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

[John Iacoletti]

Show us where I claim that any one of the Bug53, in isolation, proves Oswald guilty
Show us where I claim that an accumulated Bug53 would be needed to convict
Show us where Bugliosi himself claimed that his accumulated Bug53 was needed to convict

Show us where I ever said I could prove Oswald guilty
Show us where I said my conclusion was 'somehow more correct'

Oswald probably did it
Just sayin'
 

I didn't say anything about evidence "needed to convict".  So why do you think Oswald probably did it?

[Bill Chapman]

I didn't say anything about evidence "needed to convict".  So why do you think Oswald probably did it?

You can do it yourself... just strip the Bug53 down to those that wouldn't be admitted as evidence in your opinion. Just don't run your broken-record piecemeal schtick again.

'What's pitiful is that you think this makes your conclusion somehow more correct'.
>>> Again, show us where I ever claimed that my conclusions are 'more correct' than anyone else's

'I didn't say anything about evidence "needed to convict'
>>> Then why describe the coke/dr pepper thing as if was needed as evidence of murder? You are playing with words so as to avoid having to show where I ever said any separate Bug53 item could prove anything at all in and of itself.

'So why do you think Oswald probably did it?'
>>> Yawn. Rinse & repeat. You must be behind on your quota.

[Bill Chapman]

Oswald probably did it
Just sayin'

BS... your posting history clearly shows that you absolutely believe that Oswald killed Kennedy, but you are too much of a coward to come out and say it, because the implication of that would be that you need to provide supporting evidence for your claim and you know full well you haven't got any.

And so, you hide behind the word "probably". Pathetic 

'coward'

LOL

Others here claim they 'know' this or that
If anything, seems to me that I'm cutting your boy a little slack here

 

[Martin Weidmann]

'coward'

LOL

Others here claim they 'know' this or that
If anything, seems that I'm cutting your boy a little slack here

 

He's not "my boy" and the use of the word "seems" is absolutely correct, because in reality you are not cutting anybody a little slack?.

You just pretend you do, whilst at the same time following the die hard LN guide line of constantly asking to be proven wrong.....

[Bill Chapman]

He's not "my boy" and the use of the word "seems" is absolutely correct, because in reality you are not cutting anybody a little slack?.

You just pretend you do, whilst at the same time following the die hard LN guide line of constantly asking to be proven wrong.....

Not even a probable shooter yet, Martin?
What... too soon?

[John Iacoletti]

You can do it yourself... just strip the Bug53 down to those that wouldn't be admitted as evidence in your opinion. Just don't run your broken-record piecemeal schtick again.

You haven't been paying attention.  What anyone thinks "would be admitted as evidence" is irrelevant.  Why didn't Bugliosi strip down his own list instead of padding it with nonsense?  The answer is obvious:  there'd be very little left.

Again, show us where I ever claimed that my conclusions are 'more correct' than anyone else's

Great - we have your opinion with no reasons given for believing that your opinion is true or likely to be true, or has any merit whatsoever.  Ok, enjoy your baseless opinion.

Then why describe the coke/dr pepper thing as if was needed as evidence of murder?

Because Bugliosi claims that it is evidence of murder, and you keep crowing about considering everything (which includes the Dr Pepper rhetoric) in combination as if that somehow makes it all relevant.

You are playing with words so as to avoid having to show where I ever said any separate Bug53 item could prove anything at all in and of itself.

Bugliosi did.  By defending his list, you're defending his inclusion.  If you don't defend what he calls "evidence" then just say so.

'So why do you think Oswald probably did it?'
>>> Yawn. Rinse & repeat. You must be behind on your quota.

Yeah, that's what I thought.  You have your belief and have never provided any justification for it.  At all.  Ever.

[John Iacoletti]

You just pretend you do, whilst at the same time following the die hard LN guide line of constantly asking to be proven wrong.....

Bill is "probably right" until you can come up with a different "probable" answer.  Why?  Just 'cause.

 

[Martin Weidmann]

Not even a probable shooter yet, Martin?
What... too soon?

Running home to LN central?