The Tippit Shooting At 1:15-1:16, FACT

[Martin Weidmann]

Wow, your obsession with me has risen to a new level, how creepy, you sad miserable little man.

JohnM

What now... you are always going on about winning. My comment is factual.

Only a fool would call that an obsession.

[John Corbett]

I was speaking of the first quote which is entirely an invention of yours.

You should be more clear about what you mean. And that wasn't a quote. To call it one only exposes your paranoid mindset.

So, you don't understand the concept of "basically saying"? You don't understand that what follows isn't a verbatim quote?

If it wasn't a quote why did you put it in QUOTATION MARKS? Punctuation has meaning. If you are paraphrasing, you have no business putting a statement in quotes.

Neither eye nor any other LN wrote that.

You have an eye that writes? Wow.... and nobody claimed LNs wrote that. You are really struggling with all this, aren't you?

Again, when you put a statement in quotes, it implies the words came from somebody else.

That's right. They leave it up to the good sense of the jury to weigh the evidence and make logical inferences from it. As it applies to fiber evidence, it is no proof positive that fibers came from a particular item because there is the theoretical possibility it could have come from an identical item. The jury is left to decide what the likelihood of that is. That's right. They leave it up to the good sense of the jury to weigh the evidence and make logical inferences from it. As it applies to fiber evidence, it is no proof positive that fibers came from a particular item because there is the theoretical possibility it could have come from an identical item. The jury is left to decide what the likelihood of that is. Had the case gone to trial, the jury would have to ask themselves what the likelihood the fibers came from identical shirt to the one that was worn by the owner of the rifle. Ditto for the fibers found on the jacket.

So, for once we agree. The jury usually weighs the evidence after the prosecution and defence have presented their case. That never happened in the JFK case, so why you keep bringing stuff like this up time after time is beyond me.

I brought up the fibers as evidence that Oswald was the one that fired the rifle. The fibers also are evidence it was Oswald's jacket that was recovered from under the car. While fiber evidence isn't proof positive, it is a very strong indication that it was Oswald who fired the rifle and Oswald was the one who tossed the jacket under the car. It would be a remarkable coincidence if the fibers on the two items in question came from a shirt other than the one Oswald was wearing. As a dedicated Oswald denier, a theoretical possibility, no matter how unlikely, is all the excuse you need to dismiss highly probative evidence of his guilt.

You must think you are winning this debate. By any chance, are you of Iranian descent?

Winning this debate? You really have me confused with some delusional fool who actually thinks it is possible with rational points and authentic evidence to ever get you to accept or admit defeat about anything!
[/quote]

Why would I admit defeat. There is a strong consensus in history books, journals, news organizations, etc. that Oswald was the assassin. These resources also mention the fact that many people suspect he was part of a conspiracy. Even among CTs, the majority belief is that Oswald was one of the assassins.
It is only the loons who think he was innocent of both murders. As for me, I'm glad Oswald got murdered because he deserved it for what he did. I have no doubt he would have been convicted and sentenced to die but I seriously doubt the execution would have been carried out because SCOTUS struck down all existing death penalty statutes in 1972. The little bastard might still be thumbing his nose at us from the Texas state prison. There would probably even be people telling us he deserved parole. That almost worked for Sirhan Sirhan.  The California parole board recommended he be released. In one of the few good acts of Gavin Newsom's career, he vetoed his parole board's decision. It's still possible Sirhan will eventually be released which would be a damn shame. He should have gone to the gas chamber 50 years ago.

You couldn't even handle being schooled about the existence of documents about the Frazier polygraph, which you falsely claimed didn't exist and I made up. You even tried to weasel your way out of that one.

My memory isn't as sharp as it once was but I don't recall making such a statement and given your propensity for creating strawman arguments by making up things that other people never actually said, I sure as hell am not going to take your word for it. Please tell us the thread, the date, and the time I made such a statement. If you can't do that, I'll take that as a tacit admission you made this one up too.

I don't think in terms of winning or losing. Only people who are ego driven are concerned with having to win.... You know, people like you and John Mytton and a few others...

You did make the following statement:
"But keep digging your hole, if you like"

Note that what I put in quotes is word-for-word what you wrote. I didn't make up something you didn't say. I took your suggestion that I was in a hole to mean you thought you had gained the upper hand in this discussion. If that's not what you intended, just say so.