So much venom from an entitled one who doesn't get his way. Pathetic!
A one trick poney sounding like a broken record stuck in a bad quality groove...
It's your statement we are discussing.
We are not discussing anything of the kind. You desperately want to discuss it. I am not interested in discussing it. If you want you can figure it out yourself and if you don't want to, that's ok by me as well.
You don't accept the evidence that Oswald was the assassin.
Says who? As per usual you're completely missing the mark. I have no problem with the evidence, such as it is. My problem is with the credibility and authentication of that evidence as well as the assumptions made to connect non existing dots and the conclusions that are not supported by that same evidence.
That appears to narrow down the options to being a CTer but you also refuse to come out of the closet and admit you are a CTer.
You really can't let this go, can you now? I've already told you where my interests lie and I am not going to tell you again. Deal with it.... or don't. See if I care.
Oh and btw, talking about chickening out, why haven't you accepted my little Europe challenge?
Great example of taking the discussion down an endless contrarian rabbit hole. Martin contends that the "answer is in plain sight." When I ask him to simply explain what he means by this, we get endless deflection and hysterics.
Here is a classic Martin statement that I defy anyone to make sense of: "I have
no problem with the evidence, such as it is. My problem is with the credibility and authentication
of that evidence as well as the assumptions made to connect non existing dots and the conclusions that are not supported by that same evidence." He has "no problem with the evidence" except for the "credibility" and "authentication" of that evidence! Unreal.
