CIA Wallets at Tenth and Patton

[Martin Weidmann]

I've been reading MTG's crap for 35 years and the word "legitimate" never crossed my mind. He keeps recycling the same old debunked BS he was trying to sell way back in the early 1990s. He's still trying to polish the same old turds. His work never has and never will amount to a hill of beans. It will be forgotten soon after he goes belly up. The WC will remain the definitive account of the JFKA. It has stood the test of time and will continue to do so even as misinformed people continue to reject it. 

Just what has the CT community done collectively over the past six decades. Has it produced any credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald took part in the assassination. A big fat NO. Some have pointed the finger of suspicion at various individuals or groups but have never been able to back it up with actual evidence. All they can do is invent lame excuses for rejecting the findings of the WC. Those efforts have been about as effective as shooting spit wads at tanks. History has recorded that Oswald was the assassin and will continue to do so long after any of us have passed on. Nothing has changed and nothing ever will. It has been 62 years of futility and still counting.

History has recorded that some people believe Oswald was the assassin without being able to provide a shred of persuasive evidence for it

There, I fixed it for you.

Now, mr. know-it-all, why don't simply try to answer the question about the wallet(s)? Could it be you are clueless?

[John Corbett]

History has recorded that some people believe Oswald was the assassin without being able to provide a shred of persuasive evidence for it

Completely unnecessary. The WC provided all the evidence necessary to convince any person with common sense Oswald was the assassin.

PS. I don't give a shit about the wallets. It's just another example of a CT trying to make the case for conspiracy simply by raising a question or pointing to an anomaly. If you want to make the case for conspiracy, you have to provide actual evidence that someone other than Oswald took part in the crime. That means finding answers to the question raised and explaining how that answer proves conspiracy. Going around asking, "What about this? What about that?", doesn't cut it.

[Martin Weidmann]

Completely unnecessary. The WC provided all the evidence necessary to convince any person with common sense Oswald was the assassin.

PS. I don't give a shit about the wallets. It's just another example of a CT trying to make the case for conspiracy simply by raising a question or pointing to an anomaly. If you want to make the case for conspiracy, you have to provide actual evidence that someone other than Oswald took part in the crime. That means finding answers to the question raised and explaining how that answer proves conspiracy. Going around asking, "What about this? What about that?", doesn't cut it.

Completely unnecessary. The WC provided all the evidence necessary to convince any person with common sense Oswald was the assassin.

In your humble opinion, of course, right?

PS. I don't give a shit about the wallets.

Yes, we already knew. You only care about "evidence" that points to a predetermined conclusion.

But thank you for confirming that there was indeed more than one wallet.

Going around asking, "What about this? What about that?", doesn't cut it.

Of course it does. It shows clearly just how superficial and shallow your flawed opinions are. You can't even answer a simple question! 

You are not fooling anybody, except perhaps yourself. But that's just my humble opinion.

[John Corbett]

Completely unnecessary. The WC provided all the evidence necessary to convince any person with common sense Oswald was the assassin.

In your humble opinion, of course, right?

PS. I don't give a shit about the wallets.

Yes, we already knew. You only care about "evidence" that points to a predetermined conclusion.

But thank you for confirming that there was indeed more than one wallet.

Going around asking, "What about this? What about that?", doesn't cut it.

Of course it does. It shows clearly just how superficial and shallow your flawed opinions are. You can't even answer a simple question! 

You are not fooling anybody, except perhaps yourself. But that's just my humble opinion.

Troll

[Martin Weidmann]

Troll

The classic response of a LN fanatical zealot who hasn't got answers. Pathetic!

[Michael Capasse]

Troll