Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[John Mytton]

And it's worth noting to put this interaction into perspective, that you have been compelled to respond to Forty Six(46) of my posts in the last week alone

The obsession on full display; counting the number of my posts and ignoring there must have been at least the same amount of posts from you.

Btw did you mean "troublesome" or "tiresome" because surely, my innocent observations shouldn't be causing you any trouble??

No, I meant troublesome. You've been tiresome for a long time now.

The obsession on full display; counting the number of my posts and ignoring there must have been at least the same amount of posts from you.

Huh? that doesn't even make sense and is illogical, we have never been talking about the number of posts made in the last week but the amount of direct replies to my posts, and it's on record that you have made many more posts(about ten), replying to me than I have made in replying to you, thus if anything you are more obsessed with me than I am with you, and that's a fact Jack! LMFAO!
But do try again.

No, I meant troublesome.

I humbly apologise that my posts pointing out the flaws in your arguments are causing you trouble.

EDIT, I notice you modified your post to add a string of insults, again proving my point, "Ooh, you are awful, but I like you"

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Huh? that doesn't even make sense and is illogical, we have never been talking about the number of posts made in the last week but the amount of direct replies to my posts, and it's on record that you have made many more posts(about ten), replying to me than I have made in replying to you, thus if anything you are more obsessed with me than I am with you, and that's a fact Jack! LMFAO!
But do try again.

I humbly apologise that my posts pointing out the flaws in your arguments are causing you trouble.

EDIT, I notice you modified your post to add a string of insults, again proving my point, "Ooh, you are awful, but I like you"

JohnM

When you have anything of significance or interest to say let me know.

[Mitch Todd]

It is not my problem that you don't understand what I have said.

I understand what "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman" means. Especially in the context of what you were trying to argue. Again, the statement makes no sense in the current discussion unless you thought that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.

[Martin Weidmann]

I understand what "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman" means. Especially in the context of what you were trying to argue. Again, the statement makes no sense in the current discussion unless you thought that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.

If you need to make up what I "thought" you've already lost my interest.

[John Mytton]

When you have anything of significance or interest to say let me know.

In all seriousness the entire Forum is waiting with baited breath to find out what the National Archives said about why the Hidell ID was missing from the photograph of Oswald's wallet contents, you said you asked, what did they say?

The best idea is why don't you get up off your butt and ask the National archives yourself

Already did.

Btw I don't want to ask again for the fourth time, but I will keep asking till you give a reply and if you were just foolin' about, then that's fine, just answer the question. What did they say, I'm genuinely curious.
And if you speak to the National Archives again ask about Iacoletti's and your claim about the "missing" microfilm, thanks in advance.

JohnM

[Mitch Todd]

If you need to make up what I "thought" you've already lost my interest.

I quoted you exactly. "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman." Given the discussion, this makes no sense whatsoever unless you were trying to argue that Rose was given the wallet by a patrolman. No matter what attempted context you want to try to wrap around it.  Nothing is "made up," at least on my part.

[Martin Weidmann]

I quoted you exactly. "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman." Given the discussion, this makes no sense whatsoever unless you were trying to argue that Rose was given the wallet by a patrolman. No matter what attempted context you want to try to wrap around it.  Nothing is "made up," at least on my part.

You just don't know when to stop....

Again, the statement makes no sense in the current discussion unless you thought that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.

I don't care what makes sense to your or not. I never said, and you thus made up that I thought that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.

When you don't understand something so basic, there's nothing more I can tell you.