1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. ALT.CONSPIRACY.JFK

  • Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons - #49 - Refuted (Corbutt Continues To Run

    From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 28 07:03:01 2023
    (49) Oswald lied about telling Wesley Frazier the curtain rod story.

    Another classic logical fallacy. Bugliosi is presuming that Frazier
    told the truth, is presuming that Oswald denied it, and is presuming
    that Oswald didn't have curtain rods.

    Each of these presumptions can be challenged.

    We know now that there WERE curtain rods involved in this historical
    event – a fact long denied by Warren Commission apologists. So where
    did they come from?

    And once again, let's presume just for the sake of argument that
    Oswald did NOT have curtain rods, and lied to Frazier - claiming to
    have curtain rods. How would such a scenario prove that Oswald is
    guilty of murder?

    Did Oswald beat the President to death with a curtain rod?

    Even Von Penis can't explain this away...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chuck Schuyler@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Fri Jul 28 08:41:58 2023
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 9:03:05 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
    (49) Oswald lied about telling Wesley Frazier the curtain rod story.

    Another classic logical fallacy. Bugliosi is presuming that Frazier
    told the truth, is presuming that Oswald denied it, and is presuming
    that Oswald didn't have curtain rods.

    You claim he had his lunch in the bag, right?

    Benny Tracker:

    91.) On February 26th 2019 at the 'Steve's A Moron...' thread, Ben--in response to a question about what Oswald had in the long bag he carried to work that morning--has finally settled on an answer. See below:

    Question: "And one ancillary question: Do you think he brought curtain rods with him to work that day? What was in the bag he carried?"

    Ben: "His lunch."

    Earlier (see #44 above at this thread), Ben said Oswald carried either his lunch or curtain rods into the TSBD, so curtain rods are officially out per Ben.


    Each of these presumptions can be challenged.

    Challenge away, Johnny Cochrane.

    We know now that there WERE curtain rods involved in this historical
    event – a fact long denied by Warren Commission apologists. So where
    did they come from?

    And once again, let's presume just for the sake of argument that
    Oswald did NOT have curtain rods, and lied to Frazier - claiming to
    have curtain rods. How would such a scenario prove that Oswald is
    guilty of murder?

    Did Oswald beat the President to death with a curtain rod?

    Even Von Penis can't explain this away...

    Nor does he need to.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to chuckschuyler123@gmail.com on Fri Jul 28 08:59:01 2023
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 08:41:58 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chuckschuyler123@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 9:03:05?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
    (49) Oswald lied about telling Wesley Frazier the curtain rod story.

    Another classic logical fallacy. Bugliosi is presuming that Frazier
    told the truth, is presuming that Oswald denied it, and is presuming
    that Oswald didn't have curtain rods.


    Logical fallacy deleted. If you can't deal with what is posted
    *HERE*, then simply run away...


    Each of these presumptions can be challenged.


    Logical fallacy deleted.


    We know now that there WERE curtain rods involved in this historical
    event – a fact long denied by Warren Commission apologists. So where
    did they come from?

    And once again, let's presume just for the sake of argument that
    Oswald did NOT have curtain rods, and lied to Frazier - claiming to
    have curtain rods. How would such a scenario prove that Oswald is
    guilty of murder?

    Did Oswald beat the President to death with a curtain rod?

    Even Von Penis can't explain this away...

    Nor does he need to.


    The fact that he can't, and that you can't, tells the tale...

    You lose...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to Chuck Schuyler on Sun Jul 30 09:16:05 2023
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:42:00 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 9:03:05 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

    And once again, let's presume just for the sake of argument that
    Oswald did NOT have curtain rods, and lied to Frazier - claiming to
    have curtain rods. How would such a scenario prove that Oswald is
    guilty of murder?

    Did Oswald beat the President to death with a curtain rod?

    Even Von Penis can't explain this away...
    Nor does he need to.

    You all do.
    As usual, you haven't refuted one single thing that is listed.
    No citations
    No documents
    No testimony
    No exhibits
    No witness videos
    You do no research on your own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Report.
    What you DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.
    A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Sun Jul 30 12:00:24 2023
    On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 12:16:07 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:42:00 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 9:03:05 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

    And once again, let's presume just for the sake of argument that
    Oswald did NOT have curtain rods, and lied to Frazier - claiming to
    have curtain rods. How would such a scenario prove that Oswald is
    guilty of murder?

    Did Oswald beat the President to death with a curtain rod?

