Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[John Iacoletti]

Charles, do you really not see the difference between a positive claim ("His frame of mind was X"), and skepticism towards that positive claim?  One is a knowledge claim and the other is not.

[Charles Collins]

Charles, do you really not see the difference between a positive claim ("His frame of mind was X"), and skepticism towards that positive claim?  One is a knowledge claim and the other is not.

His statement was prefaced with:

"It's about Oswald's frame of mind."

That implies that the following statement is what he thinks Oswald's frame of mind was. It appears to be based on what he would have done (or not done), not on the actual actions of LHO. At least what I opined was based on reality (LHO's actions).

[John Iacoletti]

His statement was prefaced with:

"It's about Oswald's frame of mind."

That implies that the following statement is what he thinks Oswald's frame of mind was.

But what followed the preface was not a statement of fact, but rather a question.

Consider the following analogy:

"Bernie Sanders' state of mind is that he does not think he can beat Trump"

vs.

"It's all about Bernie Sanders' state of mind.  Does he think he can beat Trump?  I doubt it."

One is a statement of fact, and the other is a statement of opinion.  The second statement does not claim to know what Sanders' state of mind is.

[Martin Weidmann]

You wrote your post before I finished mine... Go back and read it again


Yours was written 22 minutes before mine. Go back and read it again yourself...

Look at the last edit time... only 6 minutes before you posted

And btw... when I say "I seriously doubt it" it means that I seriously doubt it. It doesn't mean that I claim to know anything with certainty. I just have doubts about it. So, stop reading something that isn't there!

I never implied that you knew anything with certainty. Stop reading something that isn't there yourself. Just acknowledge that you started the conversation in this direction as I indicated before. And that you are being hypocritical when you tell us what you doubt about Oswald's frame of mind, then turn right around and tell Walt that any attempt to crawl inside Oswald's mind is futile.

It has become obvious that any attempt to have a reasonable conversation with you is futile...

So for you having doubts about somebody's alleged frame of mind (as claimed by others) is the same as crawling into somebody's mind?

With that kind of superficial "logic" it is indeed impossible to have a reasonable conversation!

Besides, what you call a "reasonable conversation" means that you will twist and turn in every which way possible to push your predetermind opinion, just like you did with the whole "rifle wrapped in a blanket and concealed in a duffelbag with a part sticking out" theory, which you later tried to pass of a Ruth Paine's conjecture, when it was clearly your own. Once you've got your mind made up, it seems to become fact to you and nothing anybody can say will convince you otherwise.

[Martin Weidmann]

His statement was prefaced with:

"It's about Oswald's frame of mind."

That implies that the following statement is what he thinks Oswald's frame of mind was. It appears to be based on what he would have done (or not done), not on the actual actions of LHO. At least what I opined was based on reality (LHO's actions).

That implies that the following statement is what he thinks Oswald's frame of mind was.

No it doesn't. You made a claim about what Oswald would or could have done (i.e. take the rifle to New Orleans, wrapped in a blanket and place in a duffelbag, with a part sticking out) and I asked if you had taken Oswald's frame of mind (as in consiousness of guilt) into account. I never claimed or even implied to know what Oswald's frame of mind was, but it seems logical to me that people will act differently when they get paranoid after doing something bad.

At least what I opined was based on reality (LHO's actions).

Nope.. what you opined was based upon what you believed to be reality and even then it was based on one instance. That's a far cry from being actually based on LHO's actions.

[Charles Collins]

But what followed the preface was not a statement of fact, but rather a question.

Consider the following analogy:

"Bernie Sanders' state of mind is that he does not think he can beat Trump"

vs.

"It's all about Bernie Sanders' state of mind.  Does he think he can beat Trump?  I doubt it."

One is a statement of fact, and the other is a statement of opinion.  The second statement does not claim to know what Sanders' state of mind is.

But what followed the preface was not a statement of fact, but rather a question.

No, it was a question followed by an answer to the question. Together they form a statement. In Martin's case it is an opinion.


Consider the following analogy:

"Bernie Sanders' state of mind is that he does not think he can beat Trump"

vs.

"It's all about Bernie Sanders' state of mind.  Does he think he can beat Trump?  I doubt it."

One is a statement of fact, and the other is a statement of opinion.  The second statement does not claim to know what Sanders' state of mind is.

Yes, just what I said above, a statement of opinion. And I said to Martin earlier, I didn't say he claimed to know anything with certainty.

[John Iacoletti]

No, it was a question followed by an answer to the question.

"I doubt it" is not an answer.  Or a claim.

I guess you really don't get the difference then.