Parnell Vs Armstrong Bill Brown et al, Can applied tech resolve Who Shot Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

You are so dishonest and biased it could mean anything.  There is already overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt in the murder of Tippit.  And yet you do not "accept it" but suggest that evidence is the product of fakery and mistaken identity in a wildly improbable series of events that all just happen to point to Oswald's guilt.  Why would DNA evidence be any different?  So why not just state what you you mean by "accept it" in this context?  Why the reluctance if it is so apparent?

Is whining all you can do? It's not my fault that a liar as you needs to be held to a higher standard of evidence than the one you like.

Btw your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted.

[Bill Chapman]

Is whining all you can do? It's not my fault that a liar as you needs to be held to a higher standard of evidence than the one you like.

Btw your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted.

Note: The above Weidmann reply was made to Richard Smith

your [pathetic] obsession with me is duly noted
Try to come up with something original instead of hanging onto my coatails, plagiarist.

A bunch of fkn amateurs, the lot of you.

[Martin Weidmann]

Note: The above Weidmann reply was made to Richard Smith

your [pathetic] obsession with me is duly noted
Try to come up with something original instead of hanging onto my coatails, plagiarist.

A bunch of fkn amateurs, the lot of you.

Your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted

[Bill Chapman]

Your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted

Your copy-cat behaviour reveals your obvious admiration for my ideas.

Duly note that, ParrotBoy.

[Martin Weidmann]

Your copy-cat behaviour reveals your obvious admiration for my ideas.

Duly note that, ParrotBoy.

Your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted

[Richard Smith]

Is whining all you can do? It's not my fault that a liar as you needs to be held to a higher standard of evidence than the one you like.

Btw your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted.

More babbling words but still no explanation as to what you mean by "accept it."  What is so difficult about explaining what you mean instead of this endless commentary?

[Martin Weidmann]

More babbling words but still no explanation as to what you mean by "accept it."  What is so difficult about explaining what you mean instead of this endless commentary?

There is nothing to explain, at least to people with a functional brain. "accept it" means I would accept the outcome of a dna test on the jacket, regardless of how it turns out. Now can you say, and would you do, the same?

If dna was found in the jacket and it doesn't belong to Oswald, would you accept that CE 162 was not Oswald's jacket or at least wasn't worn by him?