On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 6:34:35 PM UTC-4,
chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 9:22:36 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Found in the censored forum...
> >
> > >Many conspiracy theorists seem to enjoy attempting to exonerate a
> > >double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald when it comes to the two killings
> > >he committed on 11/22/63.
> >
> >
> > How can you "exonerate" a man never convicted of a crime?
> >
> >
> > >Rabid CTers will do everything they can to skew the reality of the events
> > >that occurred on that autumn day in 1963 -- meaning: many CTers will take
> > >the massive supply of physical and circumstantial evidence (which is
> > >evidence that indicates, without any doubt, that a man with the initials
> > >"LHO" murdered two people on November 22nd) and attempt to taint all of
> > >this "official" evidence by casting doubt on the reliability of every
> > >single scrap of it (particularly the ballistics/bullet evidence in both
> > >the JFK and Tippit crimes, which is evidence that leads to only guns owned
> > >by Lee Harvey Oswald).
> >
> >
> > Here we see an example of this "skewing" of the evidence. David knows
> > quite well the MASSIVE amount of evidence that Oswald never owned the
> > Mannlicher Carcano... yet merely assumes that which he knows he can't
> > prove.
>
>
>
> There isn't any evidence that points away from Oswald as the owner of the weapon. It's as conclusive and ironclad as it can get.
> >
>
>
> >
> > >Is that the way to realistically approach a murder case? Is it reasonable
> > >to think that many, many people "plotted" to frame an innocent man named
> > >Oswald by planting several pieces of evidence favoring his guilt?
> >
> >
> > The idea that the DPD intentionally "plotted" to frame an innocent man
> > is a *very* dishonest assertion by David.
>
>
> That's not his assertion, asshole, it's the assertion of Oswald Lovers like yourself. Read for comprehension.
Exactly, Chuck. The stump named Holmes is actually berating **ME** for simply pointing out something that HE HIMSELF believes---i.e., that an INNOCENT Oswald was framed for both JFK's and Tippit's murders. Geez, what a stump.
>
> >
> > [Not to mention that it could be done by just a couple of men... not
> > "many many people"...]
>
>
> Are they part of your twelve men?
>
>
> >
> > Police don't frame "innocent" men... they "improve" the evidence to
> > "help" them convict a suspect that they FIRMLY believe is the guilty
> > party.
>
>
> Um, improving the evidence to help convict an innocent man that would be called FRAMING, you little twerp.
>
>
> >
> > David will *NEVER* produce a case where the police intentionally
> > plotted to frame someone they *KNEW* was innocent.
>
>
> Perhaps because he's discussing the JFK case, not some random case.
>
>
> >
> > DAVID WILL **NEVER** PRODUCE A CASE WHERE THE POLICE INTENTIONALLY
> > PLOTTED TO FRAME SOMEONE THEY **KNEW** WAS INNOCENT.
>
>
> Perhaps because he's discussing the JFK case, not some random case.
>
>
> >
> > In other words, David is lying, and he *KNOWS* he's lying.
>
>
> In other words, the little twerp Tiny Dancer, can't read for comprehension. Read before you spout, junior.
>
>
> >
> >
> > This is the sort of lies and misleading statements that you find all
> > the time from believers... they can't make their case with the truth,
> > so they are CONSTANTLY lying... sometimes small little lies such as
> > this example, other times - they tell WHOPPERS - such as Chucky's
> > recent claim that Kilduff got his information from Perry.
>
>
> That's what the man said.
>
> By the way Burkley also is apparently the source to Kilduff that JFK was only shot once. You don't believe that, do you? You're cherry-picking. Why not understand that first statements in this type of story are often erroneous, though not intentionally, and that statements need to be sorted later for accuracy. That's why we investigate and don't go by first impressions. Sometimes first impressions are accurate, other times they are not.
>
>
> >
> > >In my view, that crazy conspiracy approach is just downright silly. (Not
> > >to mention wholly unsupportable and unprovable.)
> >
> > If conspiracy actually *were* unsupportable, then you wouldn't be
> > TERRIFIED to debate the topic.
>
>
> Apparently the person terrified to debate is you. You've never come up with an alternate theory other than "twelve people did a bunch of shit on 11/22/63 and it's been covered up for over 50 years."