Every so often I see one of the CTs addressing "lurkers".
Every so often I see one of the CTs addressing "lurkers". It's as if they believe
there is actually an audience of people out in cyberspace who find the exchanges on this and other forums to be compelling stuff.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 2:26:58 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Every so often I see one of the CTs addressing "lurkers". It's as if they believeSince Corbett has never appeared on a show to discuss his views of the assassination
there is actually an audience of people out in cyberspace who find the exchanges on this and other forums to be compelling stuff.
and since he's never received congratulatory e-mails from people who listen to those shows, I can
see why he thinks there's only 6 people in the whole world who are interested in this case.
At least, according to his very narrow vision and knowledge.
And of course, you NEVER see a new poster post here.
This guy just posts one stupid thing after the next.
You offer no evidence that there are lurkers who are paying attention to these exchanges. You
just assume there are.
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 09:37:56 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
You offer no evidence that there are lurkers who are paying attention to these exchanges. YouI can understand why you'd be terrified of looking stupid in front of
just assume there are.
a larger crowd.
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:38:00?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
You offer no evidence that there are lurkers who are paying attention to these exchanges. You
just assume there are.
When it comes to offering evidence of ANYTHING, I'm way the fuck ahead of you.
You offer no evidence that there are lurkers who are paying attention to these exchanges. You
just assume there are.
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 13:33:03 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:38:00?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
You offer no evidence that there are lurkers who are paying attention to these exchanges. You
just assume there are.
When it comes to offering evidence of ANYTHING, I'm way the fuck ahead of you.This, of course, tells the tale.
Critics keep posting evidence...
Believers keep posting ad hominem...
Who ya gonna believe?
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 09:37:56 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
You offer no evidence that there are lurkers who are paying attention to these exchanges. YouI can understand why you'd be terrified of looking stupid in front of
just assume there are.
a larger crowd.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 2:26:58 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Every so often I see one of the CTs addressing "lurkers". It's as if they believe
there is actually an audience of people out in cyberspace who find the exchanges on this and other forums to be compelling stuff.
Since Corbett has never appeared on a show to discuss his views of the assassination
and since he's never received congratulatory e-mails from people who listen to those shows...
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 11:56:12 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 2:26:58 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:But I have.
Every so often I see one of the CTs addressing "lurkers". It's as if they believeSince Corbett has never appeared on a show to discuss his views of the assassination
there is actually an audience of people out in cyberspace who find the exchanges on this and other forums to be compelling stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0bFLYCYIwI
and since he's never received congratulatory e-mails from people who listen to those shows, I canWhy would I expect congratulatory emails from people who listened to the show when I never
gave out my email on the show?
see why he thinks there's only 6 people in the whole world who are interested in this case.The question isn't how many people in the world are still interested. The question is whether
there is anybody who follows the nonsense on this forum without ever contributing. Why would
you think there are?
If I was looking for information on the assassination, I can think of a lot better sources than
this one. There's a reason it is called "the nuthouse".
At least, according to his very narrow vision and knowledge.
And of course, you NEVER see a new poster post here.
This guy just posts one stupid thing after the next.
You offer no evidence that there are lurkers who are paying attention to these exchanges. You
just assume there are.
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:38:00 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
You offer no evidence that there are lurkers who are paying attention to these exchanges. YouWhen it comes to offering evidence of ANYTHING, I'm way the fuck ahead of you.
just assume there are.
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:38:00 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
You offer no evidence that there are lurkers who are paying attention to these exchanges. YouWhen it comes to offering evidence of ANYTHING, I'm way the fuck ahead of you.
just assume there are.
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 1:32:43 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 09:37:56 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Larger than what, a Monkees reunion?You offer no evidence that there are lurkers who are paying attention to these exchanges. YouI can understand why you'd be terrified of looking stupid in front of
just assume there are.
a larger crowd.
This, of course, tells the tale.
Critics keep posting evidence...
Believers keep posting ad hominem...
Who ya gonna believe?
