What?s the MINIMUM number of people required for your CT to work?

[Bill Chapman]

That's a Bugliosi strawman.  Quote anybody ever actually proposing this or

You'd love me to shut up
Seems some ppl here are getting under your skin
Oh yeah, everybody that disagrees with you

[John Iacoletti]

You'd love me to shut up
Seems some ppl here are getting under your skin
Oh yeah, everybody that disagrees with you

Yeah, that's what I thought.  You can't quote anyone ever in the history of assassination lore who ever claimed that JFK was assassinated by 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators.

And neither can Bugliosi.

But anything to distract from your inability to prove your case.

[Bill Chapman]

Quote me or anybody else here saying that "the eyewitnesses against Oswald all lied" or you too can .

Do you guys ever get tired of making up strawmen to argue against?

How is leaving money for one's wife evidence of murder?  Apparently it is when that's all you've got.

"How is leaving money for one's wife evidence of murder?"

>>>On its own? Where did anyone say that?

[Bill Chapman]

Yeah, that's what I thought.  You can't quote anyone ever in the history of assassination lore who ever claimed that JFK was assassinated by 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators.

And neither can Bugliosi.

But anything to distract from your inability to prove your case.

LOL

Where did Bugliosi claim or imply that all 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators were involved? Or that ANY were involved? Are you that stupid? Bug is pro-Oswald-lone-killer-no-conspiracy-needed. FFS.
 
The point is that there are so many CT-claimed conspiracies, claimed conspirators, and claimed shooters emanating from thousands of conspiracy books .... ALL leading nowhere.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

"How is leaving money for one's wife evidence of murder?"

>>>On its own? Where did anyone say that?

Again, he characterizes Oswald leaving nearly all of his money - $1200 in today's dollars - as simply a husband leaving his wife money. And he did so the day of the assassination and not, as Marina said he usually did, on Monday. He was, she said, going to see her that weekend. So, why not leave it on the Monday? Per the usual routine?

And then he isolates this act out of the other evidence of Oswald's behavior and activity. And says how does this - and this alone - prove anything. Even though no one said this and this alone proves he shot JFK.

We are trying to reason with someone who looks at the evidence this way.

It can't be done.

[Bill Chapman]

Again, he characterizes Oswald leaving nearly all of his money - $1200 in today's dollars - as simply a husband leaving his wife money.

And then he isolates this act out of the other evidence of Oswald's behavior and activity. And says how does this - and this alone - prove anything. Even though no one said this and this alone proves he shot JFK.

We are trying to reason with someone who looks at the evidence this way.

It can't be done.

That's 'GeeItsFunToTrollHereJohnny' for you.

[John Iacoletti]

The point is that there are so many CT-claimed conspiracies, claimed conspirators, and claimed shooters emanating from thousands of conspiracy books .... ALL leading nowhere.

As does the claim that Oswald shot JFK.  What's your point?

But where did you pull the "42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators" nonsense from?

[John Iacoletti]

Again, he characterizes Oswald leaving nearly all of his money - $1200 in today's dollars - as simply a husband leaving his wife money. And he did so the day of the assassination and not, as Marina said he usually did, on Monday. He was, she said, going to see her that weekend. So, why not leave it on the Monday? Per the usual routine?

I'll ask again, because you're determined to avoid the question.  How is this evidence of murder?

And then he isolates this act out of the other evidence of Oswald's behavior and activity. And says how does this - and this alone - prove anything. Even though no one said this and this alone proves he shot JFK.

Even in combination, your argument is "I don't believe an innocent person would do X, therefore he killed JFK".  That's not evidence, it's rhetoric.  You can't "reason" your way into making evidence of something that is not evidence.