jackets.

Special mention goes to Organ for posting a pic of a baseball stadium and stating that 1 person could slip past thousands of people as evidence that Oswald could have slipped past TWELVE.  Please tell me you were joking.  Either way, thank you for the laugh.

You don't believe that Oswald fired a single shot on Nov 22, 1963. It seems to me that you're one who is delusional here. Maybe stay away until you can come up with something that exonerates your guy. Something that makes all of the evidence against him go away. Good luck with that.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #42 on: January 11, 2023, 03:48:26 PM »


Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1500
Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #43 on: January 11, 2023, 05:32:51 PM »
The assassination and the shooting of Tippit only happened one way, there's only one explanation, a single story line or narrative. How many explanations should be given? Five? Ten? The same old delusional lone nutters can't make things up, use the assassination as a grievance event against "the government" or "the CIA" or whatever monsters in their heads they have. We have one and only one explanation. Oswald took his rifle - you really think it was his lunch? - and shot JFK. Then, leaving the scene shortly after - he wasn't interested at all in what happened? - he then shot Tippit. If that's boring then never mind.

Anyway, if someone doesn't believe the 8-10 witnesses who saw Oswald shoot Tippit or leave the scene (and the other physical and circumstantial evidence) I doubt you'd accept witnesses who saw Oswald go down the stairs. And if powerful evil groups did pull this off you can be damned sure they would make Norman and Jarman and others say they saw that very same thing, Oswald going down the steps. If you believe all of this other evidence was manufactured why wouldn't they do something this simple? There I go, boring stuff again.

This is the guy they had to silence, the guy who could expose their plot. This is what they let him do. Meet with his family, a lawyer, make phone calls. And this. If you believe this is what they would allow happen, this is what they would allow him to do, the word delusional does come to mind.


« Last Edit: January 11, 2023, 05:41:26 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #44 on: January 11, 2023, 07:13:30 PM »
This thread confirms why I stopped frequenting this forum.  The same old thin arguments and pontification from the same old group of clearly dillusional lone nutters, and the same old CTs believing that they can convice them otherwise.  Both are excersizing futility. Remember how Einstein defined insanity?  Y'all need to be fit for straight jackets.

Special mention goes to Organ for posting a pic of a baseball stadium and stating that 1 person could slip past thousands of people as evidence that Oswald could have slipped past TWELVE.  Please tell me you were joking.  Either way, thank you for the laugh.

Y'all need to be fit for straight jackets.
Try 'straitjackets' next time, Einstein.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #44 on: January 11, 2023, 07:13:30 PM »


Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5291
Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #45 on: January 11, 2023, 08:54:25 PM »
The assassination and the shooting of Tippit only happened one way, there's only one explanation, a single story line or narrative. How many explanations should be given? Five? Ten? The same old delusional lone nutters can't make things up, use the assassination as a grievance event against "the government" or "the CIA" or whatever monsters in their heads they have. We have one and only one explanation. Oswald took his rifle - you really think it was his lunch? - and shot JFK. Then, leaving the scene shortly after - he wasn't interested at all in what happened? - he then shot Tippit. If that's boring then never mind.

Anyway, if someone doesn't believe the 8-10 witnesses who saw Oswald shoot Tippit or leave the scene (and the other physical and circumstantial evidence) I doubt you'd accept witnesses who saw Oswald go down the stairs. And if powerful evil groups did pull this off you can be damned sure they would make Norman and Jarman and others say they saw that very same thing, Oswald going down the steps. If you believe all of this other evidence was manufactured why wouldn't they do something this simple? There I go, boring stuff again.

This is the guy they had to silence, the guy who could expose their plot. This is what they let him do. Meet with his family, a lawyer, make phone calls. And this. If you believe this is what they would allow happen, this is what they would allow him to do, the word delusional does come to mind.



Great picture.  Imagine how many times a loser like Oswald had fantasized about being the center of attention and standing in front of those cameras and microphones.  The center of attention at last.  Jack Ruby didn't play into that narrative, though.  Tough luck.  Did he have time to regret his actions?  I doubt it.  His arrest and/or death was always part of the equation.  He would no doubt love forums like this one.  Immortality for a guy who would otherwise have spent his life in menial jobs and be long forgotten.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2023, 08:55:05 PM by Richard Smith »

Offline Larry Baldwin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #46 on: January 11, 2023, 09:55:37 PM »
You don't believe that Oswald fired a single shot on Nov 22, 1963. It seems to me that you're one who is delusional here. Maybe stay away until you can come up with something that exonerates your guy. Something that makes all of the evidence against him go away. Good luck with that.

There is enough evidence to exonerate Oswald already.  Your confirmation bias inhibits you from seeing it or accepting it.  I'm sure you see things the exact opposite.  We are well beyond agreeing to disagree, because of our passion on the matter.  That is why I will stay away.  God bless you though.

Offline Larry Baldwin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #47 on: January 11, 2023, 10:00:56 PM »
And you're above all that? ::)

I am now

Keep the laughs going, Chuckles. Who are the 12 people eye-locked on the backstairs in the minute after the assassination?

The 12 people thing was not my claim. In fact, I didn't make any claim.  It was what you argued with the absurd stadium analogy.  Still cracks me up.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Iacoletti v Bug53
« Reply #47 on: January 11, 2023, 10:00:56 PM »