    Even Von Penis can't explain this away...
    Nor does he need to.
    You all do.
    As usual, you haven't refuted one single thing that is listed.
    No citations
    No documents
    No testimony
    No exhibits

    All of that is available online in both the 888 page report and the 26 volumes of supporting
    evidence. You should check that out sometime.

    No witness videos

    Unless a witness is under oath when the video was taken, it has no evidentiary value. Your
    standard for evidence is that it must be admissible in court. As it is with your "innocent until
    proven guilty" standard, it seems to be quite flexible. IOW, you apply it when it suits you and
    abandon it when it does not.

    You do no research on your own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Report.

    Why reinvent the wheel?

    What you DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.

    As do you.

    A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.

    I don't know of any of the LNs on this board who have the illusion we can educate the
    abysmally ignorant.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 31 03:13:51 2023
    On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 3:00:26 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    < all lies deleted >

    As usual, you haven't refuted one single thing that is listed.
    No citations
    No documents
    No testimony
    No exhibits
    No witness videos
    No photographs
    No links
    You do no research on your own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Report.
    A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Mon Jul 31 04:06:13 2023
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:03:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    (49) Oswald lied about telling Wesley Frazier the curtain rod story.

    Another classic logical fallacy. Bugliosi is presuming that Frazier
    told the truth, is presuming that Oswald denied it, and is presuming
    that Oswald didn't have curtain rods.

    And once again, let's presume just for the sake of argument that
    Oswald did NOT have curtain rods, and lied to Frazier - claiming to
    have curtain rods. How would such a scenario prove that Oswald is
    guilty of murder?

    Oswald lied to Frazier therefore he killed Kennedy.
    Makes perfect sense ----- to them.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Mon Jul 31 03:20:41 2023
    On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 6:13:52 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 3:00:26 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    < all lies deleted >
    As usual, you haven't refuted one single thing that is listed.
    No citations
    No documents
    No testimony
    No exhibits
    No witness videos
    No photographs
    No links
    You do no research on your own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Report.
    A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.

    Gil steals a page from Yellowpanties' playbook. He deletes what he has no rebuttal for.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to John Corbett on Mon Jul 31 03:52:48 2023
    On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 6:20:43 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    Gil steals a page from Yellowpanties' playbook. He deletes what he has no rebuttal for.

    As usual, you haven't refuted one single thing that is listed.
    No citations
    No documents
    No testimony
    No exhibits
    No witness videos
    No photographs
    No links
    You do no research on your own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Report.
    All you post is silly comments.
    A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to geowright1963@gmail.com on Mon Jul 31 07:41:01 2023
    On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 03:20:41 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 6:13:52?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 3:00:26?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    < all lies deleted >
    As usual, you haven't refuted one single thing that is listed.
    No citations
    No documents
    No testimony
    No exhibits
    No witness videos
    No photographs
    No links
    You do no research on your own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Report.
    A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.

    Logical fallacy deleted.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to geowright1963@gmail.com on Mon Jul 31 07:40:56 2023
    On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 12:00:24 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 12:16:07?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:42:00?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 9:03:05?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

    And once again, let's presume just for the sake of argument that
    Oswald did NOT have curtain rods, and lied to Frazier - claiming to
    have curtain rods. How would such a scenario prove that Oswald is
    guilty of murder?

    Did Oswald beat the President to death with a curtain rod?

    Even Von Penis can't explain this away...
    Nor does he need to.
    You all do.
    As usual, you haven't refuted one single thing that is listed.
    No citations
    No documents
    No testimony
    No exhibits

    All of that is available online in both the 888 page report and the 26 volumes of supporting
    evidence. You should check that out sometime.

    As you yourself pointed out: "There's nothing wrong with using a link
    to back up a point you are making. It's when people use links in lieu
    of making a point that reveals weakness."

    You're not even citing an actual link - and it's your argument.

    Not a refutation. Indeed, simple cowardice.

    But the complete and total refutation of the WCR is contained in
    Douglas Horne's five volume set.

    You lose!


    No witness videos

    Unless a witness is under oath when the video was taken, it has no evidentiary value.


    There goes the Zapruder film.

    You're a real moron, aren't you?


    Your
    standard for evidence is that it must be admissible in court. As it is with your "innocent until
    proven guilty" standard, it seems to be quite flexible. IOW, you apply it when it suits you and
    abandon it when it does not.


    Empty and uncited claim. According to Chickenshit, we can now presume
    it's simply a lie. And you're a liar.


