Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

Oh boy.... What does it take to get through to you?

Let's try again, shall we? Here's the quote you refer to;

You are missing the point. Sure, many people travel with firearms, but how many of those have just used that weapon to shoot somebody? It's about Oswald's frame of mind. Having just tried to kill a man with that rifle, would he risk transporting it in a duffelbag with the barrel sticking out? I seriously doubt it....

1. I made the comment that it was about Oswald's frame of mind, because you missed the point I had made.
2. I asked a question
3. I stated my opinion that I seriously doubted it.

My opinion is not an answer to the question, nor does it indicate that I know anything about Oswald's frame of mind. It's merely an expression of doubt.

The question and my opinion combined do not constitute a statement of any kind and it most certainly does not, as you claimed about one hour ago, imply that I somehow think I know what Oswald's frame of mind was.

I did not claim that Oswald would never have carried the rifle the way you described. I merely stated that I doubted it!

If you don't understand the difference, than I don't know what else there is I, or anybody else, can tell you to make you understand.

[Charles Collins]

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

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.

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


No matter, it was still before, and what I was responding to.


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?


You were the first to bring up LHO's frame of mind. I responded to your opinion. Therefore your stated "doubt" was about the scenario you included in your own question. And since you answered your own question, you did make a statement about what you thought LHO's frame of mind should have been.


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.

The rifle in the duffel bag was Ruth Paine's conjecture. I expanded upon it with some conjecture of my own. I have already acknowledged this. What is your problem? No one said you have to agree with any of it.

[Charles Collins]

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

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

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

It is a statement of opinion (as a response to the question). Therefore it is an answer. Here is the definition for you: a thing said, written, or done to deal with or as a reaction to a question, statement, or situation.

Got it yet?!

[Charles Collins]

Oh boy.... What does it take to get through to you?

Let's try again, shall we? Here's the quote you refer to;

1. I made the comment that it was about Oswald's frame of mind, because you missed the point I had made.
2. I asked a question
3. I stated my opinion that I seriously doubted it.

My opinion is not an answer to the question, nor does it indicate that I know anything about Oswald's frame of mind. It's merely an expression of doubt.

The question and my opinion combined do not constitute a statement of any kind and it most certainly does not, as you claimed about one hour ago, imply that I somehow think I know what Oswald's frame of mind was.

I did not claim that Oswald would never have carried the rifle the way you described. I merely stated that I doubted it!

If you don't understand the difference, than I don't know what else there is I, or anybody else, can tell you to make you understand.

My opinion is not an answer to the question, nor does it indicate that I know anything about Oswald's frame of mind. It's merely an expression of doubt.

It was in response to your own question. Therefore, according to the definition of answer in the dictionary it is an answer.


The question and my opinion combined do not constitute a statement of any kind and it most certainly does not, as you claimed about one hour ago, imply that I somehow think I know what Oswald's frame of mind was

Statement: a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing. The question followed by: "I seriously doubt it..." appears to be definite and clear expression of your opinion. And you wrote both of them. Therefore it is a statement (by definition).


I did not claim that Oswald would never have carried the rifle the way you described. I merely stated that I doubted it!

Okay, but you also brought Oswald's frame of mind into the conversation. And that is what I responded to.


I really hope you can understand this. Because I am tired of it and we are just going around in circles arguing the same stuff.

[John Iacoletti]

If you don't understand the difference, than I don't know what else there is I, or anybody else, can tell you to make you understand.

This is futile.  He's not going to get it.

This is a statement of fact, and a positive claim purporting to know somebody's state of mind:
"His frame of mind was more like Alfred E. Newman’s (What, me worry)."

This is a statement of opinion, and not a factual claim purporting to know somebody's state of mind:
"Having just tried to kill a man with that rifle, would he risk transporting it in a duffelbag with the barrel sticking out? I seriously doubt it...."

On top of that, is there any evidence that Oswald transported a rifle in a duffel bag with the barrel sticking out?  None whatsoever.

[Martin Weidmann]

This is futile.  He's not going to get it.

This is a statement of fact, and a positive claim purporting to know somebody's state of mind:
"His frame of mind was more like Alfred E. Newman’s (What, me worry)."

This is a statement of opinion, and not a factual claim purporting to know somebody's state of mind:
"Having just tried to kill a man with that rifle, would he risk transporting it in a duffelbag with the barrel sticking out? I seriously doubt it...."

On top of that, is there any evidence that Oswald transported a rifle in a duffel bag with the barrel sticking out?  None whatsoever.

This is futile.  He's not going to get it.

Indeed.... or maybe you and I are not dumb enough to discuss things at his level.

How about this piece of amazing "logic"

The question and my opinion combined do not constitute a statement of any kind and it most certainly does not, as you claimed about one hour ago, imply that I somehow think I know what Oswald's frame of mind was

Statement: a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing. The question followed by: "I seriously doubt it..." appears to be definite and clear expression of your opinion. And you wrote both of them. Therefore it is a statement (by definition).

First he defines a statement as a definite or clear expression of something, then he goes on to say that what I wrote "appears to be definite and clear", only to conclude that because it appeared to be definite and clear it is somehow, by definition, a statement....

Do you think he understands that his bogus conclusion is only based upon his misguided opinion that what I wrote appears to be definite and clear? I seriously doubt it!

[Charles Collins]

This is futile.  He's not going to get it.

This is a statement of fact, and a positive claim purporting to know somebody's state of mind:
"His frame of mind was more like Alfred E. Newman’s (What, me worry)."

This is a statement of opinion, and not a factual claim purporting to know somebody's state of mind:
"Having just tried to kill a man with that rifle, would he risk transporting it in a duffelbag with the barrel sticking out? I seriously doubt it...."

On top of that, is there any evidence that Oswald transported a rifle in a duffel bag with the barrel sticking out?  None whatsoever.

I got your point the first time:

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.

I should have put the words "I think" at the beginning of my sentence. Are you happy now?

However, the problem with your post is that the "skepticism" was not towards the positive claim. (The "skepticism" was posted at least 6 minutes beforehand.) That is what we have been arguing about. Martin appeared to be confused about that.



On top of that, is there any evidence that Oswald transported a rifle in a duffel bag with the barrel sticking out?  None whatsoever.


No one has said that it was anything but conjecture.