Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Richard Smith]

The most amusing thing is that you are arguing about a wallet you don't even believe exists. How's that for a fool's game?

Again, I addressed the stupidity of YOUR CLAIM that a wallet was found at the scene.  You are the one claiming it msut be a wallet and that is why I addressed the wallet discovery scenario.  I can address the wallet that "I don't believe exists" because you claimed that is what was found at the scene.  If someone claimed Bigfoot was real, I could address the likelihood of Bigfoot without accepting the premise that Bigfoot was real. Can you understand that simple distinction?  Apparently not. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, I addressed the stupidity of YOUR CLAIM that a wallet was found at the scene.  You are the one claiming it msut be a wallet and that is why I addressed the wallet discovery scenario.  I can address the wallet that "I don't believe exists" because you claimed that is what was found at the scene.  If someone claimed Bigfoot was real, I could address the likelihood of Bigfoot without accepting the premise that Bigfoot was real. Can you understand that simple distinction?  Apparently not.

I addressed the stupidity of YOUR CLAIM that a wallet was found at the scene

Actually, you tried to "address" my claim by posting a bunch of self-serving, go nowhere opinions.... now that's really stupid

You are the one claiming it msut be a wallet and that is why I addressed the wallet discovery scenario.

I am not claiming anything of the kind. I am merely stating that circumstantial evidence points to it being a wallet.

I can address the wallet that "I don't believe exists" because you claimed that is what was found at the scene.  If someone claimed Bigfoot was real, I could address the likelihood of Bigfoot without accepting the premise that Bigfoot was real. Can you understand that simple distinction?  Apparently not.

So defensive and still unable to address the points I made in my last post. It's easy to deny the existance of something but when you do, you need to explain the consequences of that denial. It's pretty obvious you can't. You haven't got a clue how to explain where the fake Hidell came from. Your arguments and "reasoning" are superficial at best and go nowhere.

[John Mytton]

Really? Just how many people do you know that walk around with two wallets?

Well I don't know anyone that carries two completely different named pieces of identification and to top it off, the identification that isn't them, has their actual photograph?
But I'm guessing that you'll say in "Europe" it's just an every day occurrence! 



JohnM

[John Mytton]

Martin's "explanation" contains so many logical inconsistencies that it is mind boggling.  Not the least of which is that if the DPD were manipulating the evidence and deciding which wallet to link to Oswald, they would obviously use the one found at the Tippit murder scene.  What more incriminatory evidence could there be to link Oswald to the Tippit murder than claiming that he dropped his wallet at the scene.  Only an imbecile would ever suggest that the same police officers who they claim are otherwise framing Oswald would suppress the most important piece of evidence in the entire case to link him to the Tippit murder.

Martin's "explanation" contains so many logical inconsistencies that it is mind boggling.

Agreed

Not the least of which is that if the DPD were manipulating the evidence and deciding which wallet to link to Oswald, they would obviously use the one found at the Tippit murder scene.

This was the first hole that Weidmann dug for himself, the very people who did the wallet swap were the very people that were attempting to set up Oswald.

What more incriminatory evidence could there be to link Oswald to the Tippit murder than claiming that he dropped his wallet at the scene.

And Weidmann's hole just gets deeper and deeper.

Only an imbecile would ever suggest that the same police officers who they claim are otherwise framing Oswald would suppress the most important piece of evidence in the entire case to link him to the Tippit murder.

"Imbecile" is being kind.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Comedy gold.  It must be a slow day in "Europe".  Here we continue to play whack-a-mole.  Martin from "Europe" contends that he is not claiming that the police suppressed anything!  Keep that in mind in trying to follow his looney narrative that the police were involved in framing Oswald for the murder of Tippit, found a wallet at the crime, and when given the opportunity to connect a wallet found at the crime with the person they were trying to frame instead decided to just go with the wallet found on Oswald because they had TWO wallets.  They couldn't lie about that for some reason while otherwise lying about just every other piece of evidence against Oswald according to Martin (from "Europe").  They drew the line at lying about wallets. HA HA HA HA HA.  Unreal.  I have never said it was Oswald's wallet found at the scene or any wallet.  I explained as though to a simpleton why that is likely not the case.  My discussion here was to highlight the astounding stupidity of YOUR claim that the police hid the fact that they - again in YOUR claim - found a wallet at the crime scene and then covered that up.  In my opinion, it is not a wallet at all.

Keep that in mind in trying to follow his looney narrative that the police were involved in framing Oswald for the murder of Tippit, found a wallet at the crime, and when given the opportunity to connect a wallet found at the crime with the person they were trying to frame instead decided to just go with the wallet found on Oswald because they had TWO wallets.

And this is the very reason that Conspiracy Kooks won't give us an alternative narrative on what happened that day because out of all their conspiratorial allegations this is just one and Weidmann can't even produce a logical scenario that makes sense from this solitary contention and when you add the rest of their massive claims it just becomes a jumbled mess of contradictions, so most of them simply stick to playing Oswald's defence "lawyers" with no hope of ever solving the case.
Because "the wrongly-accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody." Dammit!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Well I don't know anyone that carries two completely different named pieces of identification and to top it off, the identification that isn't them, has their actual photograph?
But I'm guessing that you'll say in "Europe" it's just an every day occurrence! 

JohnM

So, you can't or don't want to answer my question. It's duly noted.

[Martin Weidmann]

Agreed
 

This was the first hole that Weidmann dug for himself, the very people who did the wallet swap were the very people that were attempting to set up Oswald.

And Weidmann's hole just gets deeper and deeper.

"Imbecile" is being kind.

JohnM

Still nothing of any value to say. You never seem to be able to get beyond superficial in any way. Why is that?

When you can't attack the information, attack the messenger. Pathetic!

When Johnny starts to ridicule and attack people that don't agree with him, he is actually confirming he has no significant contribution to make because the parrot can't find the information he needs in the official narrative. When that happens the geek with the gifs comes out.