Touring the Tippit Scene

[Richard Smith]

So you are contending that it is my opinion because I wasn't there to witness these events? 

Yes. Absolutely. When you were not there to witness something what else but an opinion can it possibly be? You may rely on sources that you deem to be credible, and match your mind set, but that doesn't elevate your opinion to a fact.

Wow.  So every event in history that occurred in which I was not present is simply my "opinion" no matter how well documented?  There are no words.   Maybe the single dumbest post in the history of this forum or perhaps the entire Internet.  Astounding.

[Martin Weidmann]

Wow.  So every event in history that occurred in which I was not present is simply my "opinion" no matter how well documented?  There are no words.   Maybe the single dumbest post in the history of this forum or perhaps the entire Internet.  Astounding.

You can not be so stupid, can you? That's not what I said. Your strawman is - as per usual - bogus.

So every event in history that occurred in which I was not present is simply my "opinion" no matter how well documented?

No, not "no matter how well documented". To accept something as a historical fact, by a person who was not there to witness it, depends exactly on how well it is documented.

World War II is extremenly well documented to the extent that it clearly is a historical fact and future generations will still see it that way. It's one of those events that can not be denied, regardless of anybody's opinion.

The disappearance of the two Princes in the Tower of London in 1483 is, more often than not, attributed to their uncle who, it is claimed, had them killed so he could become King Richard III. Although the disappearance of the boys is well documented and can be regarded to be a historical fact, their alleged murder at the behest of their uncle is not. That's only an opinion for which there is very little to no evidence.

The donation of Constantine is allegedly a 4th century document that was believed to be authentic for nearly a thousand years, until it was exposed as a 8th century forgery in the late 1500's. There never was any evidence for it's authenticity except for the document itself. All the people who believed it to be authentic had the wrong opinion.

The murder of JFK, on 11/22/63, is beyond dispute. The evidence for the event is overwhelming. However, the opinion of a historian about JFK, published in a newspaper, is no way near as well documented and can not be regarded as a historical fact. If you choose to believe him then that belief becomes your opinion.

I hope you get it now, because I can't dumb it down for you any further.

[Richard Smith]

You can not be so stupid, can you? That's not what I said. Your strawman is - as per usual - bogus.

So every event in history that occurred in which I was not present is simply my "opinion" no matter how well documented?

No, not "no matter how well documented". To accept something as a historical fact, by a person who was not there to witness it, depends exactly on how well it is documented.

World War II is extremenly well documented to the extent that it clearly is a historical fact and future generations will still see it that way. It's one of those events that can not be denied, regardless of anybody's opinion.

The disappearance of the two Princes in the Tower of London in 1483 is, more often than not, attributed to their uncle who, it is claimed, had them killed so he could become King Richard III. Although the disappearance of the boys is well documented and can be regarded to be a historical fact, their alleged murder at the behest of their uncle is not. That's only an opinion for which there is very little to no evidence.

The donation of Constantine is allegedly a 4th century document that was believed to be authentic for nearly a thousand years, until it was exposed as a 8th century forgery in the late 1500's. There never was any evidence for it's authenticity except for the document itself. All the people who believed it to be authentic had the wrong opinion.

The murder of JFK, on 11/22/63, is beyond dispute. The evidence for the event is overwhelming. However, the opinion of a historian about JFK, published in a newspaper, is no way near as well documented and can not be regarded as a historical fact. If you choose to believe him then that belief becomes your opinion.

I hope you get it now, because I can't dumb it down for you any further.

You are making Caprio look like a genius.  This post is truly bizarre. 

[Martin Weidmann]

You are making Caprio look like a genius.  This post is truly bizarre.

It seems you can indeed be this stupid. Despite my effort to dumb it down for you as much as I can, it nevertheless all still went straight over your head. I'd have a better opportunity of trying to have a conversation with a chimpanzee. Your silly comment only demonstrates beyond a doubt that you are, more than anything else, absolutely clueless. Instant dismissal, as per usual, and utterly unable to even offer a coherent counter argument, that's you!

