Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Non problematic evidence?  (Read 24366 times)

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3626
Re: Non problematic evidence?
« Reply #88 on: March 31, 2019, 12:55:11 AM »
Advertisement
That?s one theory. Another would be that you can?t actually justify your state of convincedness with anything besides an appeal to authority.

I have examined the evidence from several points of view. First several CT viewpoints , then the official report, several LN viewpoints,  my own research, viewpoints of forum discussion, etc

Your theory has no evidence to support it.


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Non problematic evidence?
« Reply #88 on: March 31, 2019, 12:55:11 AM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7402
Re: Non problematic evidence?
« Reply #89 on: March 31, 2019, 02:49:42 AM »
I have examined the evidence from several points of view. First several CT viewpoints , then the official report, several LN viewpoints,  my own research, viewpoints of forum discussion, etc

Your theory has no evidence to support it.

Your theory has no evidence to support it.

That's rich, since you have no clue if John even has a theory and what it is. 

It's also ignorant and arrogant at the same time. The only theory that actually presents conclusions not supported by the evidence is the WCR.

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3626
Re: Non problematic evidence?
« Reply #90 on: March 31, 2019, 03:13:04 AM »
Your theory has no evidence to support it.

That's rich, since you have no clue if John even has a theory and what it is. 

It's also ignorant and arrogant at the same time. The only theory that actually presents conclusions not supported by the evidence is the WCR.

If you would stop jumping to conclusions and actually read his post, you might be able to see that I was referring to his stated theory regarding me.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Non problematic evidence?
« Reply #90 on: March 31, 2019, 03:13:04 AM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7402
Re: Non problematic evidence?
« Reply #91 on: March 31, 2019, 03:21:01 AM »
If you would stop jumping to conclusions and actually read his post, you might be able to see that I was referring to his stated theory regarding me.

As I said before; you need to improve your communication skills, so that people know what you mean and do not have to be mind readers that jump to conclusions.

As far as "his stated theory" goes, all John presented was "another theory"... He never said it was his, but he might just as well as there is plenty of evidence for it.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2019, 03:39:19 AM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: Non problematic evidence?
« Reply #92 on: March 31, 2019, 03:43:19 AM »
Let's agree to disagree? you keep playing games and I'll keep on jumping to obvious conclusions that you don't like....

Show us an obvious conclusion

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Non problematic evidence?
« Reply #92 on: March 31, 2019, 03:43:19 AM »


Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3724
Re: Non problematic evidence?
« Reply #93 on: March 31, 2019, 03:49:42 AM »
Let's agree to disagree?
You can't even get people here to agree with that

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7402
Re: Non problematic evidence?
« Reply #94 on: March 31, 2019, 03:55:05 AM »
Show us an obvious conclusion


From the total sum of all your postings, the obvious conclusion is that you are a complete waste of time

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Non problematic evidence?
« Reply #94 on: March 31, 2019, 03:55:05 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Non problematic evidence?
« Reply #95 on: March 31, 2019, 04:22:35 AM »
I have examined the evidence from several points of view. First several CT viewpoints , then the official report, several LN viewpoints,  my own research, viewpoints of forum discussion, etc

None of that is reflected in anything you have written here. All you?ve done is said that you?re convinced, you?re not interested in discussing the evidence, and that you?ve ?already considered? all the objections to the evidence and you don?t care because your mind is made up.

That?s great for you, but not a particularly compelling defense of the official narrative.

It basically amounts to ?The WC said it, I believe it, and that settles it?. Ok, but lots of us don?t.