JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Bill Chapman on December 24, 2020, 05:37:04 AM
-
-------
NEWS
FLASH
-------
Daiias, Texas
December 23, 2020
Faked, planted &
otherwise messed with
by Bill Chapman
THE LITTLE PR*CK WHO KILLED THE POOR DUMB COP AND OBVIOUSLY SHOT KENNEDY FOUND INNOCENT DUE TO THAT FACT THAT NO AMMO BOX WAS FOUND ON HIS PERSON, AT EITHER SCENE, OR ANYWHERE ELSE HERE IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE
In an interview with the biggest little pr*ck in history, the obvious snuff-job artist could only smirk in a self-satisfied manner
Rumors are already circulating about an ammo box of some sort being carried out the back door of the OH Lee safe-house late one night by a little old lady (with only one good eyeball) mumbling something about antique road show, storage wars, and pawn stars.
Copyright Bill Chapman 2020
-
Chapman isn’t even good for comic-relief, because he’s not funny.
-
Chapman isn’t even good for comic-relief, because he’s not funny.
You've already said that. And comic-relief from what exactly, neverending wordsmorgasbord-ery?
No necessity to be funny on my part: The notion that not finding an ammo box is somehow important is the funny part, and deserves nothing but mockery. Except, of course, on the far shores of the lunatic fringe.. in the Twilight Zone.
-
-------
NEWS
FLASH
-------
Daiias, Texas
December 23, 2020
Faked, planted &
otherwise messed with
by Bill Chapman
THE LITTLE PR*CK WHO KILLED THE POOR DUMB COP AND OBVIOUSLY SHOT KENNEDY FOUND INNOCENT DUE TO THAT FACT THAT NO AMMO BOX WAS FOUND ON HIS PERSON, AT EITHER SCENE, OR ANYWHERE ELSE HERE IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE
In an interview with the biggest little pr*ck in history, the obvious snuff-job artist could only smirk in a self-satisfied manner
Rumors are already circulating about an ammo box of some sort being carried out the back door of the OH Lee safe-house late one night by a little old lady (with only one good eyeball) mumbling something about antique road show, storage wars, and pawn stars.
Copyright Bill Chapman 2020
Yeah, but what about that unidentified fingerprint rumored to be found on the box??? 8) ;)
-
You've already said that.
Cite me already saying that.
-
Yeah, but what about that unidentified fingerprint rumored to be found on the box??? 8) ;)
That would definitely affect the amount of $$ the pawner would make.
-
Cite me already saying that.
Okay
(https://i.postimg.cc/GpV2bdWX/not-funny-001.png)
-
Okay
::)
So I said a different thing that included the word “funny”. Must be another one of those “variant” quotes.
-
::)
So I said a different thing that included the word “funny”. Must be another one of those “variant” quotes.
Yep. Must be.
---------
Iacoletti
---------
'Not that he knows anything about the disease'
'woefully-ignorant-about-the-case'
'another Chapman recollection failure'
'That would require that he actually have something useful and relevant to post'
4 variants right there
Adjective: variant strains of a disease
Noun: A new variant of the disease has appeared.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8Cd1bw4j/not-that-he-knows-anything.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/6p3Rg2gW/woefully-ignorant-about-the-case.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/nz7wmwGP/iacoletti-recollection-ad-hom.png)
--------------------------
EDIT: added 4th variant
Sat 1:06pm EST
-
Chapman is just a troll. Reminds me of Sidney Powell since he just throws lots of nonsense around and hopes a little of it sticks. It doesn't and Chapman's arrogant mockery is an insult to all truth seekers. Why would he want to accumulate more bad karma? How about one post that makes some sense?
-
Chapman is just a troll. Reminds me of Sidney Powell since he just throws lots of nonsense around and hopes a little of it sticks. It doesn't and Chapman's arrogant mockery is an insult to all truth seekers. Why would he want to accumulate more bad karma? How about one post that makes some sense?
You lot have the market on 'bad karma' cornered.
And point out where my previous post is anything more than a push-back.