    You do no research on your own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Report.

    Logical fallacy deleted.

    What you DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.

    Logical fallacy deleted.

    A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.

    Logical fallacy deleted.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Mon Jul 31 08:04:42 2023
    On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 6:52:50 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 6:20:43 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    Gil steals a page from Yellowpanties' playbook. He deletes what he has no rebuttal for.
    As usual, you haven't refuted one single thing that is listed.
    No citations
    No documents
    No testimony
    No exhibits
    No witness videos
    No photographs
    No links
    You do no research on your own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Report.
    All you post is silly comments.
    A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.

    The least you could do is address the point I made regarding the witness videos. Since you
    want to disregard anything that would not be admissible in court, that would mean if you
    were to be consistent, you would have to disregard any and all witness videos because none
    of them would be admissible in court. None of those videos were taken under oath. None of
    those witnesses on the various videos was subject to cross examination. Ergo, none of these
    witness videos has any evidentiary value according to the standards you have created.

    You ought to be a Democrat, Gil, because you don't want to be held to the same rules you
    impose upon everyone else. You want to insist that Oswald was innocent because he was
    never convicted in court, but then you will turn around and accuse all sorts of people of
    being complicit in the assassination even though none were ever convicted and only one of
    them was even put on trial. You want to invalidate almost all the evidence of Oswald's guilt
    because they don't conform to Gil's Rules of Evidence, but then you will reference all sorts
    of materials, like unsworn witness videos, that would never be accepted as evidence in any
    court in the land.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to geowright1963@gmail.com on Mon Jul 31 08:11:57 2023
    On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 08:04:42 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 6:52:50?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 6:20:43?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    Gil steals a page from Yellowpanties' playbook. He deletes what he has no rebuttal for.
    As usual, you haven't refuted one single thing that is listed.
    No citations
    No documents
    No testimony
    No exhibits
    No witness videos
    No photographs
    No links
    You do no research on your own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Report.
    All you post is silly comments.
    A person can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from your posts.

    The least you could do is address the point I made regarding the witness videos.


    THE COWARD WHO REFUSES TO ADDRESS *ANYTHING AT ALL THAT I WRITE* is
    whining that someone hasn't addressed something he wrote????

    Oh the irony!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Mon Jul 31 08:13:15 2023
    On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 7:06:14 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:03:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    (49) Oswald lied about telling Wesley Frazier the curtain rod story.

    Another classic logical fallacy. Bugliosi is presuming that Frazier
    told the truth, is presuming that Oswald denied it, and is presuming
    that Oswald didn't have curtain rods.
    And once again, let's presume just for the sake of argument that
    Oswald did NOT have curtain rods, and lied to Frazier - claiming to
    have curtain rods. How would such a scenario prove that Oswald is
    guilty of murder?
    Oswald lied to Frazier therefore he killed Kennedy.
    Makes perfect sense ----- to them.

    You're being silly, Gil......AGAIN!!!

    The evidence against Oswald is cumulative. No single piece of evidence by itself can prove
    Oswald's guilt but that doesn't mean it doesn't have probative value. Some pieces are more
    probative than others, but taken as a whole, they consistently indicate Oswald's guilt. You do
    what CTs have done for decades. You look at a single piece of evidence in isolation with all
    the rest and say it doesn't prove anything. Of course it doesn't. You have to look at the evidence
    in total to draw the correct conclusion. No single piece of evidence can take you there by itself.
    The question you need to ask, and one which you never will, is how could we have all these
    indications of Oswald's guilt if he were truly innocent? The correct answer to that question is
    we could not. There's no way Oswald could be innocent given the weight of the evidence. You
    know that which is why you will never attempt to look at the evidence as a whole and never try
    to explain how Oswald could possibly be innocent with so much evidence indicating he is guilty.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to geowright1963@gmail.com on Mon Jul 31 08:31:00 2023
    On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 08:13:15 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 7:06:14?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:03:05?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    (49) Oswald lied about telling Wesley Frazier the curtain rod story.

    Another classic logical fallacy. Bugliosi is presuming that Frazier
    told the truth, is presuming that Oswald denied it, and is presuming
    that Oswald didn't have curtain rods.
    And once again, let's presume just for the sake of argument that
    Oswald did NOT have curtain rods, and lied to Frazier - claiming to
    have curtain rods. How would such a scenario prove that Oswald is
    guilty of murder?
    Oswald lied to Frazier therefore he killed Kennedy.
    Makes perfect sense ----- to them.

