Could you please be so kind to try and understand how this forum works, so that I can reply to your comments without having to copy/paste everything?
Classic LN crap and I will ask you a question when I want to, just like you did with Alan Ford. This is a forum and that's what it is for.
Do yourself a favor while you do that. Knock it off with the sarcasm and the condescending.
Pot meet kettle
A bit like calling witnesses mistaken or simply liars when they say something you don't like. Is that what you mean? Spare me the hipocrisy!
You mean the way you conspiracy nutters do with witnesses, like Bill and Gayle Newman, Zapruder and Sitzman, Hargis, Brehm, and Mrs. Kennedy--all of whom said the head wound was nowhere near the back of the head where you conspiracy nutters claim the head was blown off? Spare me!
Are you talking to me or is it just delirium setting in? You seem to have a major problem with "conspiracy nutters" but I haven't got a clue what you are going on about.
Yes, I agree. That's indeed pathetic. But I have never said anything of the sort, so why bring it up?
Well, I can't list everything you conspiracy nutters come up with. It would take a lifetime to list all of the wacky theories you folks have come up with. Sorry I didn't specifically mention yours.
Two comments; (1) I haven't presented any kind of theory ever, simply because I don't have one and (2) you seem to be suffering from paranoia, if you believe you can lump all the sceptics together and treat them equally.
So you weren't going to tell me what "great stuff" you have been doing, when you said;
"Have you done anything during the time you have spent with it, other than posting in forums? I have. "
because that would be throwing your weight around, wouldn't it. It was just a casual remark not intended to impress, right?
Nope! I had no intentions of bringing it up. As I said, I don't bring up the acoustics topic in this forum. I was merely responding to your question. If you don't like the response, tough!
So, tell me what did you mean when you said that you have been spending your time with the case on other things than posting in forums?
Of course it is a battle that can't be won. Do you really think there is any member on this forum with the idea that he/she can break the case wide open and expose all the official shenanigans that might have been going on? Of course not, and yes I am here discussing the case purely as a matter of interest. I don't care about the players in this drama and I have said that many times over. I'm merely interested in what really happened. I don't know if Oswald was the lone gunman he is made out to be or if something else was going on and I don't really care either way. If Oswald did it alone, he got what he deserved. On the other hand, if there was a conspiracy, so be it. But before I take your word for it which option it is I would like to examine the evidence myself.
Yes, and you like to be a dick about things that people post in support of their evidence when it doesn't suit your preconceived notions of what may have happened or did happen.. I know exactly what you are doing. It's all over this forum in every thread.
Oh you poor poor man, how in the world would you even know what (if any) my "preconceived notions" are. Fact is your haven't got a clue and you, like other LNs, simply don't like it when too critical questions are asked about the evidence. It only tells me just how little faith and confidence you have in your own evidence.
Bottom line; if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. And please stop whining?. it's embarrasing!
And, btw, I have never argued in defense of Oswald, but you, as a zealous defender of the faith, will likely always consider asking critical questions as arguing in defense of Oswald. It's the classic LN illness!
You talk about "illness"? You conspiracy nutters are usually claiming that "LN" "drank the kool aid" , are "sheeple", and so forth, when you folks are the ones who have been brainwashed by conspiracy authors. That is your illness! You cannot say the same for
"LN" because books written saying Oswald did it are scarce. There aren't that many "LN" books in comparison to the hundreds and hundreds of conspiracy books.
Touchy and paranoid... I haven't been brainwashed by anybody. In fact the only book I have read in this case is the WC report. I am not interested in the opinions of writers of books, be they pro or con.... I prefer to find out for myself, and believe me I have....
I have no horse in this race. I couldn't care less if Oswald did it alone or if there was a conspiracy. I just would like to know what really happened. My world view will remain intact either way, but for you, your world view would be completely destroyed if it turned out Oswald wasn't the lone gunman after all and that's just sad.
One final comment; there will always be people like me, who - unlike you - do not swallow the offical story hook, line and sinker. Regardless of what the history books say, in the public domain the "Oswald did it alone" gang has already lost the battle. Perhaps you should just learn to live with that and take it from there.
