CE 143

[John Iacoletti]

Distortion by omission is most definitely distortion.

I didn’t omit anything. You made a false claim about Oswald and I corrected you. All the whining and deflection in the world does not change that. Honest people admit it when they make a mistake — they don’t try to change the subject.

The shame is all yours.

[Jerry Freeman]

Walker testified that he had his gun drawn. But he put it in his holster to search the two people in front of LHO.

I mentioned McDonald and you bring up Walker?

[Charles Collins]

I mentioned McDonald and you bring up Walker?

Yes, I sure did. Is that a problem for you?

[Charles Collins]

I didn’t omit anything. You made a false claim about Oswald and I corrected you. All the whining and deflection in the world does not change that. Honest people admit it when they make a mistake — they don’t try to change the subject.

The shame is all yours.

I didn’t omit anything.

Yes you did. McDonald testified that LHO was drawing the revolver. You haven’t accounted for this very important detail by disputing it or including it in your claim. That is omission. All the whining and deflection in the world does not change that.



You made a false claim about Oswald and I corrected you.


I made no false claim. McDonald testified that LHO was drawing the revolver. That’s what I said.

Your “correction” might be better understood if it didn’t omit important details. And it might “have a leg to stand on” if it accounted for the omissions. An honest person would admit his omission - and not try to mislead others.

If you had simply claimed that he didn’t completely pull out a revolver because McDonald intervened, it would be more inclusive of some of McDonald’s important details. Your claim that: He didn't "pull out a revolver" is incomplete and therefore misleading. Intentionally misleading others is dishonest.

[John Iacoletti]

Yes you did. McDonald testified that LHO was drawing the revolver. You haven’t accounted for this very important detail by disputing it or including it in your claim. That is omission. All the whining and deflection in the world does not change that.

You made a false claim which you still have yet to admit. You claimed that Oswald pulled out a revolver. He did not. I corrected your false claim. That doesn’t obligate me to mention any other detail just because you would like me to.

I made no false claim. McDonald testified that LHO was drawing the revolver. That’s what I said.

No, you said “hitting a police officer and pulling out a revolver certainly don’t seem to be the actions that one would expect from an innocent movie goer”.

It is irrelevant what you think he wanted to do. Even if that could somehow be proven, wanting to commit a crime is not actually a crime.

Your “correction” might be better understood if it didn’t omit important details. And it might “have a leg to stand on” if it accounted for the omissions. An honest person would admit his omission - and not try to mislead others.

Misleading others is claiming that somebody “pulled out a revolver” when he did not.

If you had simply claimed that he didn’t completely pull out a revolver because McDonald intervened, it would be more inclusive of some of McDonald’s important details.

He didn’t even partially pull out a revolver. McDonald just thought he was going to. You characterize this as “pulling out a revolver” and you accuse me of leaving out details? You made a statement that was blatantly false. I made a true statement that you wish I had elaborated more on.

[Richard Smith]

I didn’t omit anything.

Yes you did. McDonald testified that LHO was drawing the revolver. You haven’t accounted for this very important detail by disputing it or including it in your claim. That is omission. All the whining and deflection in the world does not change that.



You made a false claim about Oswald and I corrected you.


I made no false claim. McDonald testified that LHO was drawing the revolver. That’s what I said.

Your “correction” might be better understood if it didn’t omit important details. And it might “have a leg to stand on” if it accounted for the omissions. An honest person would admit his omission - and not try to mislead others.

If you had simply claimed that he didn’t completely pull out a revolver because McDonald intervened, it would be more inclusive of some of McDonald’s important details. Your claim that: He didn't "pull out a revolver" is incomplete and therefore misleading. Intentionally misleading others is dishonest.

This is where the contrarians go round and round deflecting the discussion onto some pedantic point to ignore the evidence that Oswald fled the TSBD, got a gun, shot a police officer, snuck into a movie theatre, and then engaged in a struggle with police officers without even bothering to find out what they wanted.  Nothing to see there.  Just a normal day.  Instead page after page will be filled with pedantic nitpicking as to whether Oswald drew his gun or only had his hand on it.  LOL.  No logical inference can be allowed when it comes to Oswald's guilt. 

[John Iacoletti]

“Logical inference” is “Richard”-speak for making up a story about what somebody wanted to do and calling that evidence for murdering the president and a cop.

If your fragile ego can’t stand being “nitpicked”, then don’t make false claims to begin with. It’s really that simple.

[Charles Collins]

You made a false claim which you still have yet to admit. You claimed that Oswald pulled out a revolver. He did not. I corrected your false claim. That doesn’t obligate me to mention any other detail just because you would like me to.

No, you said “hitting a police officer and pulling out a revolver certainly don’t seem to be the actions that one would expect from an innocent movie goer”.

It is irrelevant what you think he wanted to do. Even if that could somehow be proven, wanting to commit a crime is not actually a crime.

Misleading others is claiming that somebody “pulled out a revolver” when he did not.

He didn’t even partially pull out a revolver. McDonald just thought he was going to. You characterize this as “pulling out a revolver” and you accuse me of leaving out details? You made a statement that was blatantly false. I made a true statement that you wish I had elaborated more on.

You made a false claim which you still have yet to admit. You claimed that Oswald pulled out a revolver. He did not. I corrected your false claim. That doesn’t obligate me to mention any other detail just because you would like me to.


I made no false claim and you most certainly didn't correct anything. An honest person should feel obligated to include or dispute important details. Your refusal to do so, even after being informed of the omission, clearly shows us that you intend to mislead others. That's dishonest.



No, you said “hitting a police officer and pulling out a revolver certainly don’t seem to be the actions that one would expect from an innocent movie goer”.

It is irrelevant what you think he wanted to do. Even if that could somehow be proven, wanting to commit a crime is not actually a crime.


It was a crime for LHO to be simply carrying a concealed firearm. And he admitted that he did and he knew it was a crime. On top of that McDonald testified that he was drawing it (after LHO had already assaulted him). It isn't "what I think he wanted to do" It's what he did do. Your freaking innocent LHO wasn't innocent at all, period.



Misleading others is claiming that somebody “pulled out a revolver” when he did not.


McDonald said that he was drawing (aka: pulling) the revolver. That's what I said. If you think that is trying to mislead anyone, you are dead wrong.



He didn’t even partially pull out a revolver. McDonald just thought he was going to. You characterize this as “pulling out a revolver” and you accuse me of leaving out details? You made a statement that was blatantly false. I made a true statement that you wish I had elaborated more on.


These are not details that I left out. How could I, they are only delusions in your mind. Witnesses said LHO hit McDonald then grabbed the revolver. And McDonald intervened and testified that LHO was drawing the revolver. My statement reflects what McDonald testified to therefore it is not false.

If you want to believe that, somehow, after hitting McDonald and grabbing the revolver LHO didn't intend to pull it out, then go right ahead. But trying to mislead others into believing this nonsense by omitting important details is dishonest.