Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"

[Martin Weidmann]

... yes, given that an estimated 42 groups, 82 assassins and 214 people have been accused in various conspiracy theories on the assassination.

What... too soon, Martin?

You seem to be under the foolish notion that, no matter how weak and inconclusive it truly is, the LN argument nevertheless wins by default unless conclusively proven wrong on all accounts.

As usual, you are wrong.

[Ray Mitcham]

Concrete, cited research is definitely seductive. Seems you lot are more hooked on fly-by-night cheap, easy speculation. Fun being a CTer isn't it.

If you have cited information revealing Bug's research into Dirty Harvey's job hunting is erroneous in some manner, by all means feel free to post it.

Bugs research that the conspiracists would never have chosen Oswald  could be right. He might never have been part of the plot, just ( as he said) the "patsy".

As for it being fun being a Ct. It certainly is better than to have to parrot the WC endlessly, and mindlessly,  even though it has been shown to be a one sided investigation. But then you feluccas don't believe that do you?

[Bill Chapman]

Bugs research that the conspiracists would never have chosen Oswald  could be right. He might never have been part of the plot, just ( as he said) the "patsy".

As for it being fun being a Ct. It certainly is better than to have to parrot the WC endlessly, and mindlessly,  even though it has been shown to be a one sided investigation. But then you feluccas don't believe that do you?

Sour grapes, Ray?

[Jack Trojan]

Bug Non Sequitur #23: Oswald's job seeking proves he wasn't part of a conspiracy.

You guys keep assuming his job at the TSBD was a fluke and there were no handlers ready to relocate him to the TSBD if Plan A in Chicago got nixed, which it did.

That said, October 4, 1963 Oswald applied for a job at Padgett Printing but was not hired because of a poor recommendation by the owner of Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. Stovall was a police detective with the DPD who was involved with the search of the Paine household in November 1963. He used 2 negatives to make a 5"x8"print of the BYP CE 133-A and an 8"x10" print of the infamous CE 133-C. WTF? Did Stovall prevent Oswald from getting the job so he would be available for the TSBD? And how did Stovall know Oswald?

[Bill Chapman]

You seem to be under the foolish notion that, no matter how weak and inconclusive it truly is, the LN argument nevertheless wins by default unless conclusively proven wrong on all accounts.

As usual, you are wrong.

A lot of 'inconclusives' in this case, aren't there.
Pretty sure 'can't rule out' equates with 'inconclusive'

In the meantime, while we wait for your 'truth' to show up, Dirty Harvey remains prime suspect.

Tick-tock, tick-tock...

[Martin Weidmann]

A lot of 'inconclusives' in this case, aren't there.
Pretty sure 'can't rule out' equates with 'inconclusive'

In the meantime, while we wait for your 'truth' to show up, Dirty Harvey remains prime suspect.

Tick-tock, tick-tock...

A lot of 'inconclusives' in this case, aren't there.

Yes indeed... so glad you noticed. Now why do you ignore them?

Pretty sure 'can't rule out' equates with 'inconclusive'

Indeed it does... what is does not do is equate to 'must be guilty'

In the meantime, while we wait for your 'truth' to show up

As I said before;

You seem to be under the foolish notion that, no matter how weak and inconclusive it truly is, the LN argument nevertheless wins by default unless conclusively proven wrong on all accounts.

As usual, you are wrong.

and that btw equates to 'no need for my truth to show up'....

Perhaps you still don't get that I have no case to prove....

Dirty Harvey remains prime suspect.

Since when does 'prime suspect' equate to 'must be guilty'  (anywhere else than in Salem, I mean) ?
  .

[Bill Chapman]

A lot of 'inconclusives' in this case, aren't there.

Yes indeed... so glad you noticed. Now why do you ignore them?

Pretty sure 'can't rule out' equates with 'inconclusive'

Indeed it does... what is does not do is equate to 'must be guilty'

In the meantime, while we wait for your 'truth' to show up

As I said before;

and that btw equates to 'no need for my truth to show up'....

Perhaps you still don't get that I have no case to prove....

Dirty Harvey remains prime suspect.

Since when does 'prime suspect' equate to 'must be guilty'  (anywhere else than in Salem, I mean) ?
  .

Your truth equates with Oswald not being a lone gunman

Where did I attach guilt to 'prime suspect'

Yeah, you characters don't have a case to prove but want LNers to prove your speculations wrong.
Fun being a CTer, isn't it.

Where do the 'inconclusives' prove Oswald innocent?
Why do you ignore the 'can't rule out' that accompany those 'inconclusives'?

[Ray Mitcham]

Your truth equates with Oswald not being a lone gunman

Where did I attach guilt to 'prime suspect'

Yeah, you characters don't have a case to prove but want LNers to prove your speculations wrong.
Fun being a CTer, isn't it.

Where do the 'inconclusives' prove Oswald innocent?
Why do you ignore the 'can't rule out' that accompany those 'inconclusives'?

Unfortunately we CTs can't prove Oswald didn't do it, as it is exceedingly difficult to prove a negative. However you, Feluccas are in a worse  boat as you can't prove he did it either, despite you having to prove a positive.