-
Chapman is just a troll. Reminds me of Sidney Powell since he just throws lots of nonsense around and hopes a little of it sticks. It doesn't and Chapman's arrogant mockery is an insult to all truth seekers. Why would he want to accumulate more bad karma? How about one post that makes some sense?
That would require that he actually have something useful and relevant to post.
-
That would require that he actually have something useful and relevant to post.
You keep giving me something 'useful and relevant' to post. Such as yet another version/strain/variant of an already existing overall charge that I don't know anything about the JFK assassination.
I'll liken that to the current mutations COVid is producing. From the original source with varying ways of expression.
I'ii liken you to a mutation. A new variant of the ITD has appeared.
Meantime, thanks for #4 in a series:
(https://i.postimg.cc/k4vbVPgd/require-something-useful-to-post.png)
-
You keep giving me something 'useful and relevant' to post. Such as yet another version/strain/variant of an already existing overall charge that I don't know anything about the JFK assassination.
Knock yourself out. You demonstrate that every day.
Just don’t falsely quote me and then pretend that one of your “variants” justifies a false quote.
-
Knock yourself out. You demonstrate that every day.
Just don’t falsely quote me and then pretend that one of your “variants” justifies a false quote.
Cite what 'false' quote
-
Nothing to admit: How would I know about any WC logical fallacies, since I apparently 'don't know the first first thing about the assassination' according to you.
-
Nothing to admit: How would I know about any WC logical fallacies, since I apparently 'don't know the first first thing about the assassination' according to you
That line is not meant as a direct quote: Otherwise I had would have looked it up. Notice my use of single rather than double quotation marks. See below.
Quotation marks (‘ ’) or (“ ”)
https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-single-and-double-quotation-marks.htm
"The different types of quotation marks may also be used as a way to offset a single word or phrase within a sentence, when nothing is actually being quoted. This is usually meant to denote that the writer is intending the word in an ironic or sarcastic matter."
-
Nice try. You said “according to you”.
-
Nice try. You said “according to you”.
Yes, I did.
And that still stands.
According to me.
-
The Oswald defenders here are remarkably like the hardcore Trump defenders. To each side their man can do no wrong, has done no wrong, and every claim that they did do something wrong is a lie or falsehood or made up by people out to get them. It's all an attack on their boy Lee or Donald (and don't you like how they refer to Oswald as "Lee"?). Oswald apologists: "Don't believe the government, don't believe the official story!" Trump supporters: "Don't believe the government, it's a deep state conspiracy!!"
Oswald apologists say dozens of different people, from members of the Dallas police department to the Warren Commission staffers to the FBI to even ordinary people like steamfitters and waitresses and cab drivers and on and on and on all lied. Or were coached. Or manipulated. Or well, sometimes it's not clear. Because defending Oswald means the ends justifies the means.
But they then turn around and mock the fanatical Trump supporters who do the exact same thing. As the saying goes, you can find anything on the internet.
-
The Oswald defenders here are remarkably like the hardcore Trump defenders. To each side their man can do no wrong, has done no wrong, and every claim that they did do something wrong is a lie or falsehood or made up by people out to get them. It's all an attack on their boy Lee or Donald (and don't you like how they refer to Oswald as "Lee"?). Oswald apologists: "Don't believe the government, don't believe the official story!" Trump supporters: "Don't believe the government, it's a deep state conspiracy!!"
Oswald apologists say dozens of different people, from members of the Dallas police department to the Warren Commission staffers to the FBI to even ordinary people like steamfitters and waitresses and cab drivers and on and on and on all lied. Or were coached. Or manipulated. Or well, sometimes it's not clear. Because defending Oswald means the ends justifies the means.
But they then turn around and mock the fanatical Trump supporters who do the exact same thing. As the saying goes, you can find anything on the internet.
The Oswald defenders here are remarkably like the hardcore Trump defenders. To each side their man can do no wrong, has done no wrong, and every claim that they did do something wrong is a lie or falsehood or made up by people out to get them.
Are you really so much of a hypocrite that you imply the defenders of the WC faith are capable of recognizing the obvious problems in the case against Oswald? Really?
