More Fake Pictures of Oswald

[Steve Howsley]

How many times did you have to edit that one?
Just lift the rabbits tail ...it was there all the time.

So should I put you down as someone knowingly trying to pass off fake photos as evidence or someone sucked in by a cheap transparent con? It's one or the other.

[Jerry Freeman]

....  pass off fake photos.. 

So you do admit that they are fakes I've been trying to show that all this time.
 
 

[John Mytton]

So you do admit that they are fakes I've been trying to show that all this time.

You were caught posting a comparison that even a trained monkey could see was just a flipped image and you couldn't even tell the difference. Hilarious

JohnM

[Jerry Freeman]

.... even a trained monkey could see  ....

So you admit you are just another trained monkey
I know of course that the pictures are reversed ..that they are fake and BTW that Rodney Dangerfield had passed away. You seem to be just pulling your hair out sometimes Ha Ha

[John Mytton]

I know of course that the pictures are reversed ..that they are fake

Stop the BS, you didn't have a clue.

JohnM

[Bill Chapman]

How cute:  "I know you are but what am I?"

When did I ever make the claim that Oswald is innocent?  Your inability to show that he was guilty (even by lying about the evidence) is your problem, not mine.

'lying'*

Says the guy who claimed Oswald's kids were too old to need a babysitter (and thereby falsely attaching a sinister motive to Ruth's presence)

And are you declaring this forum a court of law, barrister? It's seems more a forum of public opinion.

As I've said many times before, I've never said I could prove anything here. I've never gotten any further than 'probably'... just the same as the WC's 'probably' and the HSCA's 'likely'... despite your insistence that those bodies somehow had to prove Oswald guilty.

*According to your interpretation of the evidence, or the actual evidence? You, who tells us what witnesses really saw, or didn't see. We are not impressed.

[John Iacoletti]

'lying'*

Says the guy who claimed Oswald's kids were too old to need a babysitter (and thereby falsely attaching a sinister motive to Ruth's presence)

Speaking of lies, there's another one.  I never said anything of the kind.  Go back to gorillas playing basketball.

And are you declaring this forum a court of law, barrister? It's seems more a forum of public opinion.

As I've said many times before, I've never said I could prove anything here. I've never gotten any further than 'probably'... just the same as the WC's 'probably' and the HSCA's 'likely'... despite your insistence that those bodies somehow had to prove Oswald guilty.

What do you base your "probably" on, then?  Or do you feel no need to justify even that?

*According to your interpretation of the evidence, or the actual evidence? You, who tells us what witnesses really saw, or didn't see. We are not impressed.

Says the guy who suggested that Frazier saw something different from what he said but lied about it to cover his ass.

It's really simple.  Go to Dealey Plaza, sit where Brennan was.  Have a buddy go up to a 6th floor window of the TSBD (you'll have to pick a different window) and crouch down behind a stack of boxes and pretend to fire a rifle down Elm street and see if you can see him from the belt up.

[John Mytton]

And are you declaring this forum a court of law, barrister? It's seems more a forum of public opinion.

Agreed, all these guys like to pretend that they're big shot lawyers and make believe that they're Oswald's defence attorney, it's actually quite comical.

JohnM