On The Trail Of Delusion

[Martin Weidmann]

The difference is I'm serious about debating you while you're doing nothing more than putting up a false front with unreasonable travel demands, etc...

Yeah right. A serious debate would not be about winning or losing. It would be an exchange of arguments and a willingness to be persuaded by the opponents arguments whenever they have merit. You clearly have a different goal;

But I could beat your ass any day in an online debate.

Notice how he sneaks in "an online debate". That's the weasel at work, because he knows that online he has more flexibility to manipulate the conversation than during the face to face debate I actually proposed.

Nah.

You just don't know how to read and correctly decipher the testimonial record combined with the police tapes; an obvious characteristic (and fault) of yours.

Lol, mr "Superior". You can't control it, can you now? You feel yourself to be far superior than anybody else. And yet, your entire Callaway BS has to start with a bogus claim that the witness (Callaway) was confused and wrong when he gave testimony, as if that was the only time he said it and as if his was the only witness testimony available.

No matter that the facts do not support your claim and/or that you can not produce, based on all the combined witness testimony, a coherent timeline that actually works for your claim. Come to think of it; there is a clear comparison between you and the My Pillow Guy; both make a bogus claim and constantly say they have the evidence to back it up, but never ever produce it.

The best indicator that your entire claim is bogus is the fact that you have failed completely to explain it in detail. You never got anywhere beyond a personal insult and a cop out.

I didn't go wrong anywhere.  You don't know what you're talking about.  Your issue, not mine.  It's all in the police tapes.  Go have a listen.

Learn the case.

If all else fails, you can always go check out the police tapes.  They'll tell you that the body was loaded BEFORE Callaway got on the radio and the ambulance was leaving as he was on the radio.

It's all laid out for you if you just go read the transcripts of the police tapes.  It really isn't my problem if you cannot comprehend what you're looking at.

Notice mr "Superior" at work?

And notice also that he went from "it's all in the police tapes" to it being in "the testimonial record combined with the police tapes" (see above). If it was in the testimonial record, he could just point to it and explain what he was talking about. He never did.... Go figure!

Instead he simply changes his story, contradicting himself in the process;

The police tapes obviously don't mention the body being loaded into the ambulance, but the tapes do tell us when the ambulance was leaving the scene en route to Methodist Hospital.  The tapes tell us that the ambulance was leaving the scene as Callaway was making his report on the squad car radio.

The tapes tell us no such thing. The combined witnesses testimony proves beyond any doubt to a reasonable person that Callaway helped put Tippit in the ambulance after he made his radio call, but this is typical Brown. Make a bogus claim and never defend or explain it. Just say it's somewhere in the evidence (in this case the police tapes) and insult the opponent. And when the claim can't be maintained anymore, just modify the claim. In a face to face debate he wouldn't get that opportunity, which is why he is using excuses to run from it as fast as he can.

More false fronts.

I have never "weaseled out of a face to face meeting with you".  I've said close to a half dozen times now to let me know the next time you're in the States.  You know how impractical this "face to face" scenario is and therefore you count on it to make it seem like you're game, which you clearly are not.  If you were game, you'd agree to doing some sort of a debate on a podcast THIS WEEK (but everyone here knows you will not do this).

I have never "weaseled out of a face to face meeting with you"

Says he, while weaseling out of a face to face meeting again!

You know how impractical this "face to face" scenario is

It's only impractical for you because you don't like it. You prefer to hide behind a keyboard and a screen. However, as I would be the one paying for the whole thing, it's going to be on my terms or not at all.

The sad part is that (for some unknown reason) you believe you're smarter than everyone else and you believe that no one else can see the false bravado you're putting up (with the "just tell me when and where" bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns).  The reality is that everyone reading this can see through you.

The only person falling back on "technical difficulties" is you.

The sad part is that (for some unknown reason) you believe you're smarter than everyone else

Wrong. The really sad part is that your paranoid mind thinks this, when I have never said anything of the kind. You on the other hand do it all the time;

But I could beat your ass any day in an online debate.

You just don't know how to read and correctly decipher the testimonial record combined with the police tapes; an obvious characteristic (and fault) of yours.

It really isn't my problem if you cannot comprehend what you're looking at.

Shall I post some more of your belittling comments or do you get the picture?

