Non problematic evidence?

[Charles Collins]

I tried that once. I asked you what specifically convinced you that Oswald did it. You didn?t want to go there. So, yeah, I think you?re playing games too.

I have no desire to ?play games? here? I have better things to do with my time. If you can honestly say to yourself that you have given both sides of the controversy a fair consideration with an open mind, I respect your opinion. Even though I might not agree with your opinion. Only you know for sure whether you have. No matter what you might say to others.

The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing. People have tried to discredit the evidence and I believe that I give their opinions a fair, open-minded consideration. If you believe that you have and have a different opinion, then I respect that. That is my position.

[Walt Cakebread]

I have no desire to ?play games? here? I have better things to do with my time. If you can honestly say to yourself that you have given both sides of the controversy a fair consideration with an open mind, I respect your opinion. Even though I might not agree with your opinion. Only you know for sure whether you have. No matter what you might say to others.

The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing. People have tried to discredit the evidence and I believe that I give their opinions a fair, open-minded consideration. If you believe that you have and have a different opinion, then I respect that. That is my position.

The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing.

That's true.....The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing...that there was a conspiracy behind the coup d e'tat....

[Charles Collins]

The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing.

That's true.....The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing...that there was a conspiracy behind the coup d e'tat....

It?s all definitely just a game for you Walt. You just make up whatever you want. Thanks for showing everyone this again.

[Martin Weidmann]

I have no desire to ?play games? here? I have better things to do with my time. If you can honestly say to yourself that you have given both sides of the controversy a fair consideration with an open mind, I respect your opinion. Even though I might not agree with your opinion. Only you know for sure whether you have. No matter what you might say to others.

The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing. People have tried to discredit the evidence and I believe that I give their opinions a fair, open-minded consideration. If you believe that you have and have a different opinion, then I respect that. That is my position.

I have no desire to ?play games? here?

Amazing! You make this claim and then instantly proceed to show it's bogus by playing the same game again.

You use a lot of words to say nothing at all.

[Martin Weidmann]

Oswald himself.

In other words, there is no single piece of physical evidence, conclusively tied to Oswald, which is of such significance that it beyond reasonable doubt clearly points to his guilt?

Is that what you are saying?

Never ignore the highest-paid trolls

Bill Chapman
Hunter of Trolls

I see you're back to projecting again...

[John Iacoletti]

The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing.

So you keep claiming, while ?open-mindedly? refusing to examine any of this evidence.

[Charles Collins]

So you keep claiming, while ?open-mindedly? refusing to examine any of this evidence.

I have already examined the evidence. What is so difficult to understand about that statement?