    You're being silly, Gil......AGAIN!!!


    Can you name this logical fallacy?

    And would you ever find the courage to defend Bugliosi from my
    refutations?


    The evidence against Oswald is cumulative.


    No, it isn't. As I've been proving with Bugliosi's 53 reasons that
    you've simply ran away from.

    Your cowardice proves that *YOU* know you're lyinig.

    Your inability to refute my series shows that you know you're lying.


    No single piece of evidence by itself can prove
    Oswald's guilt but that doesn't mean it doesn't have probative value.


    And yet, you're completely unable to show this "probative value"...
    why is that?


    Some pieces are more
    probative than others, but taken as a whole, they consistently indicate Oswald's guilt.


    No they don't.

    Your assertions aren't evidence.


    You do what CTs have done for decades. You look at a single piece of evidence in isolation with all
    the rest and say it doesn't prove anything. Of course it doesn't. You have to look at the evidence
    in total to draw the correct conclusion. No single piece of evidence can take you there by itself.
    The question you need to ask, and one which you never will, is how could we have all these
    indications of Oswald's guilt if he were truly innocent?


    The question you need to ask, is how many people leave a wedding ring
    or extra money at home?

    How many people leave a jacket at work?

    How many people refuse to engage in conversation at one point or
    another?

    Those are just a few, off the top of my head, that you think prove
    Oswald's guilt.

    Sheer nonsense.


    The correct answer to that question is we could not.


    You can't support that empty claim. So we know you're lying.


    There's no way Oswald could be innocent given the weight of the evidence.


    This is the statement made by prosecutors just before the defense puts
    on their case, and has the charges thrown out of court.


    You know that which is why you will never attempt to look at the evidence as a whole and never try
    to explain how Oswald could possibly be innocent with so much evidence indicating he is guilty.

    If you were honest - you'd have to admit that *YOU'VE* committed
    perhaps a third or more of the items on Bugliosi's list. What was the
    name of your victim?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to John Corbett on Mon Jul 31 09:19:50 2023
    On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:13:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    There's no way Oswald could be innocent given the weight of the evidence.

    That's why they lied about the REAL reason he went to Irving on 11-21 https://gil-jesus.com/the-real-reason-oswald-went-to-irving-on-11-21/

    That's why they stacked the lineups against him. https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/

    That's why Greer slowed the limousine down when the shooting started https://gil-jesus.com/the-agents-in-the-limo/

    That's why they left him wide open after they had received threats against his life.
    https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

    That's why witnesses were harrassed and threatened. https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1652/evidence-witness-intimidation-tampering

    ALL OF THIS BECAUSE OSWALD WAS GUILTY.

    Wake TF up, idiot.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Mon Jul 31 09:33:17 2023
    On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:19:52 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:13:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    There's no way Oswald could be innocent given the weight of the evidence.
    That's why they lied about the REAL reason he went to Irving on 11-21 https://gil-jesus.com/the-real-reason-oswald-went-to-irving-on-11-21/

    Gil is speculating as to why Oswald went to Irving. He has no evidence to back up his
    speculation.

    That's why they stacked the lineups against him. https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/

    How does that explain why all those witnesses IDed Oswald?

    That's why Greer slowed the limousine down when the shooting started https://gil-jesus.com/the-agents-in-the-limo/

    Greer testified why he did that. Greer's actions do nothing to exonerate Oswald.

    That's why they left him wide open after they had received threats against his life.
    https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

    The plan was to transport Oswald in an armored car. It was only after they discovered the
    armored car wouldn't fit in the parking garage that they decided to move him in a station
    wagon. The cop who was guarding that ramp stepped away briefly to hold traffic to allow
    the armored car to leave the ramp. That happened just as Ruby arrived which is why he was
    able to walk down the ramp. It was a simple mistake, not a grandiose plan to allow Owald
    to be killed.


    That's why witnesses were harrassed and threatened. https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1652/evidence-witness-intimidation-tampering

    That's why you make shit up.

    ALL OF THIS BECAUSE OSWALD WAS GUILTY.

    Wake TF up, idiot.

    The guy who turns a blind eye to all the evidence of Oswald's guilt is telling me to wake up.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to gjjmail1202@gmail.com on Mon Jul 31 10:06:43 2023
    On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:19:50 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
    <gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:13:17?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    There's no way Oswald could be innocent given the weight of the evidence.

