Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[John Mytton]

Well now we can add hypocrisy to your long list of character flaws:

You sure love your false dichotomies.

If months later somebody reports something he has a memory of hearing from somebody else, it’s not a “lie”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true either.

Now that’s funny. The guy who whinges about evidence being examined in isolation wants one post in a long conversation to be responded to in isolation.

...your long list of character flaws:

Yet another Ad-Hominin. Yawn!

You sure love your false dichotomies.
If months later somebody reports something he has a memory of hearing from somebody else, it’s not a “lie”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true either.

Moving the Goalposts.

Either the guys at the interrogation heard Oswald being questioned about the Hidell ID or they didn't.
Either the guys who heard Oswald admit carrying the Hidell Identification or they didn't.
Either the guys in the squad car heard Bentley mention a second identification or they didn't.

Now that’s funny. The guy who whinges about evidence being examined in isolation wants one post in a long conversation to be responded to in isolation.

Huh? The rifle wasn't being discussed! Because you had no answers, as a diversion, you added the rifle as a Red Herring. Whatever it takes seems to be a running theme with you.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Yet another Ad-Hominin. Yawn!

Nope. I didn’t say your argument was wrong because you’re a hypocrite. I’m just pointing out that you’re a hypocrite.

Either the guys at the interrogation heard Oswald being questioned about the Hidell ID or they didn't.
Either the guys who heard Oswald admit carrying the Hidell Identification or they didn't.
Either the guys in the squad car heard Bentley mention a second identification or they didn't.

Well we finally agree on something.

But how does this show that it’s either true or they necessarily “lied in unison”? You don’t understand “moving the goalposts” either.

Huh? The rifle wasn't being discussed! Because you had no answers, as a diversion, you added the rifle as a Red Herring. Whatever it takes seems to be a running theme with you.

Of course it was being discussed. It’s right there in your quote. Don’t blame me if you can’t remember what you said.

“The sensible solution and Occam's razor conclusion is simply that Oswald invented the Hidell alias and ordered his rifle through legitimate channels which was processed and sent out by Kleins”.

This whole discussion about Oswald allegedly carrying a Hidell ID (that nobody bothered to mention in any interview or report made before the Klein’s order “turned up”) is irrelevant if you’re not trying to use it to connect Oswald with the rifle you want to believe is the murder weapon.

[Mitch Todd]

You still haven't figured out that it has nothing to do with the patrol man and everything to do with your suggestion that Baker gave the wallet to Rose?

If it has nothing to do with the patrolman, then why do you keep on bringing up the patrolman? I mean, like over and over and over again!

Well, apparently you don't because you have been making the same mistake over and over again. You keep on insisting that if it wasn't Baker who gave the wallet to Rose, it must have been the patrol man. And you couldn't have been more wrong. I never claimed that the patrol man gave the wallet to Rose. I, in fact, accepted that Rose wasn't sure who gave him the wallet.

No. That not what I'm saying, that's what you wrote. When you wrote, "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman," you created a dilemma between the two, then excluded Baker. Which (again) leaves the patrolman. You may not have intended for it to come out that way, but that's how it came out.

And, I agree that Rose didn't remember who gave him the wallet. That's part of the reason why I find your reasoning here so bizarre. If he doesn't remember who it was, then it doesn't matter if he brought up the patrolman. Or anyone else.

I merely stated that if Rose did get the wallet from Baker (who he knew very well), as you suggested, he would have had no need to even bring up any other possible source for the wallet, which of course includes the patrol man. At some point you argued (I'm paraphrasing) that Rose simply may have forgotten the event, because it was a mundane act that frequently happened. This, of course, makes no sense, because first of all it doesn't happen every day that you get to talk to a man accused of killing the President. But more importantly, you want us to believe that it is plausible that he simply had forgotten that Baker (who he knew well) gave him the wallet, yet at the same remembered the presence of an unknown police man. Really?

