Why is Ruth Paine still alive?

[Martin Weidmann]

But you do a stellar job of hiding that fact in almost every single post you write on this forum.

That's just LN paranoia.

All I do is question the evidence and ask questions LNs seem to be unable to answer in a credible manner.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin said previously that he isn't a conspiracy theorist because he doesn't have a theory, even though his theory is there was a conspiracy, so go figure?
I recall that Iacoletti subscribes to the same mindset.
Strange isn't it!

JohnM

Typical LN thinking.

It's really very simple, yet a clown like Mytton simply doesn't understand. There are basically two possibilities; either Oswald did it alone or there must have been a conspiracy.

So, when I question the evidence against Oswald and the LNs come up short in answering my questions (as they frequently do) the likelihood of a conspiracy increases.

It's the inability of the LNs to prove their case against Oswald that actually makes a conspiracy more likely.

The post that I am replying to is a perfect example. I've have never said that my theory is that there was a conspiracy. That's just something Mytton made up, because he desperately needs something to attack me with, when he should be spending his time in providing conclusive evidence and convincing arguments for Oswald's guilt in a honest debate. He doesn't do that because he knows just how weak the case against Oswald really is, so he tries to divert attention away by playing silly games.

[David Von Pein]

All I do is question the evidence and ask questions LNs seem to be unable to answer in a credible manner.

Have you read Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"?

[Martin Weidmann]

Have you read Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"?

The only book I have ever read about the assassination is the WC report.
I'm not really interested in the opinion of some biased (either pro or contra) writer and prefer to form my own opinion based on actual evidence, instead of somebody telling me what that evidence means.

[John Mytton]

Typical LN thinking.

It's really very simple, yet a clown like Mytton simply doesn't understand. There are basically two possibilities; either Oswald did it alone or there must have been a conspiracy.

So, when I question the evidence against Oswald and the LNs come up short in answering my questions (as they frequently do) the likelihood of a conspiracy increases.

It's the inability of the LNs to prove their case against Oswald that actually makes a conspiracy more likely.

The post that I am replying to is a perfect example. I've have never said that my theory is that there was a conspiracy. That's just something Mytton made up, because he desperately needs something to attack me with, when he should be spending his time in providing conclusive evidence and convincing arguments for Oswald's guilt in a honest debate. He doesn't do that because he knows just how weak the case against Oswald really is, so he tries to divert attention away by playing silly games.

when he should be spending his time in providing conclusive evidence and convincing arguments for Oswald's guilt in a honest debate.

Since I really don't know what your personal definition of what constitutes "conclusive evidence" entails, can you please explain, so I know what standard is required to satisfy a standard of guilt or innocence!
And then explain to the me in your own words, what you believe is the difference between "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and "guilty beyond all doubt".

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Since I really don't know what your personal definition of what constitutes "conclusive evidence" entails, can you please explain, so I know what standard is required to satisfy a standard of guilt or innocence!
And then explain to the me in your own words, what you believe is the difference between "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and "guilty beyond all doubt".

JohnM

Oh boy, where to begin.....

Why don't you try by presenting evidence that's selfexplanatory without the long winded explanations about what you think it means (when it usually doesn't) and stop misrepresenting the actual details of the case?

Since I really don't know what your personal definition of what constitutes "conclusive evidence" entails,

You really don't know what conclusive evidence is? Wow! That explains a lot.

[John Mytton]

Oh boy, where to being.....

Why don't you try by presenting evidence that's selfexplanatory without the long winded explanations about what you think it means (when it usually doesn't) and stop misrepresenting the actual details of the case?

Since I really don't know what your personal definition of what constitutes "conclusive evidence" entails,

You really don't know what conclusive evidence is? Wow! That explains a lot.

Oh boy, where to being.....

Yes, I'm eagerly awaiting!

Why don't you try by presenting evidence that's selfexplanatory without the long winded explanations about what you think it means (when it usually doesn't) and stop misrepresenting the actual details of the case?

And as expected it appears you haven't the foggiest. This is not a good start.

You really don't know what conclusive evidence is? Wow! That explains a lot.

Exactly I have no idea what you believe to be "conclusive evidence", that's why I asked the question!
So without further ado, please tell me what you think is your definition of "conclusive evidence" and then instead of the endless roadblocks maybe we can forge ahead and together we solve this case, K?

JohnM