Non problematic evidence?

[Bill Chapman]

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

[Jerry Freeman]

Let's agree to disagree?

You can't even get people here to agree with that

[Martin Weidmann]

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

[John Iacoletti]

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.

[Charles Collins]

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.

Do you think that I need to hear your personal viewpoint before I say that the evidence is overwhelming convincing? Is your viewpoint THAT important?

I didn?t say the things you wrote. Those are your words. I am not trying to tell you that you have to defend your conclusions to me. I am only suggesting that it is wise to have an open mind.

[Walt Cakebread]

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.

That's worth repeating.....?The WC said it, I believe it, and that settles it?. Ok, but lots of us don?t."

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

Do you think that I need to hear your personal viewpoint before I say that the evidence is overwhelming convincing? Is your viewpoint THAT important?

I didn?t say the things you wrote. Those are your words. I am not trying to tell you that you have to defend your conclusions to me. I am only suggesting that it is wise to have an open mind.

Which brings us back to the basic question I asked earlier; what in the world are you doing here?

It seems at least a bit strange to me that you join a forum that discusses the case against Oswald and thus also the evidence only to refuse to discuss the evidence or the case.

You keep on telling us that you didn't say things you clearly implicitely did say and you keep telling everybody to have an open mind whilst at the same time displaying time after time that your own mind is clearly closed.

In any event, now the members of this forum have noted that in your opinion the evidence is "overwhelming convincing", is there anything left to be discussed with you?