More Fake Pictures of Oswald

[John Iacoletti]

There is no better demonstration of the complete bankruptcy of the "Oswald is innocent' position than that its proponents have to lie, cherry pick, misrepresent, and misinterpret the evidence in a pathetic attempt to make their idiotic arguments.

How cute:  "I know you are but what am I?"

When did I ever make the claim that Oswald is innocent?  Your inability to show that he was guilty (even by lying about the evidence) is your problem, not mine.

[Jerry Freeman]

So that's what you fell into headfirst. OK.

Did you create the reverse image for that photo? If not where did you find it?

How many times did you have to edit that one?
Just lift the rabbits tail ...it was there all the time.

[Steve Howsley]

How many times did you have to edit that one?
Just lift the rabbits tail ...it was there all the time.

So should I put you down as someone knowingly trying to pass off fake photos as evidence or someone sucked in by a cheap transparent con? It's one or the other.

[Jerry Freeman]

....  pass off fake photos.. 

So you do admit that they are fakes I've been trying to show that all this time.
 
 

[John Mytton]

So you do admit that they are fakes I've been trying to show that all this time.

You were caught posting a comparison that even a trained monkey could see was just a flipped image and you couldn't even tell the difference. Hilarious

JohnM

[Jerry Freeman]

.... even a trained monkey could see  ....

So you admit you are just another trained monkey
I know of course that the pictures are reversed ..that they are fake and BTW that Rodney Dangerfield had passed away. You seem to be just pulling your hair out sometimes Ha Ha

[John Mytton]

I know of course that the pictures are reversed ..that they are fake

Stop the BS, you didn't have a clue.

JohnM

[Bill Chapman]

How cute:  "I know you are but what am I?"

When did I ever make the claim that Oswald is innocent?  Your inability to show that he was guilty (even by lying about the evidence) is your problem, not mine.

'lying'*

Says the guy who claimed Oswald's kids were too old to need a babysitter (and thereby falsely attaching a sinister motive to Ruth's presence)

And are you declaring this forum a court of law, barrister? It's seems more a forum of public opinion.

As I've said many times before, I've never said I could prove anything here. I've never gotten any further than 'probably'... just the same as the WC's 'probably' and the HSCA's 'likely'... despite your insistence that those bodies somehow had to prove Oswald guilty.

*According to your interpretation of the evidence, or the actual evidence? You, who tells us what witnesses really saw, or didn't see. We are not impressed.