This is real simple.  Debate me THIS WEEK.  A host can be easily found.  You won't, though.

Of course I won't. You know this, as I have said it before. It's not part of the offer I made to you and you don't get to change the rules, simply because you don't like my conditions. Your videos show clearly that you are the kind of guy who always wants to get things his way. You desperately need to control the narrative and you can't do that face to face. That's why you want to hide behind a screen and a keyboard.

[Dan O'meara]

Yeah right. A serious debate would not be about winning or losing. It would be an exchange of arguments and a willingness to be persuaded by the opponents arguments whenever they have merit. You clearly have a different goal;

Notice how he sneaks in "an online debate". That's the weasel at work, because he knows that online he has more flexibility to manipulate the conversation than during the face to face debate I actually proposed.

Lol, mr "Superior". You can't control it, can you now? You feel yourself to be far superior than anybody else. And yet, your entire Callaway BS has to start with a bogus claim that the witness (Callaway) was confused and wrong when he gave testimony, as if that was the only time he said it and as if his was the only witness testimony available.

No matter that the facts do not support your claim and/or that you can not produce, based on all the combined witness testimony, a coherent timeline that actually works for your claim. Come to think of it; there is a clear comparison between you and the My Pillow Guy; both make a bogus claim and constantly say they have the evidence to back it up, but never ever produce it.

The best indicator that your entire claim is bogus is the fact that you have failed completely to explain it in detail. You never got anywhere beyond a personal insult and a cop out.

Notice mr "Superior" at work?

And notice also that he went from "it's all in the police tapes" to it being in "the testimonial record combined with the police tapes" (see above). If it was in the testimonial record, he could just point to it and explain what he was talking about. He never did.... Go figure!

Instead he simply changes his story, contradicting himself in the process;

The tapes tell us no such thing. The combined witnesses testimony proves beyond any doubt to a reasonable person that Callaway helped put Tippit in the ambulance after he made his radio call, but this is typical Brown. Make a bogus claim and never defend or explain it. Just say it's somewhere in the evidence (in this case the police tapes) and insult the opponent. And when the claim can't be maintained anymore, just modify the claim. In a face to face debate he wouldn't get that opportunity, which is why he is using excuses to run from it as fast as he can.

I have never "weaseled out of a face to face meeting with you"

Says he, while weaseling out of a face to face meeting again!

You know how impractical this "face to face" scenario is

It's only impractical for you because you don't like it. You prefer to hide behind a keyboard and a screen. However, as I would be the one paying for the whole thing, it's going to be on my terms or not at all.

The sad part is that (for some unknown reason) you believe you're smarter than everyone else

Wrong. The really sad part is that your paranoid mind thinks this, when I have never said anything of the kind. You on the other hand do it all the time;

Shall I post some more of your belittling comments or do you get the picture?

Of course I won't. You know this, as I have said it before. It's not part of the offer I made to you and you don't get to change the rules, simply because you don't like my conditions. Your videos show clearly that you are the kind of guy who always wants to get things his way. You desperately need to control the narrative and you can't do that face to face. That's why you want to hide behind a screen and a keyboard.

"Notice how he sneaks in "an online debate". That's the weasel at work, because he knows that online he has more flexibility to manipulate the conversation than during the face to face debate I actually proposed."

Bollocks.
You have exactly the same "flexibility to manipulate the conversation", whatever that means.

It is clear to one and all your "face to face"  is to avoid being made an example of.

[Martin Weidmann]

"Notice how he sneaks in "an online debate". That's the weasel at work, because he knows that online he has more flexibility to manipulate the conversation than during the face to face debate I actually proposed."

Bollocks.
You have exactly the same "flexibility to manipulate the conversation", whatever that means.

It is clear to one and all your "face to face"  is to avoid being made an example of.

You mean like I made an example of your 4 TSBD conspirators BS?... Case of sour grapes, perhaps?


You have exactly the same "flexibility to manipulate the conversation", whatever that means.

Gotta love this level of ignorance 

You don't know what it means, but you have an opinion about it nevertheless..... Go figure!

Btw just in case you bother to reply (as you likely will), I have no desire to enter into a discussion with you on this subject.

[Richard Smith]

You're wrong. Oswald was a private individual and then became an historical figure later.   