If I ever saw a buch of dug in die hard hardcore deniers of anything that could threaten the case against Oswald, it's the LNs.
Oswald apologists say dozens of different people, from members of the Dallas police department to the Warren Commission staffers to the FBI to even ordinary people like steamfitters and waitresses and cab drivers and on and on and on all lied. Or were coached. Or manipulated. Or well, sometimes it's not clear. Because defending Oswald means the ends justifies the means.
Says a guy who has to believe that just about every witness in Dealey Plaza was wrong or "mistaken", that wild assumptions somehow are actually "evidence" and that law enforcement officers were nothing more than a bunch of incompetent fools making "honest mistakes". It's hilarious....
-
The Oswald defenders here are remarkably like the hardcore Trump defenders. To each side their man can do no wrong, has done no wrong, and every claim that they did do something wrong is a lie or falsehood or made up by people out to get them.
Look, it’s very simple. If you want to convince non-WC apologists that Oswald did something wrong, then demonstrate that he did something wrong. Just like if Trump wants to convince people who are not Trump apologists that there was election fraud he needs to demonstrate that there was election fraud.
“Just because I said so” is not a demonstration.
-
Look, it’s very simple. If you want to convince non-WC apologists that Oswald did something wrong, then demonstrate that he did something wrong. Just like if Trump wants to convince people who are not Trump apologists that there was election fraud he needs to demonstrate that there was election fraud.
“Just because I said so” is not a demonstration.
Spoken like a true knee-taking Oswald-lover.
-
Spoken like an ignorant time-wasting troll who thinks he’s funny and clever.
-
Spoken like an ignorant time-wasting troll who thinks he’s funny and clever.
I don't have to think about being funny and clever
I'm not wasting my time
Not my bad that you waste yours
Troll this, Tex
(https://i.postimg.cc/RFGKXT6g/big-troll.png)
-
The Oswald defenders here are remarkably like the hardcore Trump defenders. To each side their man can do no wrong, has done no wrong, and every claim that they did do something wrong is a lie or falsehood or made up by people out to get them. It's all an attack on their boy Lee or Donald (and don't you like how they refer to Oswald as "Lee"?). Oswald apologists: "Don't believe the government, don't believe the official story!" Trump supporters: "Don't believe the government, it's a deep state conspiracy!!"
Oswald apologists say dozens of different people, from members of the Dallas police department to the Warren Commission staffers to the FBI to even ordinary people like steamfitters and waitresses and cab drivers and on and on and on all lied. Or were coached. Or manipulated. Or well, sometimes it's not clear. Because defending Oswald means the ends justifies the means.
But they then turn around and mock the fanatical Trump supporters who do the exact same thing. As the saying goes, you can find anything on the internet.
And just look how the little fellows get all gleeful when someone actually agrees with them
Confirmation-bias writ large. Really large.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MKsxqfRg/big-thumb-iacoletti.png)
-
Poor baby is sad that he never has anything relevant or consequential to say about anything.
-
Poor baby is sad that he never has anything relevant or consequential to say about anything.
Perhaps we shouldn't be so hard on the guy, John. It's pretty obvious his behavior is just a massive cry for attention, to somehow compensate for a miserable and completely wasted life. No sane individual would behave so pathetically childish as he has been doing in the past months and it seems to be getting worse. I surely hope he gets some help soon...
-
Perhaps we shouldn't be so hard on the guy, John. It's pretty obvious his behavior is just a massive cry for attention, to somehow compensate for a miserable and completely wasted life. No sane individual would behave so pathetically childish as he has been doing in the past months and it seems to be getting worse. I surely hope he gets some help soon...
Poor baby is sad that he never has anything relevant or consequential to say about anything.
:D :D :D
Hug it out, boys..
-
:D :D :D
Hug it out, boys..
And his response is to be even more pathetically childish. :D
-
And his response is to be even more pathetically childish. :D
You boys forgot to give each other The Thumb of CT Bias-Confirmation
-
Add “confirmation bias” to the already gigantic list of concepts that clown-boy doesn’t understand.
