Texas honors Officer J.D. Tippit and names his killer - Lee Harvey Oswald

[Martin Weidmann]

I just explained my attitude, you ignored it. Let me make this perfectly clear: When otherwise intelligent people talk nonsense to "avoid addressing the plain details of the matter", they automatically go down in one's estimation of them. Even highly intelligent people "dodge and weave" intellectually. Do you recall the "Rhodes Scholar" who said: "I did not have sex with that woman".

I just explained my attitude, you ignored it.

No I didn't. I simply didn't believe it

Let me make this perfectly clear: When otherwise intelligent people talk nonsense to "avoid addressing the plain details of the matter", they automatically go down in one's estimation of them.

And who makes the determination that otherwise intelligent people talk "nonsense"?.... You, right?

And what about the "plain details of the matter"? Who decides they are correct and not flawed?  Again, you, right?

So spare me the BS... what you are actually saying is that people have to agree with you because otherwise they go down in your "estimation of them". Not one moment will you even consider that they could be right....

Even highly intelligent people "dodge and weave" intellectually.

But you don't, right? You are the only straightshooter on this forum, right?

Just to be clear; it isn't the mark of an intelligent mind to underestimate and dismiss what others say as "nonsense"!

[John Tonkovich]

I just explained my attitude, you ignored it. Let me make this perfectly clear: When otherwise intelligent people talk nonsense to "avoid addressing the plain details of the matter", they automatically go down in one's estimation of them. Even highly intelligent people "dodge and weave" intellectually. Do you recall the "Rhodes Scholar" who said: "I did not have sex with that woman".

Yeah. He lied about a private, consensual relationship. Which harmed no one.

Some other guys lied about WMDs. Millions have died, and ISIS is still around.

Some other guy lied about a virus. 42,000 dead, several hundred thousand sick, economy in shambles.

It's all about scale, oh great Clinton hater.

And no, oh great Dale Meyers fan, Oswald did not shoot Tippit at 1:15.

Aside: Dale Meyers is a veritable clone of Captain Westbrook and Hugh Aynesworth, two prevaricators who were everywhere that day, TSB, Parkland, Tippit scene and Texas Theatre.
Just like Meyers, who's not just an expert on one shooting, but.. both! ( ?) Even though he comprehends nothing about ballistics, land surveys, autopsies, altered police reports, etc.

[Ross Lidell]

I just explained my attitude, you ignored it.

No I didn't. I simply didn't believe it

Let me make this perfectly clear: When otherwise intelligent people talk nonsense to "avoid addressing the plain details of the matter", they automatically go down in one's estimation of them.

And who makes the determination that otherwise intelligent people talk "nonsense"?.... You, right?

And what about the "plain details of the matter"? Who decides they are correct and not flawed?  Again, you, right?

So spare me the BS... what you are actually saying is that people have to agree with you because otherwise they go down in your "estimation of them". Not one moment will you even consider that they could be right....

Even highly intelligent people "dodge and weave" intellectually.

But you don't, right? You are the only straightshooter on this forum, right?

Just to be clear; it isn't the mark of an intelligent mind to underestimate and dismiss what others say as "nonsense"!

So spare me the BS... what you are actually saying is that people have to agree with you because otherwise they go down in your "estimation of them". Not one moment will you even consider that they could be right....

No! If they "dodge and weave".

How can they be right when they don't put forward a theory with some evidence?

If people disagree with me: I expect them to put forward an "explanation" based on evidence not speculation and conjecture.

To stop being a "contrarian", you will have to (at least once), explain what you think happened as opposed to ignoring the historical record which you appear to disbelieve--in every instance.

Someone posted that Randle was given the TSBD job information by the CIA and ordered to pass on the details to Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald through the Roberts coffee klatch. An idiotic theory, but at least he tried.

Start a Subject, Martin: Just one Subject. Is that too hard for you to accomplish?

[John Iacoletti]

Assertions or speculation will not do.

This entire plaque is assertions and speculations.

Myers’ propaganda has no business on something called a “historical marker”.

[Martin Weidmann]

So spare me the BS... what you are actually saying is that people have to agree with you because otherwise they go down in your "estimation of them". Not one moment will you even consider that they could be right....

No! If they "dodge and weave".

Thanks for proving my point. And of course, you are the one who decides if somebody does "dodge and weave". Kinda convenient, right?

How can they be right when they don't put forward a theory with some evidence?

If people disagree with me: I expect them to put forward an "explanation" based on evidence not speculation and conjecture.

And there is the fatal flaw in your reasoning. When you put forward a claim others can agree or disagree with it. When somebody disagrees they can explain why they disagree and for any reasonable person that would be enough, but not for you. You go straight into "you need to have a theory and proof" which is total BS. The other person isn't putting forward a claim. He is merely telling you why he thinks your claim is wrong. All this "you need to have a theory and proof" crap is only intended for the purpose of being able to dismiss whatever they tell you.

Thinking that people can not be right when they don't comply with your additional requirements is just plain stupid. This is just about the most dumbest thing you've said so far.

To stop being a "contrarian", you will have to (at least once), explain what you think happened as opposed to ignoring the historical record which you appear to disbelieve--in every instance.

First of all, I don't disbelieve the historical record in every instance. That's just something you made up to be able to argue. In fact, it is my opinion that a large portion of the historical record is probably factual and correct.

And secondly, you don't get to tell me what I should or should not do.

Someone posted that Randle was given the TSBD job information by the CIA and ordered to pass on the details to Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald through the Roberts coffee klatch. An idiotic theory, but at least he tried.

I am not that someone. I don't like speculation and assumptions. That's exactly why I am critical of the WC report. It's full of speculation, assumptions and conclusions that are not supported by the evidence in the 26 volumes.

But thank you for showing how your mind works.... You want people to come up with a theory, so you can dismiss it and call it idiotic! That's the only purpose of that game you try to play time after time. It's nothing more that a variation of the strawman strategy.

Start a Subject, Martin: Just one Subject. Is that too hard for you to accomplish?

Already did... you are not paying attention! I actually started only 2 threads less than you!

[Gerry Down]

This entire plaque is assertions and speculations.

Myers’ propaganda has no business on something called a “historical marker”.

What would you write on that plaque?

"Here is where J.D. Tippit allegedly died. Some say he was badgeman on the grassy knoll. Some say he set up Oswald as a patsy for the JFK assassination".

[Ross Lidell]

What would you write on that plaque?

"Here is where J.D. Tippit allegedly died. Some say he was badgeman on the grassy knoll. Some say he set up Oswald as a patsy for the JFK assassination".

I was thinking that too. Describing speculative alternatives would be rather convoluted and confusing.