Post by Gil JesusPost by NoTrueFlags HereIt 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.
You’re back to that nonsense. So Klebold and Harris aren’t historically guilty of being the Columbine killers.
And Charles Whitman isn’t historically guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter.
You make no sense, because you admitted the converse here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/boQzueRdAAAJ
“…history … will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy…"
So according to you, Oswald is historically guilty.
Post by Gil JesusIt'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.
You dismissed Hitler’s guilt originally because he wasn’t guaranteed rights under the constitution of the United States:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/qfMJIfFVAAAJ
— quote —
Post by Gil Jesus"Was Hitler ultimately responsible the Holocaust *regardless* of the lack of a trial at all?"
Was Hitler guaranteed rights under the US Constitution ?
— unquote —
Post by Gil JesusThe Lone Nut Trolls always fail. My 40 questions exposed just how little they know of the case.
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.
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.
Tell me what I got wrong, specifically. You won’t, of course.
Post by Gil JesusWe're not dealing with rational people here. We're dealing with closed-minded people who refuse to look at the case impartially. They have "their own truth". 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".
Not in my case. I read through the Warren Commission 26 volumes twice resolving the differences between the Commission’s case and what the first generation critics said about the Commission’s case. Everywhere I looked, the evidence supported what the commission said, and disagreed with what the critics were arguing. I spent many a night up until two or three in the morning reading through the testimony.
Post by Gil JesusAny documentation, witnesses or evidence presented in defense of the defendant is considered, "looking at the wrong things incorrectly".
You don’t understand the law, we’ve established that. You think evidence is inadmissible if it doesn’t have a proper chain of custody, but I’ve shown that your understanding is flawed.
Post by Gil JesusThis type of judicial attitude was typical in the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Some of these people may have a serious mental issue called anosognosia, but most are just engaging in stubbornness or outright denial, which is a defense mechanism some people use when they can't cope with difficult facts or diagnoses.
Like Oswald being historically guilty?
Or evidence being admissible in the absence of a perfect chain of custody?
Or dead people having no rights?
Post by Gil JesusEither 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.
This describes conspiracists to a T. Anything pointing to Oswald is dismissed with a “the evidence is fraudulent” claim. CTs find reasons to dismiss everything pointing to Oswald.
Post by Gil JesusThese people will lie and deceive if it suits their purpose, i.e. protecting "their own truth".
Others are here only for their own "entertainment" to cast aspersions and spew their hatred on those with whom they do not agree.
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.
Ahhah. So despite your earlier denials, you do know what ”historically guilty” means.
Like here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/xnHo4ax6CwAJ
“ Define the term, "historically guilty" by posting a link to its definition. ”
“ I believe there's no such phrase and it's something you made up, so I'm asking for the link to the definition of the PHRASE. ”
You apparently didn’t want to admit Oswald is historically guilty, so you feigned ignorance of the term and asked for a definition.
Post by Gil JesusAnd 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.
Funny how I cite the law and you call those who disagree with you names.