Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"

[Jerry Freeman]

 Curious.......
How did we figure that he went to Walker lectures and ACLU meetings?

[Colin Crow]

Unfortunately we will never know as the SAC in charge of the Dallas Office was accused by Hosty of ordering him of destroying evidence relating to the deceased accused. We already know that an official of the FBI was prepared to alter evidence about Oswald in this case......the question is.......was this the precedent?

[John Iacoletti]

Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #23

This is the stupidest argument yet in a series of stupid arguments.  Where is it written that an assassination can only be attempted from one's place of employment?  Or that this strawman conspiracy had to micromanage every facet of everybody's lives for months and months?

[John Iacoletti]

Well, we lemmings do our research.

The funniest part of all is Bill "pretty sure" "if I recall correctly" Chapman lecturing anyone else on doing his research.

[John Iacoletti]

Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #25

And there he goes again.  Repeating an argument he already made and giving it a new number.

Assassination conspiracies are required to have a gunman with long term employment near the site of the assassination.  It's in the rule book.

[John Iacoletti]

Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #26

Another round of "I don't believe a conspiracy would do X, therefore there was no conspiracy".

But why would a lone nut choose to shoot the president at a time when at least 80 percent of his body was concealed and protected by the body of his limousine either?

[John Iacoletti]

[Jerry Freeman]

 

CTers shouldn't pretend to be lawyers or scientists
Or pretend that they care about the truth while at the same time twisting what witnesses and other people on the forum said or what they meant. Or what the witnesses saw or didn't see.

What a flagrantly tacky statement it is to say that someone that you don't even really know only "pretends to care about the truth". Or do you just pretend to not care?
Hundreds of members and guests will read this blanket broad brush statement and see it as a brazenly barefaced and obviously glaring mental distortion.
You can believe what you want but don't dare to stand in judgment like that towards someone that doesn't seem to agree with your way of thinking. 
In other words...what a crappy thing to say.
It reminds me of Clinton calling all the Trump supporters a bunch of deplorables.