Sorry Richard, my point is not silly. You clearly stated that Oswald "never had a sense of humor in his life". The only way you would know that for a fact is If you knew the man personally, but you never did. In order to evade my question, you bring up Trump for some reason when he was never the subject of this topic.     

I'll ask you again: How would you know if Oswald "never had a sense of humor" unless you knew the man personally? 

That was a silly claim for you to make.

Rick desperately wants to make this personal because I'm the only one here who ever bothers to respond to any of his thousands of long, endless anti-Trump posts.   Others here are apparently smart enough to completely ignore him.  But let's make this one about the subject actually under discussion here.  Did Oswald write "Hunter of Fascists. HA HA HA" on the BY photo or not?  That's the only relevant point.  I don't think he did.  I made a seemingly reasonable and incontrovertible point that Oswald wouldn't use self-deprecating humor to mock himself in this photo.  To the contrary, in this situation he was deadly serious about portraying himself as some type of revolutionary figure in the BY photos willing to commit violence for the cause (thus the display of weapons and Commie literature).  Even most CTers appear to accept this was the purpose of the BY photos since they argue that they were intended by their fantasy conspirators to portray Oswald in a sinister light to implicate him in the assassination (i.e. they depict an unhinged and potentially violent person).  But the sentiment "Hunter of Fascists. HA HA HA" is a remark that indicates mocking amusement at the subject depicted.   Is Oswald the type of person who displayed this type of humor or any humor?  No. 

Instead, the humorous sentiment being expressed is much more consistent with the viewpoint of Marina who found Oswald's nutty behavior to be amusing.  A source of humor.  But we are taken down the rabbit hole as to whether is it is possible to have a "hidden" sense of humor in which it is suggested that Oswald is a "private" individual and, therefore, no one can prove that he had no sense of humor.  Classic rabbit hole deflection.  Of course, despite the thousands of books and millions of pages written on the subject of Oswald and his background - many by people who knew him in his "private" life including his own wife - there is nary an example provided of Oswald displaying a sense of humor.  Much less being self-deprecating.  Rick and Martin have certainly not bothered to provide any example.  Martin bizarrely interjected that Oswald "liked kids." Instead they ask me to disprove this to their satisfaction despite the extensive historical record being devoid of any such examples.  Ironically, Martin even agrees with me on the relevant point that Oswald did not write "Hunter of Fascists" on this photo.  But this is the rabbit hole direction he wants to debate endlessly.  Rick refuses to even say what he is suggesting about the photo.  Is he arguing that Oswald was secretly a barrel of laughs and he was mocking himself by writing this sentiment on the photo?  Why is he taking issue with this?  We will apparently never know.  Instead we are down the rabbit hole about what constitutes a "private" individual and whether it is possible that Oswald has some hidden Richard Pryor alter ego never mentioned by anyone who ever encountered him because Rick apparently knew someone like that.  Astounding.  Endless posts are made on this subject while ignoring the relevant point.  Who wrote "Hunter of Fascists" on the photo?  Does that sound like something Oswald would have done?  No.  Does it sound like a sentiment Marina would express?  Yes.  Does it sound like a sentiment DeM himself might have expressed?  Maybe.  The humorous and mocking nature of the sentiment provides some insight into who wrote it.  That is the full and complete implication of my original point which is obvious and does not require us to go down some bizarre rabbit hole.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Rick desperately wants to make this personal because I'm the only one here who ever bothers to respond to any of his thousands of long, endless anti-Trump posts.   Others here are apparently smart enough to completely ignore him.  But let's make this one about the subject actually under discussion here.  Did Oswald write "Hunter of Fascists. HA HA HA" on the BY photo or not?  That's the only relevant point.  I don't think he did.  I made a seemingly reasonable and incontrovertible point that Oswald wouldn't use self-deprecating humor to mock himself in this photo.  To the contrary, in this situation he was deadly serious about portraying himself as some type of revolutionary figure in the BY photos willing to commit violence for the cause (thus the display of weapons and Commie literature).  Even most CTers appear to accept this was the purpose of the BY photos since they argue that they were intended by their fantasy conspirators to portray Oswald in a sinister light to implicate him in the assassination (i.e. they depict an unhinged and potentially violent person).  But the sentiment "Hunter of Fascists. HA HA HA" is a remark that indicates mocking amusement at the subject depicted.   Is Oswald the type of person who displayed this type of humor or any humor?  No. 