    That's why they lied about the REAL reason he went to Irving on 11-21 >https://gil-jesus.com/the-real-reason-oswald-went-to-irving-on-11-21/

    That's why they stacked the lineups against him. >https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/

    That's why Greer slowed the limousine down when the shooting started >https://gil-jesus.com/the-agents-in-the-limo/

    That's why they left him wide open after they had received threats against his life.
    https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

    That's why witnesses were harrassed and threatened. >https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1652/evidence-witness-intimidation-tampering

    ALL OF THIS BECAUSE OSWALD WAS GUILTY.

    Wake TF up, idiot.

    Watch, as Cobutt doesn't answer *any* of these problems for his
    theory.

    Indeed, just the INDISPUTABLE FACT that many eyewitnesses were
    intimidated by the DPD, the FBI, or the S.S. shows that Corbutt's a
    coward.

    He can't acknowledge the truth, nor explain it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to geowright1963@gmail.com on Mon Jul 31 10:09:56 2023
    On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:33:17 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:19:52?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:13:17?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    There's no way Oswald could be innocent given the weight of the evidence. >> That's why they lied about the REAL reason he went to Irving on 11-21
    https://gil-jesus.com/the-real-reason-oswald-went-to-irving-on-11-21/

    Gil is speculating as to why Oswald went to Irving. He has no evidence to back up his
    speculation.


    Gil's "speculation" is based on actual evidence.

    **YOU** can't ackowledge that the WC simply speculated.


    That's why they stacked the lineups against him.
    https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/


    Logical fallacy deleted.


    That's why Greer slowed the limousine down when the shooting started
    https://gil-jesus.com/the-agents-in-the-limo/


    Logical fallacy deleted.


    That's why they left him wide open after they had received threats against his life.
    https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/


    Logical fallacies & speculation deleted.


    That's why witnesses were harrassed and threatened.
    https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1652/evidence-witness-intimidation-tampering


    Logical fallacy deleted.


    ALL OF THIS BECAUSE OSWALD WAS GUILTY.

    Wake TF up, idiot.

    Logical fallacy deleted.

    As I predicted, Corbutt simply ran.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to John Corbett on Wed Aug 2 02:20:20 2023
    On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:33:20 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    Gil is speculating as to why Oswald went to Irving. He has no evidence to back up his
    speculation.

    You're a liar. All my evidence is shown here:

    https://gil-jesus.com/the-real-reason-oswald-went-to-irving-on-11-21/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Wed Aug 2 03:34:48 2023
    On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 5:20:22 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:33:20 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    Gil is speculating as to why Oswald went to Irving. He has no evidence to back up his
    speculation.
    You're a liar. All my evidence is shown here:

    https://gil-jesus.com/the-real-reason-oswald-went-to-irving-on-11-21/

    You can call it evidence. It's still speculation. You've never seemed to understand what
    constitutes evidence. Your silly figuring is not evidence.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to geowright1963@gmail.com on Wed Aug 2 07:13:14 2023
    On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 03:34:48 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
    <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 5:20:22?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:33:20?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    Gil is speculating as to why Oswald went to Irving. He has no evidence to back up his
    speculation.
    You're a liar. All my evidence is shown here:

    https://gil-jesus.com/the-real-reason-oswald-went-to-irving-on-11-21/

    You can call it evidence.


    Even *YOU* call sworn testimony "evidence."

    So why are you lying?


    It's still speculation. You've never seemed to understand what
    constitutes evidence. Your silly figuring is not evidence.

    Tell us coward, what is "evidence?"

    You've just denied that sworn testimony is... so what is it?

    Of course, you can't answer... you're a coward.

    Watch folks, as Corbutt runs from his new claim that sworn testimony
    isn't "evidence."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From BT George@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Wed Aug 2 09:02:34 2023
    On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 6:06:14 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:03:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    (49) Oswald lied about telling Wesley Frazier the curtain rod story.

    Another classic logical fallacy. Bugliosi is presuming that Frazier
    told the truth, is presuming that Oswald denied it, and is presuming
    that Oswald didn't have curtain rods.
    And once again, let's presume just for the sake of argument that
    Oswald did NOT have curtain rods, and lied to Frazier - claiming to
    have curtain rods. How would such a scenario prove that Oswald is
    guilty of murder?
    Oswald lied to Frazier therefore he killed Kennedy.
    Makes perfect sense ----- to them.

    As innocent men always need to do! (...Oh please! Perish the thought that this point more *away* from innocence than *towards* it.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)