Why is Ruth Paine still alive?

[John Iacoletti]

Martin said previously that he isn't a conspiracy theorist because he doesn't have a theory, even though his theory is there was a conspiracy, so go figure?
I recall that Iacoletti subscribes to the same mindset.
Strange isn't it!

Neither one of us have a conspiracy theory.  This is just the usual "Mytton" misinformation.

"Conspiracy theorist" is a euphemism among the LN-faithful to mean "dares to question any aspect of our theology".

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin said previously that he isn't a conspiracy theorist because he doesn't have a theory, even though his theory is there was a conspiracy, so go figure?
I recall that Iacoletti subscribes to the same mindset.
Strange isn't it!

JohnM

even though his theory is there was a conspiracy

Where and when exactly did I tell you this?

Or did you make it up?

[John Mytton]

I have already told you.  Conlusive evidence is selfexplanatory and doesn't require long winded explanations and assumptions

I'm still not clear what you believe is "Conclusive Evidence"?

Btw, I would still like to know the difference between "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and "guilty beyond all doubt", and the level and type of evidence required for each standard?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm still not clear what you believe is "Conclusive Evidence"?

Btw, I would still like to know the difference between "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and "guilty beyond all doubt", and the level and type of evidence required for each standard?

JohnM

What part of;

Conclusive evidence is selfexplanatory and doesn't require long winded explanations and assumptions

don't you understand?

[Martin Weidmann]

You have a typo.

Thank you for pointing it out!

[John Mytton]

Thank you for pointing it out!

Not to be picky, but there is another.

JohnM

[Richard Smith]

The contrarians have taken another thread deep down the rabbit hole wherein we have learned that "conclusive evidence" is "self explanatory."  In addition, someone can participate on an Internet forum for years discussing the JFK assassination and interpreting the evidence in tens of thousands of posts in only the most favorable light to Oswald and "not care" who did it or consider themselves a CTer!  LOL.  That's called eating your cake and having it too.  Applying an impossible standard of proof to the facts that you do not want to accept, entertaining baseless counter possibilities, and then refusing to take any position because of the obvious difficulty in defending that position with any facts or evidence much less the standard applied to Oswald's guilt.  Round and round we go down the drain of another rabbit hole.

[Martin Weidmann]

The contrarians have taken another thread deep down the rabbit hole wherein we have learned that "conclusive evidence" is "self explanatory."  In addition, someone can participate on an Internet forum for years discussing the JFK assassination and interpreting the evidence in tens of thousands of posts in only the most favorable light to Oswald and "not care" who did it or consider themselves a CTer!  LOL.  That's called eating your cake and having it too.  Applying an impossible standard of proof to the facts that you do not want to accept, entertaining baseless counter possibilities, and then refusing to take any position because of the obvious difficulty in defending that position with any facts or evidence much less the standard applied to Oswald's guilt.  Round and round we go down the drain of another rabbit hole.

Did somebody just say anything of significance?