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:45:40 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
This, of course, tells the tale.
Critics keep posting evidence...
Believers keep posting ad hominem...
Who ya gonna believe?In Internet culture, a lurker is typically a member of an online community who observes, but does not participate.
In typical Corbett fashion, he wants you to prove a negative, that there are people out there who don't participate.
Just because he doesn't see something, he doesn't believe it exists. He doesn't see lurkers, so they don't exist.
I wonder if he believes in God.
Not only does he not believe what he can't see, he doesn't even believe what he CAN see.
Even when he's shown evidence, official documents and testimony that casts doubt on Oswald's guilt, he still doesn't believe it.
How do you deal with people like that ?
How do deal with people who are not reasonable ?
How do you have a civil debate with people who post:
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
How do you deal with people who have been so thoroughly brainwashed, that they don't even know they've been brainwashed ?
People who can't think for themselves ?
People too lazy to do research on their own ?
People who suffer from the defense mechanism known as denial ? https://www.verywellmind.com/denial-as-a-defense-mechanism-5114461
Liars who say that nobody cares about this case, then validate their existence by spending
all of their free time here commenting on the very case they no longer care about ?
People who prefer to take the lazy way out and fall back on what they're told.
How are they different than those people who today believe everything they see and hear on CNN ?
People who believed in "Russia Russia Russia".
People who believed that the coronavirus didn't come from the Wuhan coronavirus lab, but from a "wet market" instead.
People who believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
People who allowed authorities to inject them with an experimental "vaccine", not knowing its long term side effects.
Are these people insane ? No, they're every bit sheeple. They believe everything they're told.
A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.
They certainly are piss-poor examples to hold up the Lone Nut end of the debate.
In fact, they don't debate. Their only posts are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.
.johnny must be rolling over in his grave.
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:45:40 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
This, of course, tells the tale.
Critics keep posting evidence...
Believers keep posting ad hominem...
Who ya gonna believe?In Internet culture, a lurker is typically a member of an online community who observes, but does not participate.
In typical Corbett fashion, he wants you to prove a negative, that there are people out there who don't participate.
Just because he doesn't see something, he doesn't believe it exists. He doesn't see lurkers, so they don't exist.
I wonder if he believes in God.
Not only does he not believe what he can't see, he doesn't even believe what he CAN see.
Even when he's shown evidence, official documents and testimony that casts doubt on Oswald's guilt, he still doesn't believe it.
How do you deal with people like that ?
How do deal with people who are not reasonable ?
How do you have a civil debate with people who post:
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
How do you deal with people who have been so thoroughly brainwashed, that they don't even know they've been brainwashed ?
People who can't think for themselves ?
People too lazy to do research on their own ?
People who suffer from the defense mechanism known as denial ? https://www.verywellmind.com/denial-as-a-defense-mechanism-5114461
Liars who say that nobody cares about this case, then validate their existence by spending
all of their free time here commenting on the very case they no longer care about ?
People who prefer to take the lazy way out and fall back on what they're told.
How are they different than those people who today believe everything they see and hear on CNN ?
People who believed in "Russia Russia Russia".
People who believed that the coronavirus didn't come from the Wuhan coronavirus lab, but from a "wet market" instead.
People who believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
People who allowed authorities to inject them with an experimental "vaccine", not knowing its long term side effects.
Are these people insane ? No, they're every bit sheeple. They believe everything they're told.
A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.
They certainly are piss-poor examples to hold up the Lone Nut end of the debate.
In fact, they don't debate. Their only posts are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.
.johnny must be rolling over in his grave.
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:49:59?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 1:32:43?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 09:37:56 -0700 (PDT), John CorbettLarger than what, a Monkees reunion?
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
You offer no evidence that there are lurkers who are paying attention to these exchanges. YouI can understand why you'd be terrified of looking stupid in front of
just assume there are.
a larger crowd.
Oh, now that was cold. Funny, but cold.
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 6:06:08?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:45:40?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:I am agnostic.