-
Chapman is just a troll. Reminds me of Sidney Powell since he just throws lots of nonsense around and hopes a little of it sticks. It doesn't and Chapman's arrogant mockery is an insult to all truth seekers. Why would he want to accumulate more bad karma? How about one post that makes some sense?
A post that makes sense from Chappie??..... I doubt that is possible.
-
A post that makes sense from Chappie??..... I doubt that is possible.
Says the guy with a bucketful of fabrications.
-
Confirmation Bias
https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/confirmation-bias-and-the-law
There are many examples in history where confirmation bias has caused the public to adopt a hypothesis that simply does not bear objective scrutiny. One example is the assassination of President John F Kennedy in December 1963 and the longstanding controversy over whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in shooting him. The famous film director Oliver Stone produced a masterly display of cinematic confirmation bias in his biopic JFK.
-
Confirmation Bias
https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/confirmation-bias-and-the-law
Thank you, Mr. cut-and-paste, but what does this have to do with me giving a thumbs-up to one of Martin’s opinions of you?
There are many examples in history where confirmation bias has caused the public to adopt a hypothesis that simply does not bear objective scrutiny.
I agree. You and the others who have swallowed the WC narrative have fallen prey to this.
-
Thank you, Mr. cut-and-paste, but what does this have to do with me giving a thumbs-up to one of Martin’s opinions of you?
I agree. You and the others who have swallowed the WC narrative have fallen prey to this.
You and the others of your species who have swallowed/followed the Cult of Oswald have fallen/kneeled to this.
-
You and the others of your species who have swallowed/followed the Cult of Oswald have fallen/kneeled to this.
There is just one little problem with this BS. There is no such thing as a "Cult of Oswald". It's an invention of weak minded little men who are detached from reality and desperately need a fictional opponent to rage against to cover up their own inability to present a persuasive case. For a simpleton it's far easier to attack the messenger than deal with the message. If there is a cult, it is the bad of idiots that never questions and blindly follow, accept and defend whatever the Warren Commission's narrative says.
This is probably way too complicated for you to comprehend, but neither John or I have ever advocated that Oswald is innocent or that he didn't kill Kennedy and/or Tippit. All we have done and are still doing is scrutinizing the official narrative which is coming up short at every level in providing conclusive, or even persuasive, evidence of Oswald's guilt. Questioning the official narrative is not the same as proclaiming somebody innocent. Only a narrowminded cult member would argue that it does.
-
There is just one little problem with this BS. There is no such thing as a "Cult of Oswald". It's an invention of weak minded little men who are detached from reality and desperately need a fictional opponent to rage against to cover up their own inability to present a persuasive case. For a simpleton it's far easier to attack the messenger than deal with the message. If there is a cult, it is the bad of idiots that never questions and blindly follow, accept and defend whatever the Warren Commission's narrative says.
This is probably way too complicated for you to comprehend, but neither John or I have ever advocated that Oswald is innocent or that he didn't kill Kennedy and/or Tippit. All we have done and are still doing is scrutinizing the official narrative which is coming up short at every level in providing conclusive, or even persuasive, evidence of Oswald's guilt. Questioning the official narrative is not the same as proclaiming somebody innocent. Only a narrowminded cult member would argue that it does.
If that ain't fence-sitting, I don't what is. And no rage needed: Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
-
If that ain't fence-sitting, I don't what is. And no rage needed: Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
If that ain't fence-sitting, I don't what is.
So what? What's the problem with that?
Are you of the opinion that you should start an investigation with a pre-determined conclusion?
Oh wait, you're in the WC cult. Of course you believe that.... Forget I asked.
-
Because it’s a virtue to make up a story to explain things rather than just admit you don’t know. Hence we get things like creationism and “Oswald did it”.
-
If that ain't fence-sitting, I don't what is. And no rage needed: Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
"There is just one little problem with this BS. There is no such thing as a "Cult of Oswald". It's an invention of weak minded little men who are detached from reality and desperately need a fictional opponent to rage against to cover up their own inability to present a persuasive case. For a simpleton it's far easier to attack the messenger than deal with the message. If there is a cult, it is the bad of idiots that never questions and blindly follow, accept and defend whatever the Warren Commission's narrative says."
