Why Do Conspiracy Theorists Play By These Silly Rules?
David Von Pein
>>> "How do you explain that the DPD/FBI found no oil or instruments to clean a rifle at either Oak Cliff or Irving?" <<<
It proves nothing. That's nothing more than another one of the many,
many very weak "chaff" arguments that have been dredged up by
conspiracy theorists since 1963.
There's no rule in the "Assassin's Guidebook" that demands Oswald have
oil or cleaning implements at his home(s) to use on his weapons.
The much BETTER evidence is: We know Lee Harvey Oswald owned and
possessed both the S&W .38 revolver and Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
#C2766 in 1963. That's an undeniable fact...with or without a few
cleaning supplies at the ready.
Plus: Why do CTers think that EVERY last question MUST be officially
answered with ironclad certainty in order to arrive at a reasonable
conclusion with respect to virtually every aspect of this murder case?
Can you think of ANY other case in history where the jury at a murder
trial had to have EVERY SINGLE LAST QUESTION MARK associated with the
whole case totally eradicated in order to arrive at a "Guilty Beyond
Reasonable Doubt" verdict?
If the ultra-demanding criteria that CTers insist be met by LNers
regarding every last question in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases
were ever to be applied to a "regular" (non-"sensational") murder case
anywhere else in the world, all prisons would be empty....because no
killer could ever be convicted when utilizing the ridiculous "ALL
QUESTION MARKS MUST BE COMPLETELY ELIMINATED" rules that are often
imposed by JFK conspiracy theorists.
eca...@tx.rr.com
Both good points/posts by DVP and Chuck.
Thanks,
Ed
David Von Pein
Bud). ;)
I was reminded of previous posts of Bud's (along the same lines as
my top post in this thread) when I was writing that top post. And
Bud's remarks made so much sense, they've stuck in my head ever
since.
So, in effect, I'm a dirty rotten thief (of Bud's thoughts)!
(I assume he doesn't mind this type of "thought" theft.)
aeffects
what are you whining about? -- This sort of nonsense doesn't get you
anywhere, hon!
tomnln
different weapons?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
"chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:1190756185.7...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> ...and if gun cleaning solvents or utensils was found, kooks would
> find that suspicious for some god-only-knows reason.
>
aeffects
nice Lone Nut circle jerk, you could expand your invitation list a bit
though..... LMFAO!
tomnln
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:wPfKi.284517$BX3.2...@newsfe13.lga...
Bud
David Von Pein wrote:
> And I'll give credit where credit is due.....to "The Bud-ster" (aka:
> Bud). ;)
>
> I was reminded of previous posts of Bud's (along the same lines as
> my top post in this thread) when I was writing that top post. And
> Bud's remarks made so much sense, they've stuck in my head ever
> since.
I`ve used it recently in my discussion with JKO over on the
moderated forum. He wanted to know why Tippit didn`t respond to other
calls in his area, and instead opted to stop Oz instead. I said I
didn`t know, Tippit didn`t say. I can offer some ideas, but nothing
that can be seriously supported, there just is no information, Tippit
didn`t radio "I`m ignoring those calls because..., and I`m stopping
this guy because...." And I think we LN get in trouble by trying to
provide reasonable answers to these questions, which put us
automatically on shaky ground. Another recent one was Clark asking
what Oz was doing on the first floor around noon (probably more like a
quarter til, I think). Oz didn`t say, so without that information, who
can say? When we start guessing about these things, it creates the
appearance that we are in the same position as them, clueless and
guessing. I don`t know why Oz was on the first floor, but the only
real consideration is in what way it speaks to whether he shot JFK.
> So, in effect, I'm a dirty rotten thief (of Bud's thoughts)!
>
> (I assume he doesn't mind this type of "thought" theft.)
Hell no, I doubt I`ve ever had an original idea. I get germs of
ideas from everyone, you, David more than anyone, but I even get
ideas from the way Gil Jesus presents information. The kooks generally
have the ability to present information in such a way as to seem
reasonable, but when examined and approached from the right
perspective, can be shown to be simplistic nonsense. Case in point is
Gil saying the police kept the Tippit shells in a drawer instead of an
evidence locker. On the face of it, to the casual reader, this might
seem to make sense. But that the shells were switched is a stupid idea
that would never be sold to a jury regardless of where they were kept,
and any problems with the "chain of possession" are just more
meaningless kook claims.
aeffects
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > And I'll give credit where credit is due.....to "The Bud-ster" (aka:
> > Bud). ;)
>
[...]
> Hell no, I doubt I`ve ever had an original idea. I get germs of
> ideas from everyone, you, David more than anyone, but I even get
> ideas from the way Gil Jesus presents information.
David who? Von Pein or Reitzes?
[...]
Bud
Healy, of course. Now, you`ve had your breath, get your head back
up Ben`s ass.
> [...]