Lame LN excuses

[John Mytton]

Mr. BALL. Now, in this first conversation he told you that he had lived at 1026 Beckley, didn't he?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir. He didn't know whether it was north or south.
Mr. BALL. And you sent a group of officers out there to search that address?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; that is right.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

You don’t know what Oswald told Fritz.

Fritz told us Oswald said;

I don't own the rifle
I didn't kill Kennedy
I didn't kill a Police Officer
I only carried my lunch to work
"The only law I violated was in the show; I hit the officer in the show; he hit me in the eye and I guess I deserved it."
I'm not a naughty boy

To me, that's an honest list and besides Fritz wasn't alone so to avoid any conflicting testimony the best thing to do is just tell the truth.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

That's an awfully broad generalization, everyone's lies and that's why Jesus died for our sins.

L O L

I examine each statement in context of the overall picture.

No, you examine each statement in context of what you already believe.

For example Oswald lied every time the rifle was brought up;

Your evidence being that it conflicts with what your unsubstantiated beliefs are.

[John Iacoletti]

Fritz told us Oswald said;

I don't own the rifle
I didn't kill Kennedy
I didn't kill a Police Officer
I only carried my lunch to work
"The only law I violated was in the show; I hit the officer in the show; he hit me in the eye and I guess I deserved it."
I'm not a naughty boy

 

None of those made-up quotes were uttered by Fritz.

[John Mytton]

Except that won't happen because it's pretty clear that you and John Iacoletti are not the same person.

That's at least the third time you've goaded us into saying that now, planting a seed in the hope that someone will indeed accuse you both of being the same person and therefore John, being of an entirely different identity to yourself, will know our claims are wrong. Thus giving you the opportunity to say "See John, if they're wrong about us then they're clearly wrong about me being Otto, Goth, etc".

Exactly, it's obvious that John only posts as himself and this continued baiting is just an obvious ruse, that if taken relaxes the pressure on the Unholy Trinity Quaternity.

JohnM

[Vincent Baxter]

Textbook loaded question. How do you know he “got his revolver and jacket” at all?

Well, because he had his revolver and jacket afterwards.
I know you refuse to accept anything other than high quality CCTV footageof Oswald doing anything as sufficient proof (and even then you'd probably ask "how do you know this isn't fake?"), but dumb reasoning like that isn't being big or clever or showing off any highly advanced investigative skills.

I could quite easily pose dumb questions like:
- How do you know witnesses did actually see puffs of smoke from the grassy knoll and weren't just making it up solely to get on TV?
- How do we know the doctors at Parkland weren't just extremely p*ssed off about the secret services taking JFK's body and so decided to get together and lie about the autopsy to confuse things and get back at them?
And you wouldn't be able to answer them with any conclusive proof either way, because we know there isn't any.

As other people have already stated on this thread, Oswald admitted to going to the boarding house to get his revolver. And yes, the Warren Commission stated he did too. Do I believe everything in the WC? No, I don't but if you're claiming that in this instance this isn't the case then what alternative proof can you offer to back that up, rather than just dismissing it asking "Well, how do you know he did? Just because the WC said so?"

[John Mytton]

None of those made-up quotes were uttered by Fritz.

That's why I only put quotation marks on 1 quote, but the rest are close enough, are you going to argue about any of them or have you had your say?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Well, because he had his revolver and jacket afterwards.
I know you refuse to accept anything other than high quality CCTV footageof Oswald doing anything as sufficient proof (and even then you'd probably ask "how do you know this isn't fake?"), but dumb reasoning like that isn't being big or clever or showing off any highly advanced investigative skills.

I could quite easily pose dumb questions like:
- How do you know witnesses did actually see puffs of smoke from the grassy knoll and weren't just making it up solely to get on TV?
- How do we know the doctors at Parkland weren't just extremely p*ssed off about the secret services taking JFK's body and so decided to get together and lie about the autopsy to confuse things and get back at them?
And you wouldn't be able to answer them with any conclusive proof either way, because we know there isn't any.

As other people have already stated on this thread, Oswald admitted to going to the boarding house to get his revolver. And yes, the Warren Commission stated he did too. Do I believe everything in the WC? No, I don't but if you're claiming that in this instance this isn't the case then what alternative proof can you offer to back that up, rather than just dismissing it asking "Well, how do you know he did? Just because the WC said so?"

Well, because he had his revolver and jacket afterwards.

At the risk of being called the same person as John ( ) how the hell do you know what he had "afterwards", whatever that means?