Instead, the humorous sentiment being expressed is much more consistent with the viewpoint of Marina who found Oswald's nutty behavior to be amusing.  A source of humor.  But we are taken down the rabbit hole as to whether is it is possible to have a "hidden" sense of humor in which it is suggested that Oswald is a "private" individual and, therefore, no one can prove that he had no sense of humor.  Classic rabbit hole deflection.  Of course, despite the thousands of books and millions of pages written on the subject of Oswald and his background - many by people who knew him in his "private" life including his own wife - there is nary an example provided of Oswald displaying a sense of humor.  Much less being self-deprecating.  Rick and Martin have certainly not bothered to provide any example.  Martin bizarrely interjected that Oswald "liked kids." Instead they ask me to disprove this to their satisfaction despite the extensive historical record being devoid of any such examples.  Ironically, Martin even agrees with me on the relevant point that Oswald did not write "Hunter of Fascists" on this photo.  But this is the rabbit hole direction he wants to debate endlessly.  Rick refuses to even say what he is suggesting about the photo.  Is he arguing that Oswald was secretly a barrel of laughs and he was mocking himself by writing this sentiment on the photo?  Why is he taking issue with this?  We will apparently never know.  Instead we are down the rabbit hole about what constitutes a "private" individual and whether it is possible that Oswald has some hidden Richard Pryor alter ego never mentioned by anyone who ever encountered him because Rick apparently knew someone like that.  Astounding.  Endless posts are made on this subject while ignoring the relevant point.  Who wrote "Hunter of Fascists" on the photo?  Does that sound like something Oswald would have done?  No.  Does it sound like a sentiment Marina would express?  Yes.  Does it sound like a sentiment DeM himself might have expressed?  Maybe.  The humorous and mocking nature of the sentiment provides some insight into who wrote it.  That is the full and complete implication of my original point which is obvious and does not require us to go down some bizarre rabbit hole.

If you read Priscilla Johnson McMillan's "Marina and Lee", which I think the most definitive work on Lee's personality at that time, you can see examples of a more light-hearted Oswald when in the USSR. There are stories in the book where he and Marina would laugh about matters.

However, the book also shows a darker and angrier Oswald when he returned to the US. His beatings, Marina said, got more intense and harsher (he would use a closed fist while in the USSR it was just a slap). He was failing miserably in the US; he couldn't hold a decent job, his life was spinning out of control. Not a lot of things to joke about. Most important, there's nothing at all in the book or elsewhere that I've seen where Oswald joked about politics or his political "personality." On that issue he was quite serious. If others have read about this they can correct me.

So let's say both sides are right: He did show a sense of humor on occasion (less so when he returned from Minsk) but it was not, as I see it, about politics. He took discussions about that very very seriously.

[Richard Smith]

More likely Rog would be ducking , dodging or deflecting into mom's basement

That proved to be a Nostradamus-like prediction.  I haven't seen so much dodging and running since those OJ Simpson Hertz commercials. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Rick desperately wants to make this personal because I'm the only one here who ever bothers to respond to any of his thousands of long, endless anti-Trump posts.   Others here are apparently smart enough to completely ignore him.  But let's make this one about the subject actually under discussion here.  Did Oswald write "Hunter of Fascists. HA HA HA" on the BY photo or not?  That's the only relevant point.  I don't think he did.  I made a seemingly reasonable and incontrovertible point that Oswald wouldn't use self-deprecating humor to mock himself in this photo.  To the contrary, in this situation he was deadly serious about portraying himself as some type of revolutionary figure in the BY photos willing to commit violence for the cause (thus the display of weapons and Commie literature).  Even most CTers appear to accept this was the purpose of the BY photos since they argue that they were intended by their fantasy conspirators to portray Oswald in a sinister light to implicate him in the assassination (i.e. they depict an unhinged and potentially violent person).  But the sentiment "Hunter of Fascists. HA HA HA" is a remark that indicates mocking amusement at the subject depicted.   Is Oswald the type of person who displayed this type of humor or any humor?  No. 