As you clearly can't distinguish between your opinion and a fact, it very much explains why you are a LN.

You just keep believing that your opinions are facts and I'll just keep on believing that you're a brainless idiot

[Walt Cakebread]

It seems you can indeed be this stupid. Despite my effort to dumb it down for you as much as I can, it nevertheless all still went straight over your head. I'd have a better opportunity of trying to have a conversation with a chimpanzee. Your silly comment only demonstrates beyond a doubt that you are, more than anything else, absolutely clueless. Instant dismissal, as per usual, and utterly unable to even offer a coherent counter argument, that's you!

As you clearly can't distinguish between your opinion and a fact, it very much explains why you are a LN.

You just keep believing that your opinions are facts and I'll just keep on believing that you're a brainless idiot

you clearly can't distinguish between your opinion and a fact, it very much explains why you are a LN.

Martin, has it occurred to you that Mr Smith may not believe what he posts?    I've long ago conclude that Mr "Smith" is simply an agent whose is assigned to support the official government created, and approved tale.  And at the same time try to paint all of those who refuse to believe the nonsense of the WR as "Kooks" 

[Richard Smith]

you clearly can't distinguish between your opinion and a fact, it very much explains why you are a LN.

Martin, has it occurred to you that Mr Smith may not believe what he posts?    I've long ago conclude that Mr "Smith" is simply an agent whose is assigned to support the official government created, and approved tale.  And at the same time try to paint all of those who refuse to believe the nonsense of the WR as "Kooks"

I don't believe JFK had serious medical conditions, took numerous drugs for those conditions, and had numerous affairs?  All of which are documented facts.  And, irony of irony, you are the very person who started this by noting that Hoover kept files on people.  Martin is suggesting these are all merely our "opinions" because we were not there in person to witness these events.  Do you not believe that Hoover kept files on people including JFK and that is just our "opinion" as Martin had stupidly suggested.  Do tell?

[Martin Weidmann]

I don't believe JFK had serious medical conditions, took numerous drugs for those conditions, and had numerous affairs?  All of which are documented facts.  And, irony of irony, you are the very person who started this by noting that Hoover kept files on people.  Martin is suggesting these are all merely our "opinions" because we were not there in person to witness these events.  Do you not believe that Hoover kept files on people including JFK and that is just our "opinion" as Martin had stupidly suggested.  Do tell?

I don't believe JFK had serious medical conditions, took numerous drugs for those conditions, and had numerous affairs?  All of which are documented facts.

Of course you believe that, because that's all you can do. You can only make a judgment call about whether you believe and accept that information, which you - in your opinion - call "documented facts".

Martin is suggesting these are all merely our "opinions" because we were not there in person to witness these events. 

More misrepresentation. Martin is suggesting that something may very well be true, but that you personally can not know that first hand for a fact because you were not a witness to it. In other words, you believe it to be true, which is when it becomes your opinion that it is true.

The irony of this is that in your own post you used the word "believe" twice, showing that you do not have first hand knowledge and merely believe something to be true, which is exactly what I have been saying all along.

Do you not believe that Hoover kept files on people including JFK and that is just our "opinion" as Martin had stupidly suggested.  Do tell?

I never questioned that Hoover kept files on people and he may well have had dirt on JFJK as well, so stop misrepresenting what I said. I actually do believe Hoover kept files on people, but since I wasn't there, that's just my opinion. For you, although you weren't there either it somehow becomes not an opinion but a fact.

This is what I actually asked you;

All of it is opinion, because that's all you can have, unless of course you have first hand knowledge about any of it. There are all sorts of people and publications that make all sorts of claims. You decide which ones you want to believe and they become your opinion. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Have you seen the records Hoover allegedly kept on people, including Presidents? No, of course you haven't

Were you present when JFK had affairs, used drugs and lied about his medical condition? Do you even know first hand what medical condition he had? No, of course not

And what makes you think, whatever it is you believe there was, could have been used to blackmail JFK, except of course your opinion.