Touring the Tippit Scene

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Excuse me, but Oswald-lovers have every right to choose who to live (and kneel) for.

Of course, they are free to worship leprechauns if they want. And if their goal is to simply defend "poor Lee" then I surrender: they've accomplished it, I'm convinced.

It is interesting hearing from those who supported suppressing the Hunter Biden story because they were unproven allegations then turn around and come here and make endless unproven allegations about all sorts of people involved, they claim, in a conspiracy behind the assassination. But that's another story for another time.

[John Iacoletti]

It is interesting hearing from those who supported suppressing the Hunter Biden story because they were unproven allegations then turn around and come here and make endless unproven allegations about all sorts of people involved, they claim, in a conspiracy behind the assassination. But that's another story for another time.

And who, pray tell, would that be?

[John Iacoletti]

Look at the discussion here: it's an endless rejection of evidence by the Oswald defenders. Every single piece is dismissed. So what's the point? To defend Oswald or to try and muddle through with the evidence and reach some conclusions?

You want some cheese with that whine? Maybe it’s irrational to “reach conclusions” on insufficient or inconclusive evidence.

[Bill Chapman]

Of course, they are free to worship leprechauns if they want. And if their goal is to simply defend "poor Lee" then I surrender: they've accomplished it, I'm convinced.

It is interesting hearing from those who supported suppressing the Hunter Biden story because they were unproven allegations then turn around and come here and make endless unproven allegations about all sorts of people involved, they claim, in a conspiracy behind the assassination. But that's another story for another time.

You missed my sarcasm

[Martin Weidmann]

Well, yes, as I added to my post: eyewitness accounts CAN be wrong, CAN be (and are) subjective and CAN be unreliable. As in the Rashomon effect.

But all we have is these accounts plus corroborating evidence (if possible). To dismiss everything as being an opinion, as nothing more, renders any discussion of events useless. Where do we take this? Let's empty our libraries of history books. It's all opinion and worthless.

Look at the discussion here: it's an endless rejection of evidence by the Oswald defenders. Every single piece is dismissed. So what's the point? To defend Oswald or to try and muddle through with the evidence and reach some conclusions?

You want some cheese with that whine? Maybe it’s irrational to “reach conclusions” on insufficient or inconclusive evidence.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."- Bertrand Russell

[Bill Chapman]

LOL. Russell himself was a fanatic, well at least about the JFK assassination. He sounds pretty sure about himself, despite getting a lot of information wrong. As for me I'm not a fanatic so can clearly see that Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy. Booyah.

http://22november1963.org.uk/bertrand-russell-16-questions-on-the-assassination

[Martin Weidmann]

LOL. Russell himself was a fanatic, well at least about the JFK assassination. He sounds pretty sure about himself, despite getting a lot of information wrong. As for me I'm not a fanatic so can clearly see that Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy. Booyah.

http://22november1963.org.uk/bertrand-russell-16-questions-on-the-assassination

Pathetic, as per usual. In the link you have provided, Russell is asking questions exactly as a wiser man with doubt would do, regardless of your idiotic opinion that he somehow "sounds pretty sure about himself".

You, on the other hand, fit the description of a fool or a fanatic to a tee. You don't ask questions and act like you know it all.

My quote of Russell is 100% correct. Thank you for proving that it is.