Once again, you presume to know what would have been going through Rose's head. But it's simply your own self-serving presumption. I will note that people tend to pay attention to, and remember, the novel while putting the routine and mundane out of mind. Not always, but that is the tendency.

BTW, I said that "Baker might well be your 'unidentified officer.'" That is, I raised the possibility that Baker was Rose's wallet-giver, but did not say that he was. That's a bit different than what you try to insinuate here.

For all I know it was neither Baker or the patrol man who actually gave the wallet to Rose. But that - and you probably will not understand this - was never the subject of our discussion.

I didn't say that it was any particular person. I did raise Baker as a possibility, since Bentley mentioned him.  If you think the discussion has gone of track, that might be because you're unable to stay on point. Just sayin'.

Sorry, I can't fix stupid.

We know. we've tried to enlighten you for years now, but you mulishly adhere to the same old stupidities. But we've tried. Oh have we tried.

Other than that, your problem is that you continue to presume what Rose would have done and what was going through his mind.

No. That was you;

Uh, no. You are the person who claimed that Rose would have remembered Baker. I said that Rose might not have payed enough attention to the wallet handover to remember who gave it to him, and that your assumption that Rose would have automatically remembered Baker is just an assumption. 

And not only that, but you also presumed to know what I was thinking;

I never presumed to know what you are thinking. But I know what you actually wrote.

I'm done with this pointless argumentative BS. I'm sure you'll find somebody else to bore to death.

It's no skin off my back. I can only stomach so much of you making a fool of yourself.

[Martin Weidmann]

If it has nothing to do with the patrolman, then why do you keep on bringing up the patrolman? I mean, like over and over and over again!

No. That not what I'm saying, that's what you wrote. When you wrote, "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman," you created a dilemma between the two, then excluded Baker. Which (again) leaves the patrolman. You may not have intended for it to come out that way, but that's how it came out.

And, I agree that Rose didn't remember who gave him the wallet. That's part of the reason why I find your reasoning here so bizarre. If he doesn't remember who it was, then it doesn't matter if he brought up the patrolman. Or anyone else.

Once again, you presume to know what would have been going through Rose's head. But it's simply your own self-serving presumption. I will note that people tend to pay attention to, and remember, the novel while putting the routine and mundane out of mind. Not always, but that is the tendency.

BTW, I said that "Baker might well be your 'unidentified officer.'" That is, I raised the possibility that Baker was Rose's wallet-giver, but did not say that he was. That's a bit different than what you try to insinuate here.

I didn't say that it was any particular person. I did raise Baker as a possibility, since Bentley mentioned him.  If you think the discussion has gone of track, that might be because you're unable to stay on point. Just sayin'.

We know. we've tried to enlighten you for years now, but you mulishly adhere to the same old stupidities. But we've tried. Oh have we tried.

Uh, no. You are the person who claimed that Rose would have remembered Baker. I said that Rose might not have payed enough attention to the wallet handover to remember who gave it to him, and that your assumption that Rose would have automatically remembered Baker is just an assumption. 

I never presumed to know what you are thinking. But I know what you actually wrote.

It's no skin off my back. I can only stomach so much of you making a fool of yourself.

Your compulsion to keep an already dead conversation going is duly noted as is your desperate need to "win" an argument by arguing it to death with the same nonsense over and over again.

[Mitch Todd]

Your compulsion to keep an already dead conversation going is duly noted as is your desperate need to "win" an argument by arguing it to death with the same nonsense over and over again.

Your previous post contained a number of....inaccuracies that needed correcting. Anyway, I thought you were "done with this" thread, so why respond?

[Walt Cakebread]

Your previous post contained a number of....inaccuracies that needed correcting. Anyway, I thought you were "done with this" thread, so why respond?

I'm sure you know that Mr. Todd is one who of those people who will whip a dead horse and insist the the critter get up and pull the wagon.

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm sure you know that Mr. Todd is one who of those people who will whip a dead horse and insist the the critter get up and pull the wagon.

Yes, Walt, I'm very much aware of that. But it seems to be common in the entire LN cult