Historian explains the mind of Conspiracy Nuts - CBS 1967

[Thomas Graves]

Oswald's movements and actions--after the assassination shots were fired from the TSBD--are evidence.

Explain why this piece of evidence is not, in your opinion, evidence:

 -- Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to shoot officer Nick McDonald with his (Oswald's) revolver when about to be arrested.

Ross,

You need to realize that Iacoletti believes several hundred people participated in the assassination and/or the coverup, and that Officer McDonald was just one of them.

--  MWT 

[Ross Lidell]

Ross,

You need to realize that Iacoletti believes several hundred people participated in the assassination and/or the coverup, and that Officer McDonald was just one of them.

--  MWT 

Thomas,

Appreciate your comments. Nothing against John... but it's difficult to understand his stance other than he derives devilish glee from being totally obstinate towards reality.

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas,

Appreciate your comments. Nothing against John... but it's difficult to understand his stance other than he derives devilish glee from being totally obstinate.

Ross,

He's a hair-splitter extraordinaire (when it suits his purposes), and an incredibly gullible Oswald defender who believes that hundreds of people were involved in the framing of poor Lee, the assassination itself, and the all-important cover up.

--  MWT 

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald's movements and actions--after the assassination shots were fired from the TSBD--are evidence.

Explain why this piece of evidence is not, in your opinion, evidence:

 -- Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to shoot officer Nick McDonald with his (Oswald's) revolver when about to be arrested.

Because claims aren’t evidence. The claim that Oswald attempted to shoot McDonald is nothing but an assumption based on some people hearing a click in the theater during a struggle in which many hands were on a gun. I don’t know how you determine intent from that.

But let’s say that it was irrefutable that Oswald tried to shoot McDonald. That would tell you exactly nothing about who killed Kennedy.

[John Iacoletti]

You need to realize that Iacoletti believes several hundred people participated in the assassination and/or the coverup, and that Officer McDonald was just one of them.

You need to realize that Graves makes up false crap like this and states it as a fact, purely for the purpose of disrupting conversations.

Just like he takes his own wild-ass guesses about who is who in blurry photos and states those as facts.

Get a life, Graves.

[John Iacoletti]

Appreciate your comments. Nothing against John... but it's difficult to understand his stance other than he derives devilish glee from being totally obstinate towards reality.

Ross, it’s equally difficult for me to understand how you automatically equate assumptions and conjecture with reality.

[Walt Cakebread]

Ross, it’s equally difficult for me to understand how you automatically equate assumptions and conjecture with reality.

What is reality? ......   A mutually agreed on solution to a problem? ....   The Lner's accept the solution offered by LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee of Honorable and venerated men.    ( aka The warren Report)      Is that reality??

[John Iacoletti]

What is reality? ......   A mutually agreed on solution to a problem? ....   The Lner's accept the solution offered by LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee of Honorable and venerated men.    ( aka The warren Report)      Is that reality??

No, that would be the ad populum fallacy. A claim doesn’t become true just because a bunch of people have the same opinion about it.