Oswald's lies proves his guilt.

[Peter Goth]

"...But clearly you did butt into an exchange between me and Goth and accused me of putting words in his mouth...."

um,
yea, you did.

[Martin Weidmann]

Of course, there is nothing wrong with asking somebody if they have facts, but as I stated previously, I was not presenting something as a fact.

If you look way back to when I started my first post on this subject, you'll see I began with the line "Ultimately, you have to ask the question why, after over 50 years when the majority of the people involved in any alleged cover up are either dead or on their last legs, nobody involved has actually gone public and exposed a cover up?"

And concluded it with "To me, that strongly suggests that nobody has come forward with any evidence because there wasn't any cover up!"

You just can't help yourself, can you now? Your desperate need to "win the argument" seems to have gotten the better of you, hasn't it?

So, why are you now, rather dishonestly, trying to shift the goalposts? We never discussed your first post on the subject, so you now quoting from it doesn't do you much good. We were actually talking about a remark you made in a reply to Jack Trojan where, talking about people not having come forward in 50 years, you stated unequivocally, and thus presented as fact, that;

"One of them would have cracked and exposed some meaningful evidence."

Now even as someone who likes to dissect every little bit of text written, I'm sure you'd even struggle to pinpoint exactly where I claimed anything of what I was saying to be fact or where I was saying "THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED". Or did you think I was claiming to have completely solved the entire JFK assassination conspiracy with one post? I've single handedly done, in one simple post, what millions of people haven't been able to do in over 50 years?

I'm sure you'd even struggle to pinpoint exactly where I claimed anything of what I was saying to be fact or where I was saying "THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED".

Ah, more twisting and turning. I never claimed that you said any of that, so there's hardly any requirement for me to "pinpoint" anything.

I simply asked you how you knew that and you replied by saying that you were not "stating that as fact". Obviously I disagreed with you, that was all. But nice try......

And obviously I don't have any hard proof. My personal belief is that there was no cover up, but if there was one then surely someone would have come forward with evidence about this. So, if I'm suggesting there was no cover up, thus being nobody to come forward and expose a cover up, how could I possibly have evidence to back this up? It seems a stupid thing to ask for in the first place as surely you knew nobody could prove such a statement. It was clearly an opinion! Thus, that is why I said asking for proof was a tiresome counter-argument.

Yes I know, you keep telling us now that it was only an opinion, but you only said that after I asked you how you knew that "One of them would have cracked and exposed some meaningful evidence" and getting you to confirm that it was nothing more than an opinion was the entire point to my question. 

Btw, nobody asked you for evidence to back up anything. I merely asked how you knew.... You do understand the difference, don't you?

Someone else on the forum replied and said that it was because people were scared or threatened and mentioned the suspicious deaths of many other witnesses, which is great. A valid point that they actually gave to explain why someone wouldn't have come forward and that I take on board. Or am I supposed to reply to that guy and say "Well, what proof do you have that these non-existent people are scared and have been threatened?"

I saw that exchange and I am not going to tell you what you are supposed to do or how.

And yeah, me asking proof that "none of them wouldn't" was just bad English. The point I was basically trying to make was that I don't have evidence to support or not support what I was saying. As I said, it was something I was just putting out there.

Yes we know that now.

You said yourself you that you believed people had or had tried to talk so wouldn't it have just been a bit more interesting to say that and maybe say why rather than going through my messages and trying to point out niggling arguments rather than just saying so?

If you wanted to have a conversation with me about the remark I made, I can only wonder why you felt the need to continue our present conversation instead.

[Vincent Baxter]

You just can't help yourself, can you now? Your desperate need to "win the argument" seems to have gotten the better of you, hasn't it?

Of course that quote only applies to me. You in no way can "help yourself" can you?

Nothing else of relevance was really said in your full reply so I really don't think its worth addressing. The fact that you're still going on about a quote that I've already explained was only an opinion is just getting tiresome and we're just going to be here all year going round and round in circles.

I shall sit back and await your next pointless reply as clearly "you can't help yourself" either

[Vincent Baxter]

um,
yea, you did.

Yeah, I put words in your mouth. So shoot me! Is it really that much of a big deal for you? I'd hate to see what you'd be like if someone did anything seriously bad to you.

How about just answering the question? Are you telling me you don't believe there was no JFK assassination cover up?

(Did you see I did it again? Round up a few more of your mates and get them to moan at me too)

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm the only one pre-occupied with winning argument, yet you have to reply to everything I post to try to put your point across and attempt to have the last word?
Well, you can dress it up however you like and say you're just calling it as you see it but from where I'm standing it looks like you're trying to win an argument to me.

yet you have to reply to everything I post to try to put your point across and attempt to have the last word?

You write something stupid on this forum, and I reply.... that's how it works on forums. As for trying to have the last word, why do you keep replying?

from where I'm standing it looks like you're trying to win an argument to me.

That's only because you are wired that way...

I was asking him a simple question, I really don't see the big problem here. Whether I asked him "Are you saying you don't believe in a cover up?", "Are you saying you do believe in a cover up?" or "Do you believe there was a cover up" it all pretty much equates to the same question that a simple "yes" or "no" answer will solve. I'm not exactly convicting him of anything by phrasing a question in a certain way as any of the above questions are totally irrelevant and invalid until he actually replies. It's at that point when his opinion comes out. I really don't see why anyone would get so upset and make such a point about it. Its a question that is asking for an answer, its not a statement or accusation!

I was asking him a simple question

Sure you were...

