Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: The preponderance of the evidence  (Read 52620 times)

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1094
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #184 on: April 04, 2019, 11:23:53 PM »
Advertisement
No credible evidence of a conspiracy is why I believe he did it alone.

So you don't think LBJ is credible? Because on April 3, 1967, he told his aide Marvin Watson that he was convinced that there was a conspiracy involved in JFK's assassination and that the CIA was involved in some way.

If you think that LBJ isn't credible then how can you believe the WC's conclusion when he created it?
« Last Edit: April 04, 2019, 11:24:21 PM by Rob Caprio »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #184 on: April 04, 2019, 11:23:53 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #185 on: April 04, 2019, 11:45:17 PM »
Did you not read the earlier comments where Martin went on a rant about no one asking Oswald about where he purchased the pistol?

You keep quoting Mae Brussell's invented dialog.  Here's what Fritz's report actually said:

"I asked him again why he carried the pistol to the show. He refused to answer questions about the pistol. He did tell me, however, that he had bought it several months before in Fort Worth, Texas."

There's nothing in there about Oswald refusing to tell Fritz where in Fort Worth the pistol was purchased.  Or of Fritz even asking him that.

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3778
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #186 on: April 04, 2019, 11:52:05 PM »
I did?.

Jack never said anything about a conspiracy and neither John or Jack made any "he did it alone" comment, which according to you would have been better worded by "there was no conspiracy?.

The only person to bring up that there was no conspiracy was you.

A patsy isn?t possible without a conspiracy.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #186 on: April 04, 2019, 11:52:05 PM »


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3778
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #187 on: April 04, 2019, 11:54:16 PM »
So you don't think LBJ is credible? Because on April 3, 1967, he told his aide Marvin Watson that he was convinced that there was a conspiracy involved in JFK's assassination and that the CIA was involved in some way.

If you think that LBJ isn't credible then how can you believe the WC's conclusion when he created it?

Did LBJ provide any credible evidence to support his opinion?

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #188 on: April 04, 2019, 11:57:14 PM »
A patsy isn?t possible without a conspiracy.

How are you defining conspiracy?  Patsy just means somebody who is blamed for doing something they didn't do.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #188 on: April 04, 2019, 11:57:14 PM »


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3778
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #189 on: April 05, 2019, 12:17:16 AM »
How are you defining conspiracy?  Patsy just means somebody who is blamed for doing something they didn't do.

Who would be doing the blaming/framing in this case other than the conspirators?
« Last Edit: April 05, 2019, 12:21:17 AM by Charles Collins »

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #190 on: April 05, 2019, 12:30:52 AM »

A patsy isn?t possible without a conspiracy.


And so you did in fact claim there was no conspiracy!

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3778
Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #191 on: April 05, 2019, 12:44:09 AM »
And so you did in fact claim there was no conspiracy!

No I didn?t.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The preponderance of the evidence
« Reply #191 on: April 05, 2019, 12:44:09 AM »