Pericles, wrote, "In support of this theory, you have no actual evidence. Just another assumption."

There's plenty of evidence concerning the conspiracy to murder JFK in this thread as anyone who cares to look will find.

What they will also find this that Pericles has adamantly refused to discuss any of it.

Sorry, daggett, we are just going to have to disagree on your definition of "evidence"

>>There's plenty of evidence concerning the conspiracy to murder JFK in this thread as anyone who cares to look will find.<<

You speculate. You surmise. You indulge in innuendo. You make tenuous connections between unrelated facts. You pass on second and third-hand reported speech from random, unsubstantiated sources. You employ vague allusions. You simply adore insinuation. You hint. You imply.

What you don't have is evidence.

>>What they will also find this that Pericles has adamantly refused to discuss any of it<<

What's to discuss?

Your usual farrago of speculation, surmise, innuendo, allusions, insinuations, hints and implications?

All of which you have cut'n'pasted from the interwebs?

That would be a major waste of time.

As I said I believe I have provided abundant evidence that President Kennedy was murdered by the US security state, and would be happy to provide more if Pericles or anyone else here demonstrated some interested in discussing it.

And Pericles claims I have not.

So, again, I suggest it is best left for others to go back and see for themselves.

---

Pericles said of my contributions, "All of which you have cut'n'pasted from the interwebs?"

... the implication being that I have not put any of my own thought into my posts.

I have already asked Pericles several times before to substantiate this claim with just one example, but instead of providing that example, he just repeats this baseless claim.

That's one area where you have a distinct edge, daggett.

>>I have already asked Pericles several times before to substantiate this claim with just one example, but instead of providing that example, he just repeats this baseless claim.<<

If ever there is an expert on baseless claims, it has to be you.

I reckon you average at least two a day.

Talking of substantiation, can you point me to one single element of your 9/11 scenario that hasn't been cut'n'pasted from the Internet?

Thought not.

Have a great day.

Pericles still refuses to substantiate his allegation made against me.

Pericles wrote, "Talking of substantiation, can you point me to one single element of your 9/11 scenario that hasn't been cut'n'pasted from the Internet?"

If I wanted to be a pedant like Pericles, I would point out that I have cited material not from the Internet. That includes from David Ray Griffin's "The Mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 - Why the final Official Report about 9/11 is unscientific and false" of 2009 and "JFK and the Unspeakable - Why he died and why it matters" of 2008 by James Douglass.

Interestingly, Pericles has complained that the use of such resources is unfair on my part, because he is unable to easily verify them for himself.

Anyway to deal with the obvious intended meaning of Pericles' allegation and not the literal interpretation of his words:

As I was not a direct participant in the events of 9/11 (except arguably as a distant spectator after the event, by the time I had learned of it) then, obviously all the evidence I provided would have to have been in a sense "cut'n'pasted" from somewhere else. The only alternative to "cutting'n'pasting" is to make it up.

The issue here is Pericles' allegation that I have not put any of my own thought into my posts. As he has failed to substantiate that allegation with even one example, then he must know it to be untrue as anyone who reads my posts for themselves will be able to see.

Actually, I include lifting quotes from other sources in "cut'n'paste", daggett.

>>If I wanted to be a pedant like Pericles, I would point out that I have cited material not from the Internet. That includes from David Ray Griffin's "The Mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 - Why the final Official Report about 9/11 is unscientific and false" of 2009 and "JFK and the Unspeakable - Why he died and why it matters" of 2008 by James Douglass.<<

That doesn't mean you are applying any original or critical thinking. It just means you read books as well as blogs.

>>Interestingly, Pericles has complained that the use of such resources is unfair on my part, because he is unable to easily verify them for himself.<<

You know perfectly well that I don't "complain", daggett, about anything you do. I actively look forward to your making increasingly tenuous arguments in support of your movie script scenarios - what's to complain about?

>>obviously all the evidence I provided would have to have been in a sense "cut'n'pasted" from somewhere else. The only alternative to "cutting'n'pasting" is to make it up.<<

That sounds perilously close to an admission that yes, you did cut'n'paste it all.

Why so defensive about it?

Just admit that you rely on the conclusions of others to fuel your conspiracy screenplays, as I rely entirely on the work of others to show the error of your ways. I don't lay claim to any deep thinking on the topic, given that the alternative explanations you strive for are so preposterous.

And as you have discovered by now, this is a game that two can play.

>>The issue here is Pericles' allegation that I have not put any of my own thought into my posts. As he has failed to substantiate that allegation with even one example<<

Just as you have failed to provide one example of original thought.

Snap.

Incidentally, you provide no defence of your free adaptation of Woodrow Wilson's speech?

Just a hint: cut'n'pasting can be bad for your credibility, when you don't check your source material.