Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"

[Bill Chapman]

Unfortunately we CTs can't prove Oswald didn't do it, as it is exceedingly difficult to prove a negative. However you, Feluccas are in a worse  boat as you can't prove he did it either, despite you having to prove a positive.

They say it only takes a minute to die

[Martin Weidmann]

Your truth equates with Oswald not being a lone gunman

Where did I attach guilt to 'prime suspect'

Yeah, you characters don't have a case to prove but want LNers to prove your speculations wrong.
Fun being a CTer, isn't it.

Where do the 'inconclusives' prove Oswald innocent?
Why do you ignore the 'can't rule out' that accompany those 'inconclusives'?

Your truth equates with Oswald not being a lone gunman

First of all, you haven't got a clue about what my truth is and what it equates to.... All you can do is speculate and guess, which is actually not all that unusual for an LN

Where did I attach guilt to 'prime suspect'

You didn't.. at least not directly. I just helped you out in case you ever wanted to go there?.

Yeah, you characters don't have a case to prove but want LNers to prove your speculations wrong.


I'm glad you agree that non-LNs (which I think you mean by "you characters") don't have to prove anything!

As for LNs proving speculations wrong.... Reasonable doubt is actually a kind of speculation about the probative value of the evidence presented! And with that in mind; yes, you are right... LNs should be able to prove their case, if it really is as solid as they pretend it to be. Makes one wonder why they never ever are able to do so..

Fun being a CTer, isn't it.

I wouldn't know? Fun labeling people CT's just because they don't agree with you?

Where do the 'inconclusives' prove Oswald innocent?

They don't... just like they don't prove his guilt either.

Why do you ignore the 'can't rule out' that accompany those 'inconclusives'?

What did I ignore? I don't attach silly conclusions to them, like you do, but that does not mean I ignore anything, so why don't you give an example of a "can't rule out inconclusiveness" that I have ever ignored?

[Jerry Freeman]

  It certainly is better than to have to parrot the WC endlessly, and mindlessly, 

Uh Ray...it's not 'parrot' anymore. It's lemmings now. You know..they jumped off the cliff after drinking the Warren Commission kool-aid.
Boogerlosi wrote Reclaiming the Yarn. [making stuff up]
Stovall did not refer to Oswald as a 'trouble maker' in his testimony before the Commission.

Mr. JENNER. He was prompt and worked every day and had little in the way of absenteeism?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. Mr. Graef said that he sought overtime employment; do you recall that?
Mr. STOVALL. Only by his statements that he made it known that he was available to work on SaPersonay and he simply had a wife and kid and needed the money and I'm sure that he did, as far as that goes, because of the rate of pay he was working, living in these times, it didn't go very far.
Mr. JENNER. Your overall impression is that he was an industrious person?
Mr. STOVALL. He was inefficient--I wouldn't say he was industrious--if he would have maybe applied himself at least--he was inept in this particular craft.

[Bill Chapman]

Bug Non Sequitur #23: Oswald's job seeking proves he wasn't part of a conspiracy.

You guys keep assuming his job at the TSBD was a fluke and there were no handlers ready to relocate him to the TSBD if Plan A in Chicago got nixed, which it did.

That said, October 4, 1963 Oswald applied for a job at Padgett Printing but was not hired because of a poor recommendation by the owner of Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. Stovall was a police detective with the DPD who was involved with the search of the Paine household in November 1963. He used 2 negatives to make a 5"x8"print of the BYP CE 133-A and an 8"x10" print of the infamous CE 133-C. WTF? Did Stovall prevent Oswald from getting the job so he would be available for the TSBD? And how did Stovall know Oswald?

"the owner of Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. Stovall was a police detective with the DPD"

You damn liar. There are two different Stovalls. You are attempting to make them appear to be one and the same. You are not to be trusted.

Stovall, Richard S.
Member, Dallas Police Department.

Stovall, Robert L.   
President, Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall

[Jerry Freeman]

You damn liar. 

    'That's wrong' would have sufficed.

 

[Bill Chapman]

    'That's wrong' would have sufficed.

Says the guy who dismisses LNers as lemmings and parrots. And calls Bug a liar who makes things up.  So no, 'that's wrong' does not suffice.

Well, we lemmings do our research. Trojan has purposely left out the first names of both Stovalls, hoping that no one will check that. A typical CTer feint.

[Jack Trojan]

Says the guy who dismisses LNers as lemmings and parrots. And calls Bug a liar who makes things up.  So no, 'that's wrong' does not suffice.

Well, we lemmings do our research. Trojan has purposely left out the first names of both Stovalls, hoping that no one will check that. A typical CTer feint.

I just made a false assumption like every LNer does here. Stovall isn't exactly a common name. So every time you are mistaken (which is all the bloody time) you're a damn liar? Aren't you taking this a little too personally, dufus?

"Well, we lemmings do our research." 

[Jerry Freeman]

Says the guy who dismisses LNers as lemmings and parrots. And calls Bug a liar who makes things up.  So no, 'that's wrong' does not suffice.

Well, we lemmings do our research. Trojan has purposely left out the first names of both Stovalls, hoping that no one will check that. A typical CTer feint.

?Bob Stovall [the president of Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall, where Oswald previously worked] does not recommend this man. He was released [there] because of his record as a troublemaker.? Stovall also informed Padgett that Oswald had ?communistic tendencies.?

Find and post a link that cites this officially and I will apologize for calling you a lemming.