JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Lack Of Damage To CE-399
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Andrew Mason on January 27, 2019, 12:01:22 AM ---By itself it establishes that Rowley had possession of CE399 unless Todd was lying and he (Todd) switched the bullet he received from Rowley with CE399.
According to your statement of principle, It isn't needed.
It was you who said you should presume someone to be truthful unless there is 'reliable knowledge' that he is lying.
So who was lying? And what is the 'reliable knowledge' that you have of such lying?
--- End quote ---
By itself it establishes that Rowley had possession of CE399 unless Todd was lying and he (Todd) switched the bullet he received from Rowley with CE399.
Which is exactly why your previous argument, down the line to Tomlinson, was not sound.
According to your statement of principle, It isn't needed.
It was you who said you should presume someone to be truthful unless there is 'reliable knowledge' that he is lying.
I don't recall ever making such a statement.
So who was lying? And what is the 'reliable knowledge' that you have of such lying?
Why do you repeat the same question when it has already been answered?
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on January 25, 2019, 07:08:09 PM ---WCC 6.5mm bullets are actually 3 cm long. But you're correct in acknowledging that in order to make a 3 cm wound in Connally's back it would have had to have been tumbling. I'll take that as your use of Olivier's testimony as being inoperative.
--- End quote ---
Why would you conclude that? I have already shown that in order to make a 3cm elliptical entrance wound the bullet just has to strike at an angle of about 75 degrees.
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on January 27, 2019, 12:20:02 AM ---By itself it establishes that Rowley had possession of CE399 unless Todd was lying and he (Todd) switched the bullet he received from Rowley with CE399.
Which is exactly why your previous argument, down the line to Tomlinson, was not sound.
According to your statement of principle, It isn't needed.
It was you who said you should presume someone to be truthful unless there is 'reliable knowledge' that he is lying.
I don't recall ever making such a statement.
--- End quote ---
You don't recall saying: "If someone tells me something , I dont just assume that person is lying unless I have some other reliable knowledge that alerts me to the possibilty."?
--- Quote ---So who was lying? And what is the 'reliable knowledge' that you have of such lying?
Why do you repeat the same question when it has already been answered?
--- End quote ---
Because you haven't answered it. You don't seem to understand that if Todd can verify that Rowley handed him CE399 then it is not necessary for Rowley to verify it as well. It has been verified. Unless you think that Todd was lying. But you wouldn't think that without 'reliable knowledge'.
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Andrew Mason on January 27, 2019, 01:06:14 AM ---You don't recall saying: "If someone tells me something , I dont just assume that person is lying unless I have some other reliable knowledge that alerts me to the possibilty."?Because you haven't answered it. You don't seem to understand that if Todd can verify that Rowley handed him CE399 then it is not necessary for Rowley to verify it as well. It has been verified. Unless you think that Todd was lying. But you wouldn't think that without 'reliable knowledge'.
--- End quote ---
You don't recall saying: "If someone tells me something , I dont just assume that person is lying unless I have some other reliable knowledge that alerts me to the possibilty."?
No. I do not recall. If I said it, please provide a link
You don't seem to understand that if Todd can verify that Rowley handed him CE399 then it is not necessary for Rowley to verify it as well. It has been verified.
Unless Todd was lying....
Unless you think that Todd was lying. But you wouldn't think that without 'reliable knowledge'.
Your "logic" doesn't depend on what I think or have to think in your opinion. If it has been verified unless Todd was lying, it hasn't been verified!
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on January 27, 2019, 01:47:02 AM ---You don't recall saying: "If someone tells me something , I dont just assume that person is lying unless I have some other reliable knowledge that alerts me to the possibilty."?
No. I do not recall. If I said it, please provide a link
--- End quote ---
It was Liam Kelly - but you responded to my post in response to that statement. If you disagree with it, why are you responding now? This whole point of this sub-thread is to show that one cannot presume that the witnesses are not lying. but still question CE399.
--- Quote ---You don't seem to understand that if Todd can verify that Rowley handed him CE399 then it is not necessary for Rowley to verify it as well. It has been verified.
Unless Todd was lying....
Unless you think that Todd was lying. But you wouldn't think that without 'reliable knowledge'.
Your "logic" doesn't depend on what I think or have to think in your opinion. If it has been verified unless Todd was lying, it hasn't been verified!
--- End quote ---
The whole point was that if you do not assume people are lying without 'reasonable knowledge' and you admit there is no such knowledge then there is no reason to think that CE399 was not found by Thomlinson.
If you are going to step into a discussion read the previous posts. Otherwise you waste our time.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version