Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?

[Martin Weidmann]

So you are not trying to suggest that the timeline casts doubt on Oswald's guilt?  You are just focused obsessively on one pedantic issue for no apparent reason?  What is next?  An analysis of whether Oswald wore boxers or briefs that day?  Of course you are trying to suggest that the timeline casts doubt on Oswald's ability to be present at the time of the crime.  Why you won't be honest and just admit that (much like that you are a CTer) is mystifying but humorous.   Here is something to ponder.  If the totality of evidence places Oswald at the crime scene, do you believe that the timeline analysis is still relevant as to whether he could have been there?

So you are not trying to suggest that the timeline casts doubt on Oswald's guilt?

Fool, the timeline is what it is. Whether it casts doubt on Oswald's guilt or not doesn't matter to me. Don't confuse me with yourself. I couldn't care less if Oswald was guilty or not, as long as the evidence shows it conclusively either way. I know that's a foreign concept for you, as you have determined Oswald to be guilty despite the evidence.


If the totality of evidence places Oswald at the crime scene, do you believe that the timeline analysis is still relevant as to whether he could have been there?

Of course it is relevant as the timeline provided by the DPD audio recording is part of that "totality of evidence". I fully understand that you don't want it to be, because you can't refute it. It's really very simple; if the timeline shows that Oswald couldn't have been at the scene when the shooting happened, than the "totality of evidence" doesn't place Oswald at the scene, whether you like it or not.

You know this, of course, which is why you want no part of an honest discussion about the evidence. Much easier to just call it a "pedantic issue" and ignore it, right?

[Richard Smith]

So you are not trying to suggest that the timeline casts doubt on Oswald's guilt?

Fool, the timeline is what it is. Whether it casts doubt on Oswald's guilt or not doesn't matter to me. Don't confuse me with yourself. I couldn't care less if Oswald was guilty or not, as long as the evidence shows it conclusively either way. I know that's a foreign concept for you, as you have determined Oswald to be guilty despite the evidence.


If the totality of evidence places Oswald at the crime scene, do you believe that the timeline analysis is still relevant as to whether he could have been there?

Of course it is relevant as the timeline provided by the DPD audio recording is part of that "totality of evidence". I fully understand that you don't want it to be, because you can't refute it. It's really very simple; if the timeline shows that Oswald couldn't have been at the scene when the shooting happened, than the "totality of evidence" doesn't place Oswald at the scene, whether you like it or not.

You know this, of course, which is why you want no part of an honest discussion about the evidence. Much easier to just call it a "pedantic issue" and ignore it, right?

Don't they have any anger management classes in "Europe"?  That is about a 9 on the stress scale from a simple question.  And here we learn that although Martin/Roger spends night and day on a JFK assassination forum nitpicking every piece of evidence against Oswald while entertaining any manner of doubt of his guilt (no matter how baseless) that he "couldn't care less if Oswald was guilty or not"?  HA HA HA. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Don't they have any anger management classes in "Europe"?  That is about a 9 on the stress scale from a simple question.  And here we learn that although Martin/Roger spends night and day on a JFK assassination forum nitpicking every piece of evidence against Oswald while entertaining any manner of doubt of his guilt (no matter how baseless) that he "couldn't care less if Oswald was guilty or not"?  HA HA HA.

Try to come up with something original next time. After losing all credibility a long time ago, your act is wearing thin.

Don't they have any anger management classes in "Europe"?

What makes you think I was angry? I know you've lost grip on reality a long time ago, but this is extreme, even for you. In fact I was laughing out loud about the stupidity of your "totality of evidence" question.

John Iacoletti was right;

“Richard” doesn’t think any topic is worth discussing, other than his unsubstantiated opinion that Oswald did it. Why is he even here?

I would only have added; Why is he even here every day?

[Richard Smith]

Try to come up with something original next time. After losing all credibility a long time ago, your act is wearing thin.

Don't they have any anger management classes in "Europe"?

What makes you think I was angry? I know you've lost grip on reality a long time ago, but this is extreme, even for you. In fact I was laughing out loud about the stupidity of your "totality of evidence" question.

John Iacoletti was right;

I would only have added; Why is he even here every day?

You are one of the angriest posters here as evidenced by your constant insults.  Not just to myself but everyone who you engage with.  The same pattern over and over.  Going on and on taking your own nonsense so seriously but then being unable to answer a simple question without resorting to personal insults until the thread digresses.  A thousand such examples.  You are asking me why I'm here after you just claimed not to be interested in whether Oswald was guilty or innocent!   HA HA HA.  That is comedy gold. 

[Martin Weidmann]

You are one of the angriest posters here as evidenced by your constant insults.  Not just to myself but everyone who you engage with.  The same pattern over and over.  Going on and on taking your own nonsense so seriously but then being unable to answer a simple question without resorting to personal insults until the thread digresses.  A thousand such examples.  You are asking me why I'm here after you just claimed not to be interested in whether Oswald was guilty or innocent!   HA HA HA.  That is comedy gold.

You are one of the angriest posters here as evidenced by your constant insults.

He said angerly in yet another one of his post in which anything but the case is discussed.

Pot meet kettle. You want dish it out but can't take it. Oh what a poor little puppy...

[Richard Smith]

You are one of the angriest posters here as evidenced by your constant insults.

He said angerly in yet another one of his post in which anything but the case is discussed.

Pot meet kettle. You want dish it out but can't take it. Oh what a poor little puppy...

If you don't like the answer, then don't ask the question.  Maybe don't begin responses with "Fool" if you don't want to be called out for insulting others and being out of control with your emotions. 

[Martin Weidmann]

If you don't like the answer, then don't ask the question.  Maybe don't begin responses with "Fool" if you don't want to be called out for insulting others and being out of control with your emotions.

What answer?

Still trying to provoke me? 

Try discussing the evidence for once.

[Richard Smith]

What answer?

Still trying to provoke me? 

Try discussing the evidence for once.

Your question: "What makes you think I was angry?"

The answer:  Beginning responses by calling someone a "fool."  Something you do frequently to myself and just about anyone who points out the absurdity of your approach to this case.  Which is most anyone who bothers to respond to you.