This, of course, tells the tale.In Internet culture, a lurker is typically a member of an online community who observes, but does not participate.
Critics keep posting evidence...
Believers keep posting ad hominem...
Who ya gonna believe?
In typical Corbett fashion, he wants you to prove a negative, that there are people out there who don't participate.
Just because he doesn't see something, he doesn't believe it exists. He doesn't see lurkers, so they don't exist.
I wonder if he believes in God.
Not only does he not believe what he can't see, he doesn't even believe what he CAN see.
Even when he's shown evidence, official documents and testimony that casts doubt on Oswald's guilt, he still doesn't believe it.
Nothing you have ever shown is any reason to doubt Oswald killed two men.
How do you deal with people like that ?
How do deal with people who are not reasonable ?
How do you have a civil debate with people who post:
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
How do you deal with people who have been so thoroughly brainwashed, that they don't even know they've been brainwashed ?
People who can't think for themselves ?
People too lazy to do research on their own ?
Once you know the answer...
People who suffer from the defense mechanism known as denial ?
https://www.verywellmind.com/denial-as-a-defense-mechanism-5114461
Liars who say that nobody cares about this case, then validate their existence by spendingNobody said nobody...
all of their free time here commenting on the very case they no longer care about ?
People who prefer to take the lazy way out and fall back on what they're told.
How are they different than those people who today believe everything they see and hear on CNN ?
People who believed in "Russia Russia Russia".
People who believed that the coronavirus didn't come from the Wuhan coronavirus lab, but from a "wet market" instead.
People who believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
People who allowed authorities to inject them with an experimental "vaccine", not knowing its long term side effects.
Why do you bring up things that are irrelevant to the JFK discussion?
Are these people insane ? No, they're every bit sheeple. They believe everything they're told.You've been told...
A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.
You can lead a horse to water...
They certainly are piss-poor examples to hold up the Lone Nut end of the debate.
The WCR doesn't need to be held up. It stands on its own merits.
In fact, they don't debate. Their only posts are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.
.johnny must be rolling over in his grave.
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:33:05?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:38:00?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
You offer no evidence that there are lurkers who are paying attention to these exchanges. YouWhen it comes to offering evidence of ANYTHING, I'm way the fuck ahead of you.
just assume there are.
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:33:05?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:38:00?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
You offer no evidence that there are lurkers who are paying attention to these exchanges. YouWhen it comes to offering evidence of ANYTHING, I'm way the fuck ahead of you.
just assume there are.
You don't offer evidence, Gil...
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 11:38:00?AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 11:56:12?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 2:26:58?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:But I have.
Every so often I see one of the CTs addressing "lurkers". It's as if they believeSince Corbett has never appeared on a show to discuss his views of the assassination
there is actually an audience of people out in cyberspace who find the >>>> exchanges on this and other forums to be compelling stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0bFLYCYIwI
and since he's never received congratulatory e-mails from people who listen to those shows, I canWhy would I expect congratulatory emails from people who listened to the show when I never
gave out my email on the show?
see why he thinks there's only 6 people in the whole world who are interested in this case.The question isn't how many people in the world are still interested. The question is whether
there is anybody who follows the nonsense on this forum without ever contributing. Why would
you think there are?
If I was looking for information on the assassination, I can think of a lot better sources than
this one. There's a reason it is called "the nuthouse".
At least, according to his very narrow vision and knowledge.
And of course, you NEVER see a new poster post here.
This guy just posts one stupid thing after the next.
You offer no evidence that there are lurkers who are paying attention to these exchanges. You
just assume there are.
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:45:40 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
This, of course, tells the tale.
Critics keep posting evidence...
Believers keep posting ad hominem...
Who ya gonna believe?In Internet culture, a lurker is typically a member of an online community who observes, but does not participate.
In typical Corbett fashion, he wants you to prove a negative, that there are people out there who don't participate.
Just because he doesn't see something, he doesn't believe it exists. He doesn't see lurkers, so they don't exist.
