Lame LN excuses

[Dan O'meara]

Your best witness wasn't there when Oswald allegedly went back.

So this evidently brings nothing to the table.

I suggest you improve your tactical skills before posting again.

 

There was only one witness who was there when Oswald went back to his rooming house - Earlene Roberts.

So when you said "why don't you name your best witness and we'll see what that brings?", you were expecting me to choose from a group of one person!!

Not even you're that stupid.
I think what's happening here is that your tinfoil  about Oswald not living at 1026 North Beckley is going to be torn apart so you're heading for the hills. You ask me to pick a witness and as soon as I do you run.

Mrs Gladys Johnson's WC testimony makes a mockery of your nonsense so keep on running. 

[John Iacoletti]

The Weidmann and Otto accounts have both stated to me on separate occasions that they are not CTers and in fact don't care who killed JFK its only the facts of the case that they are interested in.

Why would you consider that unusual?  LNers want everyone else to be a CT so they can shift the burden of proof away from their own lousy arguments.

[John Iacoletti]

Come on, two accounts created within days of each other both immediately leaping in and defending Weidmann and creating some sort of forum tag team by ganging up on people?

So what? People with generic names like “Vincent Baxter” pop up here all the time spouting all the same “Oswald did it” rhetoric and propaganda.

It's pretty obvious. Am I going to bother going to all the hassle of getting lawyers involved in order to get an imaginary $100,000 that some oddball on the internet, who from what I've learnt this weekend probably isn't even called Martin Weidmann anyway, though?
The answer is no.

Of course it is. It’s much easier to hide behind a keyboard and an anonymous identity and sling accusations than to put your money where your mouth is.

[John Iacoletti]

There was only one witness who was there when Oswald went back to his rooming house - Earlene Roberts.

What??? You can’t name one other witness who corroborates her account? Say it isn’t so!

[Dan O'meara]

What??? You can’t name one other witness who corroborates her account? Say it isn’t so!

Read the relevant posts before you dive in John.

[Vincent Baxter]

Poor Danny, you're not really equipped for this game.

Pro-tip: Don't ask questions you don't know the answer to.

Pro-tip: Create multiple accounts so if you ever start losing your way in an argument you can always log in as another user to back you up and join in saying that the other person "doesn't know what he's talking about"

Of course I knew all along the best you had was the housekeeper, preoccupied with her TV, blind in one eye, and nobody to cooperate her. 

So how did he get his revolver and jacket if he didn't go back to the boarding house then?

[Vincent Baxter]

So what? People with generic names like “Vincent Baxter” pop up here all the time spouting all the same “Oswald did it” rhetoric and propaganda.

Yeah, but unlike in instance they don't usually just cling to one person and back up pretty much everything he says and join in unprovoked on every argument regardless of the topic or subject. Or accidentally reply to a post defending themselves when the original accusation was aimed at another account.

Of course it is. It’s much easier to hide behind a keyboard and an anonymous identity and sling accusations than to put your money where your mouth is.

Yeah, thanks for that. Well done on stating the obvious there.
Are you seriously telling me that if someone you were convinced of fake internet identity offered you $100,000 to prove them wrong, which would involve dragging in solicitors and paying for hours of legal work, you'd have taken him up on his offer? Do me a favour!

Arguments and opposing JFK theories aside; you must agree that you'd take the challenge about as seriously as I did?