David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[John Iacoletti]

And before you go of an another pathetic rant, this was hypothetical to offer a possible explanation of what could have happened and thus not a claim about what actually happened. because unlike you I don't pretend to know what happened. I'm just merely trying to find out what likely did happen.

One thing I’ve learned about WC-cultists is that they don’t make a distinction between a possible explanation and a claim about what actually happened.

[Martin Weidmann]

What is with the endless hostility and calling folks "fool"?  It a real shame that is allowed to go on.  Get a grip on your emotions.  Now it's just a "possibility" again that the revolver in evidence is the gun used to kill Tippit.  You are all over the place.  Why would someone plant another revolver on him that had nothing to do with the Tippit murder if the intent was to frame him for that crime?  This fantasy makes even less sense.  You are twisting like a pretzel.

What is with the endless hostility and calling folks "fool"?

There is no hostility there. It's just a statement of fact.
If you don't want to be called a fool, just stop behaving like one.
And btw, the next time Bill Brown calls somebody foolish, I trust you will jump in and complain about that, right?

[John Mytton]

What a blizzard of contrarian nonsense.  So the revolver in evidence is the one used to kill Tippit?  You have previously indicated that it was and then argued it was not.  But now it is again.  And it has the same serial number as the pistol sent to Oswald's PO Box (as confirmed by third party documentation that preexisted the murder).  What an astounding coincidence.  The real murderer somehow used Oswald's revolver, Oswald had some different revolver when arrested, and the someone was able to find the revolver used to kill Tippit (Oswald's revolver) and then switch it.  Simple.  HA HA HA.  No one can believe such nonsense.

You have previously indicated that it was and then argued it was not.  But now it is again.

 

Because the hardcore CT knows that whatever alternative narrative that is presented will conflict with other evidence and thus will be instantly dismissed and the inevitable humiliation will follow, so they avoid presenting a story that fits. But hilariously Weidmann has exposed a partial narrative which when examined closely is illogical and only reinforces the actual historical events. The back pedalling on display is great fun to watch!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Because the hardcore CT knows that whatever alternative narrative that is presented will conflict with other evidence and thus will be instantly dismissed and the inevitable humiliation will follow, so they avoid presenting a story that fits. But hilariously Weidmann has exposed a partial narrative which when examined closely is illogical and only reinforces the actual historical events. The back pedalling on display is great fun to watch!

JohnM

Still living in your own little fictional and imaginary world, I see.
Putting your inability to actually discuss the evidence on full display, yet again. Sad.

[John Mytton]

Still living in your own little fictional and imaginary world, I see.
Putting your inability to actually discuss the evidence on full display, yet again. Sad.

Wow, are you still posting here?
I don't post for ages and again you respond almost instantly.
Martin, you desperately need to get a life.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Wow, are you still posting here?
I don't post for ages and again you respond almost instantly.
Martin, you desperately need to get a life.

JohnM

Just happened to check in when I noticed your BS post.

Two hours is "almost instantly" to you? Wow

[John Mytton]

Just happened to check in when I noticed your BS post.

Two hours is "almost instantly" to you? Wow

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

JohnM

Stop posting photos of yourself. It's embarrassing.