Podcast On Tippit

[Martin Weidmann]

So you really don't have an explanation. Don't feel bad. Nobody else does either.

Don't have to have one. It's a silly question that contains assumptions about the evidence.

Only a superficial look at the "evidence" would cause such a question being asked.

[Martin Weidmann]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Oswald's murder of Tippit, the evidence for which is beyond overwhelming.

Nobody said it had anything to do with Oswald or Tippit. But it does show just how unreliable witness identification and testimony is.

You didn't understand that?

Didn't you just say something about 'critical thinking'? Are you sure you should be using such words?

[Martin Weidmann]

Text deleted

[John Corbett]

Don't have to have one. It's a silly question that contains assumptions about the evidence.

Only a superficial look at the "evidence" would cause such a question being asked.

By assumptions, you mean assumptions that the evidence is genuine?

I guess it is more fun to dream up excuses to disregard the evidence and imagine scenarios unburdened by what has been.

[Martin Weidmann]

By assumptions, you mean assumptions that the evidence is genuine?

I guess it is more fun to dream up excuses to disregard the evidence and imagine scenarios unburdened by what has been.

By assumptions, you mean assumptions that the evidence is genuine?

Wow, did you figure that out by yourself?

I guess it is more fun to dream up excuses to disregard the evidence

Is it? What excuses have I made to disregard the evidence?

and imagine scenarios unburdened by what has been.

Pray tell, what exactly has been and how do you know? Let me guess, by blindly and with no questions asked accepting "the evidence"..... Right?

[Martin Weidmann]

Why do posts duplicate as a quote?

This is the second text that I had to delete.

[John Corbett]

It's a simple proposition. Either you accept the evidence as genuine, you have reasons/excuses for not accepting it as genuine, or you are arbitrarily dismissing evidence you don't want to accept as genuine.

Which of the above applies to you.

[Martin Weidmann]

It's a simple proposition. Either you accept the evidence as genuine, you have reasons/excuses for not accepting it as genuine, or you are arbitrarily dismissing evidence you don't want to accept as genuine.

Which of the above applies to you.

Either you accept the evidence as genuine,

Like you do, you mean?

you have reasons/excuses for not accepting it as genuine,

I don't need reasons or excuses. Evidence needs to be authenticated, conclusive and persuasive. Either it is or it isn't!

or you are arbitrarily dismissing evidence you don't want to accept as genuine.

Again, I haven't dismissed anything as not genuine. There wouldn't be any point.

Which of the above applies to you.

None. All you are showing, by asking this question, is your own "black or white", "right or wrong", "with us or against us" approach to this case.

Outright acceptance of evidence being genuine or dismissal of the same evidence is a pointless proposition which only demonstrates a predisposed bias.

You do understand that "genuine" evidence (whatever that means) still may not support an assumption or assertion that's made based on that evidence, don't you?