It's an invention of weak minded little men who are detached from reality and desperately need a fictional opponent to rage against
There is no such thing as a "Cult of Oswald".
This isn't about an individual named Lee Oswald.....It's about Liberty and JUSTICE for all.....Something that those of us who take the Pledge of Allegiance seriously hold dear. You probably would mouth the words without regard to their meaning. You are stuck on..... With Liberty and Justice for all ..... with the exception of Lee Harvey Oswald .
-
Because it’s a virtue to make up a story to explain things rather than just admit you don’t know. Hence we get things like creationism and “Oswald did it”.
Tell us who is the most likely killer of:
1) Kennedy
2) Tippit
-
Tell us who is the most likely killer of:
1) Kennedy
2) Tippit
Utterly STUPID!!.... Chappie, Simply because you're too damned arrogant and dumb to see that you've been duped you attempt to put the onus on those who are smart enough to see that the official tale is a damned lie. We're under no obligation to present any alternate suspect......
-
Tell us who is the most likely killer of:
1) Kennedy
2) Tippit
A guy with a gun
-
If that ain't fence-sitting, I don't what is.
So what? What's the problem with that?
Are you of the opinion that you should start an investigation with a pre-determined conclusion?
Oh wait, you're in the WC cult. Of course you believe that.... Forget I asked.
No cult necessary. I'll leave that to the Unholy Knee-taker Sect
'Of course you believe that.... Forget I asked'
>There you go again; can't make up your mind
You won't get anywhere sitting on that fence
fence-sitter
(n.) One who is afraid to have an opinion, and rather, simply points out the flaws of what everyone else is saying.
-
A guy with a gun
Name the guy who shot:
1) Kennedy
2) Tippit*
* Multiple witnesses @Tippit know,
but don't let that get you off your fence
-
No cult necessary. I'll leave that to the Unholy Knee-taker Sect
'Of course you believe that.... Forget I asked'
>There you go again; can't make up your mind
You won't get anywhere sitting on that fence
fence-sitter
(n.) One who is afraid to have an opinion, and rather, simply points out the flaws of what everyone else is saying.
No cult necessary.
That's what all cult members say...
You won't get anywhere sitting on that fence
Who said I wanted to get anywhere?
From the Oxford dictionary;
fence sitter
noun
a person who remains neutral or uncommitted on an issue.
"why don't you make up your mind—you fence sitter!"
Btw the dictionary you used (if you actually used one instead of making it up) really sucks.
-
Name the guy who shot:
1) Kennedy
2) Tippit*
* Multiple witnesses @Tippit know,
but don't let that get you off your fence
Still a guy with a gun
-
Chapman isn’t even good for comic-relief, because he’s not funny.
Well...not funny ha-ha anyway.
Chapman is just a troll.
Wow...why would you ever insult trolls like that?
-
Chapman is just a troll. Reminds me of Sidney Powell since he just throws lots of nonsense around and hopes a little of it sticks. It doesn't and Chapman's arrogant mockery is an insult to all truth seekers. Why would he want to accumulate more bad karma? How about one post that makes some sense?
'How about one post that makes some sense?'
>That's easy: Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
-
Btw the dictionary you used (if you actually used one instead of making it up) really sucks.
What doesn’t Chapman just make up?
Irrational: forming a conclusion based on flawed arguments or ignorance and then pretending that repeating the conclusion over and over again makes it true.
-
What doesn’t Chapman just make up?
Irrational: forming a conclusion based on flawed arguments or ignorance and then pretending that repeating the conclusion over and over again makes it true.
Where did I say that?
-
Where did I say that?
Where did you say what?
-
What doesn’t Chapman just make up?
Irrational: forming a conclusion based on flawed arguments or ignorance and then pretending that repeating the conclusion over and over again makes it true.
Other than my spoofs, which are sarcasm, show what I make up and claim as true
-
Other than my spoofs, which are sarcasm, show what I make up and claim as true
So, there's a lot of stuff you make up and throw out there without claiming it's true?