Instead, the humorous sentiment being expressed is much more consistent with the viewpoint of Marina who found Oswald's nutty behavior to be amusing.  A source of humor.  But we are taken down the rabbit hole as to whether is it is possible to have a "hidden" sense of humor in which it is suggested that Oswald is a "private" individual and, therefore, no one can prove that he had no sense of humor.  Classic rabbit hole deflection.  Of course, despite the thousands of books and millions of pages written on the subject of Oswald and his background - many by people who knew him in his "private" life including his own wife - there is nary an example provided of Oswald displaying a sense of humor.  Much less being self-deprecating.  Rick and Martin have certainly not bothered to provide any example.  Martin bizarrely interjected that Oswald "liked kids." Instead they ask me to disprove this to their satisfaction despite the extensive historical record being devoid of any such examples.  Ironically, Martin even agrees with me on the relevant point that Oswald did not write "Hunter of Fascists" on this photo.  But this is the rabbit hole direction he wants to debate endlessly.  Rick refuses to even say what he is suggesting about the photo.  Is he arguing that Oswald was secretly a barrel of laughs and he was mocking himself by writing this sentiment on the photo?  Why is he taking issue with this?  We will apparently never know.  Instead we are down the rabbit hole about what constitutes a "private" individual and whether it is possible that Oswald has some hidden Richard Pryor alter ego never mentioned by anyone who ever encountered him because Rick apparently knew someone like that.  Astounding.  Endless posts are made on this subject while ignoring the relevant point.  Who wrote "Hunter of Fascists" on the photo?  Does that sound like something Oswald would have done?  No.  Does it sound like a sentiment Marina would express?  Yes.  Does it sound like a sentiment DeM himself might have expressed?  Maybe.  The humorous and mocking nature of the sentiment provides some insight into who wrote it.  That is the full and complete implication of my original point which is obvious and does not require us to go down some bizarre rabbit hole.

Who wrote "Hunter of Fascists" on the photo?  Does that sound like something Oswald would have done?  No.  Does it sound like a sentiment Marina would express?  Yes.  Does it sound like a sentiment DeM himself might have expressed?  Maybe.  The humorous and mocking nature of the sentiment provides some insight into who wrote it.

Great, so now we have established that who ever wrote the text did not hold Oswald in any high regard. If Richard's constant suggestion that Marina wrote it is wrong, and (and it is beyond doubt that she didn't), that brings us automatically to an unknown third party who somehow knew Oswald and must have been involved in the making of the BY photos. This in turn is most relevant as it makes the taking of the picture more than just the family affair the WC wants us to believe it was. And that was exactly the point I have been making from the beginning!

[Richard Smith]

Who wrote "Hunter of Fascists" on the photo?  Does that sound like something Oswald would have done?  No.  Does it sound like a sentiment Marina would express?  Yes.  Does it sound like a sentiment DeM himself might have expressed?  Maybe.  The humorous and mocking nature of the sentiment provides some insight into who wrote it.

Great, so now we have established that who ever wrote the text did not hold Oswald in any high regard. Despite "Richard's" constant suggestion that Marina wrote it - when it is beyond doubt that she didn't (otherwise we would have known it by now) - brings us automatically to an unknown third party who somehow knew Oswald and must have been involved in the making of the BY photos. This in turn is most relevant as it makes the taking of the picture more than just the family affair the WC wants us to believe it was. And that was exactly the point I have been making from the beginning!

I'm not aware of anyone who ever claimed that the person who wrote this did so to compliment Oswald.  Not sure where you came up with that.  It always has been interpreted as a humorous derogatory or satirical remark directed at Oswald.  That was my entire point for why it is unlikely Oswald who wrote it.  How does that prove it wasn't Marina - much less prove it "beyond doubt"?  If anything, the sentiment is entirely consistent with her view of the situation.  That is particularly rich coming from someone who otherwise applies an impossible standard of proof to any evidence linking Oswald to the crime.  But here for some unspecified reason we can suddenly rule out Marina "beyond doubt."  LOL. 

A notation written on the back of the photo in no way suggests that the person who wrote it "must have been involved in the making of the BY photos."  It simply means that they had access to the photo at some point in time after it was taken.  Whether Marina or DeM wrote this notation is mostly a matter of historical curiosity at this point.  If you want to believe we can't know with certainty who wrote it, then knock yourself out.  The list of such people who had access to the photo and could write in Russian is very limited.  Any uncertainty as to whether it was Marina or DeM adds nothing to the case for a conspiracy or whatever you are trying to suggest here.