I wonder if he believes in God.
Not only does he not believe what he can't see, he doesn't even believe what he CAN see.
Even when he's shown evidence, official documents and testimony that casts doubt on Oswald's guilt, he still doesn't believe it.
How do you deal with people like that ?
How do deal with people who are not reasonable ?
How do you have a civil debate with people who post:
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
How do you deal with people who have been so thoroughly brainwashed, that they don't even know they've been brainwashed ?
People who can't think for themselves ?
People too lazy to do research on their own ?
People who suffer from the defense mechanism known as denial ?
https://www.verywellmind.com/denial-as-a-defense-mechanism-5114461
Liars who say that nobody cares about this case, then validate their existence by spending
all of their free time here commenting on the very case they no longer care about ?
People who prefer to take the lazy way out and fall back on what they're told.
How are they different than those people who today believe everything they see and hear on CNN ?
People who believed in "Russia Russia Russia".
People who believed that the coronavirus didn't come from the Wuhan coronavirus lab, but from a "wet market" instead.
People who believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
People who allowed authorities to inject them with an experimental "vaccine", not knowing its long term side effects.
Are these people insane ? No, they're every bit sheeple. They believe everything they're told.
A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.
They certainly are piss-poor examples to hold up the Lone Nut end of the debate.
In fact, they don't debate. Their only posts are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.
.johnny must be rolling over in his grave.
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 5:06:08?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:45:40?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
This, of course, tells the tale.
Critics keep posting evidence...
Believers keep posting ad hominem...
Who ya gonna believe?
In Internet culture, a lurker is typically a member of an online community who observes, but does not participate.
In typical Corbett fashion, he wants you to prove a negative, that there are people out there who don't participate.
The corollary...
Just because he doesn't see something, he doesn't believe it exists. He doesn't see lurkers, so they don't exist.
I wonder if he believes in God.
Not only does he not believe what he can't see, he doesn't even believe what he CAN see.
Even when he's shown evidence, official documents and testimony that casts doubt on Oswald's guilt, he still doesn't believe it.
He's historically guilty.
How do you deal with people like that ?
How do deal with people who are not reasonable ?
How do you have a civil debate with people who post:
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
Specific portions of the WCR and HSCA findings, etc. and Zapruder
film and so on have all been shared at this board by Oswald Alone
believers and conspiracists for decades.
How do you deal with people who have been so thoroughly brainwashed, that they don't even know they've been brainwashed ?
People who can't think for themselves ?
People too lazy to do research on their own ?
Shifting the burden.
I've researched this for decades and can only determine that some
people did something. Do better.
People who suffer from the defense mechanism known as denial ?
https://www.verywellmind.com/denial-as-a-defense-mechanism-5114461
Liars who say that nobody cares about this case, then validate their existence by spending
all of their free time here commenting on the very case they no longer care about ?
People who prefer to take the lazy way out and fall back on what they're told.
How are they different than those people who today believe everything they see and hear on CNN ?
People who believed in "Russia Russia Russia".
People who believed that the coronavirus didn't come from the Wuhan coronavirus lab, but from a "wet market" instead.
People who believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
People who allowed authorities to inject them with an experimental "vaccine", not knowing its long term side effects.
Are these people insane ? No, they're every bit sheeple. They believe everything they're told.
A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.
They certainly are piss-poor examples to hold up the Lone Nut end of the debate.
In fact, they don't debate. Their only posts are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.
.johnny must be rolling over in his grave.
TELL US WHAT HAPPENED THAT DAY.
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:45:40 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
This, of course, tells the tale.
Critics keep posting evidence...
Believers keep posting ad hominem...
Who ya gonna believe?
In Internet culture, a lurker is typically a member of an online community who observes, but does not participate.
In typical Corbett fashion, he wants you to prove a negative, that there are people out there who don't participate.
Just because he doesn't see something, he doesn't believe it exists. He doesn't see lurkers, so they don't exist.
