On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 08:57:57 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<
jecorbett4@gmail.com> wrote:
I have to believe that at some point, a truly intelligent person is going to realize how ludicrous the idea that Oswald could be
innocent truly is. How many ridiculous things does one have to convince themselves of in order to believe Oswald was framed?
You can't name even *one* "ridiculous" thing and support it.
This shows how weak your argument is.
When Gil gets faced with the difficult questions and has to stretch so far to find an answer, at some point he ought to realize
what he believes is nonsense.
A meaningless logical fallacy. And one that you can't support.
The most recent example is his attempt to explain JBC's sudden and rapid arm flip which
began at the same frame JFK raised his arms and just two frames after the jacket bulge.
Notice once again, the "lapel flip" has disappeared, nowhere to be
seen, and Corbutt has no explanation.
If he was wrong on the "lapel flip" - why should anyone believe him on
the "jacket bulge?"
He also presumes a "sudden and rapid" movement, which is merely his speculation.
He suggested that it was because
Connally was adjusting his position in his seat.
That quite credibly explains movement.
You lose!
He provided a film clip showing Connally saying he did that but he cut >Connally off in mid sentence, I'm sure because Connally was about to
tell the interviewer when he made that adjustment.
Here we see Corbutt speculating, and thinking that it's evidence.
But, just for the sake of laughing at Corbutt - let's assume that
Connally *DID* say he was adjusting his position before the shots.
Can **YOU** explain the movement you made a year ago? And tie it to a
specific time & place?
If you can't... you lose.
Without even seeing the rest of that, I'd gladly bet he said he did it before hearing the first shot which was about 4 seconds
before the arm flip.
So your hypothesis is that any "sudden" movements, which are, of
course, merely "movements" - must have been in response to the SBT,
thus proving the SBT.
You clearly can't reason.
When you have to stretch that far for an explanation,
ROTFLMAO!!! People move - that's what people do! **ALL THE TIME**
Your silly efforts to claim that explanations FROM THE PERSON HIMSELF
is "stretching" ... and "nonsense.' - shows just what a kook you are.
you ought to consider the real possibility that your beliefs just
aren't compatible with the evidence.
Why should Gil "consider" your wild & wacky speculation? Why can't
**YOU** support it?
Why can't **YOU** cite the evidece, then explain why it supports your
faith?
WHY ARE YOU A COWARD??
But Gil has invested so much into his argument that Oswald was
innocent he could never bring himself to admitting he has been
wrong all these years so he continues to cling to his fantasy.
It's not "his" argument. This is simply what the evidence shows.
Gil has met his burden - why can't you? Where's the evidence for all
these speculative logical fallacies of yours?
Why can't you make your case?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)