From: jecorbett4@gmail.com   
      
   On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 6:13:39 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:   
   > > It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a   
   person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the   
   Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.    
   > > Everybody knows that.   
   > The term "historically guilty" is the brainchild of a pompous ass named   
   Charles "Chuck" Schuyler. Since Oswald was never convicted of either murder,   
   he needed to have something to hang his "Oswald-did-it" hat on to. And the   
   fact that the idiot can    
   invent a phrase that incorporates the word "guilty" is a big plus for them.   
   But of course, like the case itself, the prhase makes zero sense. History   
   cannot determine the innocence or guilt of an individual. Only a judge or a   
   jury can do that.    
   >    
   > It's nonsense, which is why it makes all the sense in the world to jackasses   
   like Corbett and Bud.    
   >    
   > And they try to make vain arguments to support this nonsense like comparing   
   Oswald to Hitler. Hitler, they note, was also never tried, so does that mean   
   he wasn't responsible for the killing of 6 million Jews ?    
   > But they fail to mention that the Nuremberg War Trials exposed the level of   
   Hitler's involvement in the Holocaust.    
      
   Hitler was not on trial at Nuremberg. Hitler was not convicted at Nuremberg.   
   Nice try.   
      
   What about Joe Stalin? Do you think he was innocent of mass murder?   
   >    
   > The Lone Nut Trolls always fail. My 40 questions exposed just how little   
   they know of the case.    
      
   As if that matters given you are the one doing the grading.    
   >    
   > Like the FBI and the military experts who fired the CE 139 rifle, in this   
   test, the trolls just couldn't hit the bullseye.    
   > Each question had a single right answer.   
      
   Of course when firing at short ranges they aren't going to hit the bullseye   
   because the fixed sights were set for 200 meters.   
   If you had even a basic understanding of ballistics you would know that.    
      
   >    
   > Oh, they'll lie and say they answered ALL the questions, just not to my   
   satisfaction.    
   > As a group, the trolls responded 131 times to my 40 questions.    
   > Out of those 131 responses, 116 ( 88.5 % ) of those responses were comments,   
   insults and questions.    
   > Nothing to do with anybody's satisfaction.    
      
   The questions were answered. The insults were thrown in gratis.   
   >    
   > We're not dealing with rational people here. We're dealing with   
   closed-minded people who refuse to look at the case impartially.    
      
   We did that a long time ago an concluded Oswald was guilty. All sensible   
   people have. There is no longer any reason for    
   impartiality.   
      
   > They have "their own truth".    
      
   Irony duly noted.   
      
   > They've heard the prosecutor's closing arguments ( WR ) and they don't have   
   to consider the testimony of the witnesses or the exhibits ( 26 volumes )   
   because it's all "raw data". Any documentation, witnesses or evidence   
   presented in defense of the    
   defendant is considered, "looking at the wrong things incorrectly".    
      
   We consider all witnesses and exhibits as a whole and have figured out how to   
   weigh the credibility of all. You take the dopey   
   way of looking at everything in isolation and claiming it doesn't prove   
   anything.    
   >    
   > This type of judicial attitude was typical in the Soviet Union during the   
   Cold War.    
      
   Stupidity was not. We seem to have more than our share, especially when it   
   comes to people trying to rewrite the history of   
   the JFK assassination.   
   >    
   > Some of these people may have a serious mental issue called anosognosia, but   
   most are just engaging in stubbornness oroutright denial, which is a defense   
   mechanism some people use when they can't cope with difficult facts or   
   diagnoses.    
      
   The people who believe Oswald was innocent are the outliers. Most people who   
   believe there was a conspiracy accept   
    Oswald fired shots at JFK.    
   >    
   > Either way, whether it's a form of mental illness or just a defense   
   mechanism, they will never, ever accept ANY evidence which casts doubt on   
   Oswald's guilt.    
      
   There is no evidence that casts doubt on Oswald's guilt.    
      
   > These people will lie and deceive if it suits their purpose, i.e. protecting   
   "their own truth".    
      
   More irony.   
   >    
   > Others are here only for their own "entertainment" to cast aspersions and   
   spew their hatred on those with whom they do not agree.    
      
   I don't cast aspersions on those I disagree with. I cast aspersions on idiots   
   who refuse to accept Oswald was a double   
   murderer.   
      
   > We can only hope that future generations of internet web surfers will   
   discover that these Lone Nut trolls were "historically guilty" of ignorance   
   and stupidity.    
      
   Future  generations of internet web surfers aren't going to give a fuck about   
   the JFK assassination. Why would they.   
      
   > And that any credibility they may have had was destroyed by their own words.    
   > In the meantime, the best thing we can do is to ignore these assholes and   
   let them prove to the world what they're made of.   
      
   You even suck at ignoring the LNs. You can't do it.    
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)