I wonder if he believes in God.
Not only does he not believe what he can't see, he doesn't even believe what he CAN see.
Even when he's shown evidence, official documents and testimony that casts doubt on Oswald's guilt, he still doesn't believe it.
How do you deal with people like that ?
How do deal with people who are not reasonable ?
How do you have a civil debate with people who post:
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
How do you deal with people who have been so thoroughly brainwashed, that they don't even know they've been brainwashed ?
People who can't think for themselves ?
People too lazy to do research on their own ?
People who suffer from the defense mechanism known as denial ? https://www.verywellmind.com/denial-as-a-defense-mechanism-5114461
Liars who say that nobody cares about this case, then validate their existence by spending
all of their free time here commenting on the very case they no longer care about ?
People who prefer to take the lazy way out and fall back on what they're told.
How are they different than those people who today believe everything they see and hear on CNN ?
People who believed in "Russia Russia Russia".
People who believed that the coronavirus didn't come from the Wuhan coronavirus lab, but from a "wet market" instead.
People who believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
People who allowed authorities to inject them with an experimental "vaccine", not knowing its long term side effects.
Are these people insane ? No, they're every bit sheeple. They believe everything they're told.
A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.
They certainly are piss-poor examples to hold up the Lone Nut end of the debate.
In fact, they don't debate. Their only posts are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.
.johnny must be rolling over in his grave.
Every so often I see one of the CTs addressing "lurkers". It's as if they believeWho are the lurkers? Wha??? you wanna know their names? You should be able to use your contacts to find out, buddy, Sheesh. I only know their first names.
there is actually an audience of people out in cyberspace who find the exchanges on this and other forums to be compelling stuff. It think by pretending there is such an audience, they think it gives importance to their fingerpainting hobby. Without bothering to count, I'd estimate there are no more than two dozen regular contributors to these discussions. It would be rather silly to imagine that any of us are having an impact on public opinion with such a small group of people reading this nonsense.
By imagining their words extend far beyond the few contributors here, they think they are doing something worthwhile. Long ago I gave up any notion that anything I say in these forums amounts to a hill of beans when it
comes to moving the needle of public opinion. I recognize this as nothing more than a silly hobby of mostly old men arguing about a double murder
case the DPD solved almost 60 years ago.
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:26:58 AM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:
Every so often I see one of the CTs addressing "lurkers". It's as if they believeWho are the lurkers? Wha??? you wanna know their names? You should be able to use your contacts to find out, buddy, Sheesh. I only know their first names.
there is actually an audience of people out in cyberspace who find the exchanges on this and other forums to be compelling stuff. It think by pretending there is such an audience, they think it gives importance to their fingerpainting hobby. Without bothering to count, I'd estimate there are no more than two dozen regular contributors to these discussions. It would be rather silly to imagine that any of us are having an impact on public opinion with such a small group of people reading this nonsense.
By imagining their words extend far beyond the few contributors here, they think they are doing something worthwhile. Long ago I gave up any notion that anything I say in these forums amounts to a hill of beans when it comes to moving the needle of public opinion. I recognize this as nothing more than a silly hobby of mostly old men arguing about a double murder case the DPD solved almost 60 years ago.
There's Max, Frederico, Pearl, Sonny, Ikabod, Luigi, Paul, Suzie and Eddy.
How do you know they are lurkers? How do we know you didn't just make them up?
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
How do you know they are lurkers? How do we know you didn't just make them up?How do you know that the four spent .38 shells in evidence are the same shells found at the Tippit murder scene
if the three people who found them couldn't positively identify them ?
How do you know that the three 6.5 rifle shells in evidence are the same shells found on the sixth floor,
if the person who found them ( Dallas Deputy Luke Mooney ) never positively identified them as the shells he found ?
How do you know the "tannish grey" jacket in evidence is the jacket found under a car in a parking lot a block from the Tippit murder scene
if it was never positively identified by the person who reported it found ( Off. J. T Griffin ) ?
