Et tu, Bonnie?

[Dan O'meara]

Oswald Arse-Kissers: Still grasping at straws after all these years.

Explain this post

[Dan O'meara]

Why so defensive? Do you foolishly believe that throwing around insults are somehow going to help you win the argument?

It's not my problem when you can't (or don't want to) understand the reasoning of "a 10 year old."

I would give more credence to the affidavits and the WC testimony (of all witnesses) if there had been cross-examination. Your interpretation of only the relevant parts of that testimony is not only a one sided matter and but also certainly not the same as an interpretation of all the available evidence. The more selective an interpretation is, the more irrelevant it becomes.

Once again, no counter-argument, no analysis or critique of the argument I've put forward, just another series of meaningless statements pretending to be an answer (this isn't an insult, by the way, it's an observation)

"Why so defensive? Do you foolishly believe that throwing around insults are somehow going to help you win the argument?"

Defensive? I think you need to read back through my last few posts. If you're seeing "defensive" I think it says more about your powers of interpretation than anything.

"It's not my problem when you can't (or don't want to) understand the reasoning of "a 10 year old."

What reasoning?

"I would give more credence to the affidavits and the WC testimony (of all witnesses) if there had been cross-examination."

That's great to know.
Unfortunately, it is what it is and we have to work with what we've got.

"Your interpretation of only the relevant parts of that testimony is not only a one sided matter and but also certainly not the same as an interpretation of all the available evidence.

Just think about this sentence for a minute. You're criticising me for focussing on "the relevant parts of that testimony". Think about what you're saying there.
I have interpreted part of Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony focussed specifically on what he has to say about his movement on the front steps immediately after the assassination with a view to comparing how different it is with later statements. I am focussed specifically on his affidavit and WC testimony. What other "evidence" do I need to consider?

If you've got a counter-argument to make then why don't you make it?
If you've got a critique of the argument I've put forward why don't you present it?
And if you're upset about you're earlier response being compared to a 10 year old, why don't you go back and read it because you will discover I wasn't being insulting, I was being kind.

[Martin Weidmann]

Once again, no counter-argument, no analysis or critique of the argument I've put forward, just another series of meaningless statements pretending to be an answer (this isn't an insult, by the way, it's an observation)

"Why so defensive? Do you foolishly believe that throwing around insults are somehow going to help you win the argument?"

Defensive? I think you need to read back through my last few posts. If you're seeing "defensive" I think it says more about your powers of interpretation than anything.

"It's not my problem when you can't (or don't want to) understand the reasoning of "a 10 year old."

What reasoning?

"I would give more credence to the affidavits and the WC testimony (of all witnesses) if there had been cross-examination."

That's great to know.
Unfortunately, it is what it is and we have to work with what we've got.

"Your interpretation of only the relevant parts of that testimony is not only a one sided matter and but also certainly not the same as an interpretation of all the available evidence.

Just think about this sentence for a minute. You're criticising me for focussing on "the relevant parts of that testimony". Think about what you're saying there.
I have interpreted part of Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony focussed specifically on what he has to say about his movement on the front steps immediately after the assassination with a view to comparing how different it is with later statements. I am focussed specifically on his affidavit and WC testimony. What other "evidence" do I need to consider?

If you've got a counter-argument to make then why don't you make it?
If you've got a critique of the argument I've put forward why don't you present it?
And if you're upset about you're earlier response being compared to a 10 year old, why don't you go back and read it because you will discover I wasn't being insulting, I was being kind.

Once again, no counter-argument, no analysis or critique of the argument I've put forward

Why should I take the trouble to argue with you about your interpretation of merely a part of the evidence?

I have interpreted part of Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony focussed specifically on what he has to say about his movement on the front steps immediately after the assassination with a view to comparing how different it is with later statements. I am focussed specifically on his affidavit and WC testimony. What other "evidence" do I need to consider?

Frazier's WC testimony was months after the fact. Inbetween the assassination and his testimony he was questioned by all sorts of investigators. You take none of that into account.

If you've got a counter-argument to make then why don't you make it?
If you've got a critique of the argument I've put forward why don't you present it?

There is no credible argument to counter and as far as critique goes, I have already presented it. You are way too selective in what you want to use to support your argument.

And if you're upset about you're earlier response being compared to a 10 year old, why don't you go back and read it because you will discover I wasn't being insulting, I was being kind.

Upset? Why would I be upset when somebody exposes the weakness of his case by throwing a pathetic insult around and now does it again? 

[Bill Chapman]

Didn’t expect you to provide anything that related to the question. Anyone else? Show evidence that the bag taken into evidence was folded in the way Frazier described.

Any witness can describe evidence in a manner that puts himself in the clear.

[Martin Weidmann]

Any witness can describe evidence in a manner that puts himself in the clear.

And any fool who wasn't there himself can claim, without a shred of evidence, that the witness was wrong and that the bag was actually bigger.

[Bill Chapman]

Explain this post

Ask nicely.

[Colin Crow]

Any witness can describe evidence in a manner that puts himself in the clear.

Frazier's day one description of the bag on the back seat is quite specific to the appearance of the bag. Folded at both ends. One over and one under. How does that detail relate to your offering?