On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 5:48:10 PM UTC-4,
borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 5:25:00 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 4:15:49 PM UTC-4,
borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And notice your subtle falsehood with your claim that "signed documents attest to their findings" bit. The signed document is a receipt issued by the corpsman. Yes, they signed it, but I'm sure they didn't give a fuck about future kooks like you trying to make mountains out of molehills.
> > > > >
> > > > > What a strange thing to say. Previously I'd pointed out that nearly half the Warren Commission disagreed with their own report, and would go on to say so later (and "on tape", ironically).
> > > >
> > > > Equivocation fallac
> > >
> > > Not when it's exactly the same and, oh, look! Chuck is now...."moving the goalposts."
> > >
> > > Another irony.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > They all thought Oswald was guilty.
> > >
> > > So do I, so what's your point?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And since you like to make these logically fallacious arguments and comparisons, you also agree with the WC.
> > >
> > > No, because the WC were busy building a narrative, and the means by which this was done was not only dishonest, but because of Dulles's involvement, bordering on treason.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Chuck's rebuttal seemed to suggest that a signature means something.
> > > > >
> > > > >
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/O4_o6g-TL4A/PclgcoAXDAAJ
> > > >
> > > > Apples and oranges.
> > >
> > > No. It's signatures and signatures. Now, did Sibert and O'Neill sign off on what they found? And do James Young's findings corroborate what they found?
> > >
> > > Yes? Or no?
> >
> > Chuck produced Sibert and O`Neil saying no full bullet was found during the autopsy. You produced Sibert and O`Neil *not* saying a full bullet was found during the autopsy.
>
> <snicker> LN retards looking at all the wrong things incorrectly, lurkers.
To an idiot listening to the people who handled the evidence are the wrong people to ask about that evidence, or get a clarification of that evidence.
> >
> > And Young doesn`t corroborate a full bullet found during the autopsy.
>
> How so?
Young`s bullet was supposedly found in the limo, not in Kennedy.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Keep trying Boris. The drunk and the midget buy it, but that's about it.
> > >
> > > You're a retard. So let's get that straight off the bat. I wouldn't **want** you to buy it, because you are not the demographic I'm after.
> >
> > Idiots?
>
> Using big words again?
Might be too big for your "demographic".
> >
> > > I'd rather be on the side of researchers who have the added skill of being able to think critically.
> >
> > <snicker> I love it when you guy pretend you are applying logic and critical thinking with your ideas, what follows is always a great example of poor thinking.
>
> <snicker> Bluff and bluster, lurkers. Let bub show the fantastic ideas he is trying to express.
They exist only in your feverish imagination.
> >
> > So let`s apply some critical thinking to this issue, in order for a full bullet to have been found at the autopsy a few fantastic things are required, with a truckload of other fantastic things implied. The major and most obvious fantastic things are a purposely deceptive autopsy of the President of the United States, the risking of punishment for tampering with evidence of very accomplished individuals, the removal of a full bullet out of the chain of evidence and coordination between diverse agencies and institutions to perpetuate this fraud.
>
> Several pieces of evidence were destroyed.
> Several pieces of evidence "got disappeared."
> Several pieces of evidence had a broken chain of custody.
> Let bub show **who** was actually "punished" for anything.
Speaking on this specific issue, is your idea that if they had been caught removing a bullet from the chain of evidence nobody would have been legally culpable?