How do you know the brown paper 38 inch "gunsack" in evidence was the package Oswald brought to work that morning,
if it was never positively identified by the witnesses who saw the package ?
How do you know that the the C2766 rifle in evidence was found by Dallas Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone on the sixth floor,
when it was never positively identified by him as the rifle he found ?
How do you know any of these items are evidence ? How do you know they "didn't just make them up" ?
How do you know these items weren't substituted for the originals ?
Revision after revision after revision of the evidence.
Line ups with "fillers" that included police detectives wearing a vest and a sport coat. Lineups with blonds. A lineup with teenagers and a Mexican. All put together
with fillers so different from the witnesses' descriptions that it made Oswald the only choice.
Witnesses ignored.
Witnesses threatened.
Counsel denied.
Constitutional rights violated.
FBI reports altered.
SS motorcade records destroyed.
And you consider this acceptable and normal behavior in a criminal homicide investigation ?
Name another homicide case where all of these things occurred.
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
How do you know they are lurkers? How do we know you didn't just make them up?How do you know that the four spent .38 shells in evidence are the same shells found at the Tippit murder scene
if the three people who found them couldn't positively identify them ?
How do you know that the three 6.5 rifle shells in evidence are the same shells found on the sixth floor,
if the person who found them ( Dallas Deputy Luke Mooney ) never positively identified them as the shells he found ?
How do you know the "tannish grey" jacket in evidence is the jacket found under a car in a parking lot a block from the Tippit murder scene
if it was never positively identified by the person who reported it found ( Off. J. T Griffin ) ?
How do you know the brown paper 38 inch "gunsack" in evidence was the package Oswald brought to work that morning,
if it was never positively identified by the witnesses who saw the package ?
How do you know that the the C2766 rifle in evidence was found by Dallas Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone on the sixth floor,
when it was never positively identified by him as the rifle he found ?
How do you know any of these items are evidence ? How do you know they "didn't just make them up" ?
How do you know these items weren't substituted for the originals ?
Revision after revision after revision of the evidence.
Line ups with "fillers" that included police detectives wearing a vest and a sport coat. Lineups with blonds. A lineup with teenagers and a Mexican. All put together
with fillers so different from the witnesses' descriptions that it made Oswald the only choice.
Witnesses ignored.
Witnesses threatened.
Counsel denied.
Constitutional rights violated.
FBI reports altered.
SS motorcade records destroyed.
And you consider this acceptable and normal behavior in a criminal homicide investigation?
Name another homicide case where all of these things occurred.
SMH
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 10:52:30?PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:26:58?AM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:
Every so often I see one of the CTs addressing "lurkers". It's as if they believeWho are the lurkers? Wha??? you wanna know their names? You should be able to use your contacts to find out, buddy, Sheesh. I only know their first names.
there is actually an audience of people out in cyberspace who find the
exchanges on this and other forums to be compelling stuff. It think by
pretending there is such an audience, they think it gives importance to
their fingerpainting hobby. Without bothering to count, I'd estimate there >>> are no more than two dozen regular contributors to these discussions. It >>> would be rather silly to imagine that any of us are having an impact on
public opinion with such a small group of people reading this nonsense.
By imagining their words extend far beyond the few contributors here, they >>> think they are doing something worthwhile. Long ago I gave up any notion >>> that anything I say in these forums amounts to a hill of beans when it
comes to moving the needle of public opinion. I recognize this as nothing >>> more than a silly hobby of mostly old men arguing about a double murder
case the DPD solved almost 60 years ago.
There's Max, Frederico, Pearl, Sonny, Ikabod, Luigi, Paul, Suzie and Eddy.
How do you know they are lurkers? How do we know you didn't just make them up?
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 1:32:43?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 09:37:56 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
You offer no evidence that there are lurkers who are paying attention to these exchanges. You
just assume there are.
I can understand why you'd be terrified of looking stupid in front of
a larger crowd.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 120:04:01 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,210 |
| Messages: | 5,334,422 |
