One poster created 52 percent of our 208 threads. A concern? Do we have to beg?

[John Anderson]

That's a circular argument.  Nobody (not even Brennan) claimed to see any shots fired from that location.

Agreed.  I'm not sure why most LNers won't even concede this.

If my use of the word shooter annoys you tough titty, but I'll explain myself again for your circular benefit. Brennan claimed to see a man with a rifle at that window and three cases were found at that window. So Brennan saw something at that window. Or he was ''in on it' along with half of Dallas.

[Tom Scully]

I posted this on the Caprio authored "Zangretti" thread because what is presented in that thread proves my point....
....no evidence is ever enough to move this poster from the inaccurate or deliberately false opinions and details he posts
once he digs in, irrationally intent on marginalizing himself.

Our asset to the forum posted this "gem" a few hours ago on another thread.

Quote from: Rob Caprio on February 23, 2018,

I have never been shown to be inaccurate as Scully claims. All he has  done is present evidence he finds compelling, but it isn't proof. There is still a good bit of doubt. He just wants me to agree with his *opinion* and that is not going to happen.

I have said numerous times the subjects he stalks me with are inconsequential in the big picture. This isn't about correcting the record, but rather about trying to discredit me because he can't do it with actual evidence.

All this is ridiculous. He thinks that I am NOT entitled to my opinion, but he is allowed to his.

I prove my opinion and you are not entitled to cling stubbornly to inaccurate BS without it costing you your credibility.

He has shilled this particular fable since at least 2008. No quality of evidence or proof is adequate to persuade him not to post the nonsense
on display in his post earlier today! (quote above)

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.conspiracy.jfk/MgvVGfm6RtU
robcap...@netscape.com
8/14/08

He was a Chicago mobster who worked as a manager of a modular motel
complex near Lake Lugert, OK.  He will tell friends of his that "three
other men -- NOT Oswald-- killed the president."  He also tells them
that a "man named Ruby will kill Oswald tomorrow (11/24/63)."
Sounds pretty convincing to me but of course LNers have said this is
not the truth and they have tried to show he was off base.  Two things
make me believe him (and being a CT kook is NOT one of them).  Firstly
he also mentioned this tidbit:  "...and in a few days a member of
Frank Sinatra's family will be kidnappd just to take some of the
attention away from the assassination."  Now even Kreskin couldn't
predict this wild stuff accurately, but it did happen.  Frank Sinatra
Jr. was kidnapped and here is the story:
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=1214
Frank Sinatra had as many mob ties as Ruby (maybe more) so this makes
sense to me.
The second thing that makes me believe him is the fact he found
floating in a swimming pool with bullet holes in his chest a few weeks
after saying these things.  Witnesses will say it looked like he was
"floating" for at least a week, but maybe two (meaning he could have
been killed shortly after making these statements.  Being killed as a
way of validating what you say in my book.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

 

If my use of the word shooter annoys you tough titty, but I'll explain myself again for your circular benefit. Brennan claimed to see a man with a rifle at that window and three cases were found at that window. So Brennan saw something at that window. Or he was ''in on it' along with half of Dallas.

Dallas Morning News reporter Hugh Aynesworth was watching the motorcade on Houston Street as he heard shots fired. He immediately ran to the TSBD building - he said he was there within a minute of the shooting - and started to interview the people there. Here is his account of seeing Brennan:


So before ANY evidence was found - and while many people were running towards the grassy knoll or the parking lot behind it - Brennan was pointing out that he saw a shooter in the building. He just got lucky, then, that other corroborating evidence supports his account.

The claim, then, that right after the shooting - within a minute - Brennan decided to just make a story up about seeing a shooter defies logic, credibility and common sense. In conspiracy world those aren't allowed.

Although, of course, Aynesworth is also accused of being a liar and, in fact, has been accused of being a CIA asset.

[John Anderson]

Steve M. Galbraith you need to follow the thread. You seem to think I believe Brennan didn't see anything.
 

[Richard Smith]

If my use of the word shooter annoys you tough titty, but I'll explain myself again for your circular benefit. Brennan claimed to see a man with a rifle at that window and three cases were found at that window. So Brennan saw something at that window. Or he was ''in on it' along with half of Dallas.

Using John I's nutty standard, no one saw John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln.  They just heard a shot and turned at that instant to see Booth pointing a smoking gun at Lincoln's head.  We can't rule out the possibility, therefore, that Lincoln committed suicide and Booth could have been approaching at that very instant to shake his hand.  Booth then had the misfortune to pick the pistol up after Lincoln shot himself.  He then realized it looked bad and panicked by running away.  It's possible - right?  No one could disprove it to John's subjective satisfaction.  I bet he could even find some witness who couldn't describe Booth's clothing with 100% accuracy.  John is a lazy contrarian taking issue with everything. 

[John Anderson]

Booth was a patsy and his mum was an imposter.

[Tom Scully]

Steve M. Galbraith you need to follow the thread. You seem to think I believe Brennan didn't see anything.

....vs. Brennan, September, 1964:

[John Anderson]

What's yout point?