OK, fair point but within this huge long thread many posts have strayed away from the original point of Oswald's lies. Maybe I should have started a new thread rather than post within this thread? But clearly you did butt into an exchange between me and Goth and accused me of putting words in his mouth.
It's pretty small minded and egotistical to be so hostile to someone just because they're "a newbie". Just because someone only just joined a JFK forum it doesn't mean they know less than you. I'm sure some of most prolific JFK researchers aren't members of this forum so if they were to join tomorrow would you automatically accuse them of being newbies who think they know it all, just because you've been a member of this forum for longer?.

It's pretty small minded and egotistical to be so hostile to someone just because they're "a newbie".

I wasn't hostile to you because you are a newbie. If I was hostile to you it was because you behaved obnoxiously. The first thing you did was pick a fight with Tom Scully.

Just because someone only just joined a JFK forum it doesn't mean they know less than you.

Strawman! Nobody said that.

I'm sure some of most prolific JFK researchers aren't members of this forum so if they were to join tomorrow would you automatically accuse them of being newbies who think they know it all, just because you've been a member of this forum for longer?.

Another strawman! You are making up your own reality here... I was not hostile to you because you were a newbie but because you deserved it.

As it stands, and this probably won't surprise you one little bit, I'm by no means an expert on this case. I'm from the UK and the JFK assassination is not even something we're taught in school. I randomly got interested in the case a few years ago and have read numerous books both for, against and neutral to any conspiracy theories. I joined this forum as I don't know anyone else who is interested in this subject and there are several things that I'm curious about that, so far, I have never seen addressed in the books I've read. Hence, I thought that joining something like this would offer some fun discussion and useful insight in to what other people think about certain topics. Sadly, all I've seem to have gotten so far is aggressive replies, demands of "proof" or being told I live in a fairy land and that I just believe anything the government tells me, rather than any actual discussion and the majority of my discussions so far have been completely irrelevant to the JFK assassination and mainly about how I phrase questions to Peter Goth.

So, you decided to join this forum to enhance your knowledge and figured a good way to start was to piss off some of the members?

Btw, I already firgured you were either from the U.K. or down under. Your spelling and choice of words gave that away fairly quickly.

As such, I hope you can see why I resorted to such comments as "Super Weidmann". I read your comment and just thought to myself "oh here we go, another nobber who is just going to rant about shit without actually addressing the issue.

No, I can't see why you resorted to such a comment.

Again, I refer back to my error of not starting a new thread. I have to admit I was not really following the interactions between you, Goth & Mytton until I was likened to him

Then perhaps you should have done a bit more research before you replied.

Yeah, you didn't say we were Siamese twins. Do you really have to take everything so literally? It was an OTT exaggeration on how you seemed to be assuming me and Mytton were best buddies or something. I thought anyone with an ounce of common sense would get that. I was just watching an old episode of a 1970s British sit-com called George & Mildred when one of the characters said the line "Blimey! Look at him. Once dance lesson and already he thinks he's John Travolta". This was obviously meant as a joke, but no doubt you would have got angry and written to the show's writers stating "At no point did that guy who took the dance lesson ever say he was John Travolta. You just made that up!"

I like British humor. The only problem is that sit-com doesn't really go down in writing on a forum and neither does your feeble attempt at ridicule.

Well clearly not as far as you're concerned. I'm clearly just "a newbie" who's not worthy of your expertise or time so I won't be offended if you don't bother replying to this with another one of your long winded accusations of how I'm putting words in people's mouths or not backing any of my notions up with hard evidence.

I'm clearly just "a newbie" who's not worthy of your expertise or time

Oh poor boy...

I won't be offended if you don't bother replying to this

What? And let you get away with this kind of BS? Not a chance.....

[Martin Weidmann]

Yeah, I put words in your mouth. So shoot me! Is it really that much of a big deal for you? I'd hate to see what you'd be like if someone did anything seriously bad to you.

How about just answering the question? Are you telling me you don't believe there was no JFK assassination cover up?

(Did you see I did it again? Round up a few more of your mates and get them to moan at me too)

From "I was only asking him a question" to Yeah, I put words in your mouth. in just three subsequent posts.

Amazing... just how much of a hypocrite can this guy be?

[Vincent Baxter]

yet you have to reply to everything I post to try to put your point across and attempt to have the last word?

You write something stupid on this forum, and I reply.... that's how it works on forums. As for trying to have the last word, why do you keep replying?

from where I'm standing it looks like you're trying to win an argument to me.

That's only because you are wired that way...

I was asking him a simple question

Sure you were...

It's pretty small minded and egotistical to be so hostile to someone just because they're "a newbie".

I wasn't hostile to you because you are a newbie. If I was hostile to you it was because you behaved obnoxiously. The first thing you did was pick a fight with Tom Scully.

Just because someone only just joined a JFK forum it doesn't mean they know less than you.

Strawman! Nobody said that.

I'm sure some of most prolific JFK researchers aren't members of this forum so if they were to join tomorrow would you automatically accuse them of being newbies who think they know it all, just because you've been a member of this forum for longer?.

Another strawman! You are making up your own reality here... I was not hostile to you because you were a newbie but because you deserved it.

So, you decided to join this forum to enhance your knowledge and figured a good way to start was to piss off some of the members?

Btw, I already firgured you were either from the U.K. or down under. Your spelling and choice of words gave that away fairly quickly.

No, I can't see why you resorted to such a comment.

Then perhaps you should have done a bit more research before you replied.

I like British humor. The only problem is that sit-com doesn't really go down in writing on a forum and neither does your feeble attempt at ridicule.

I'm clearly just "a newbie" who's not worthy of your expertise or time

Oh poor boy...

I won't be offended if you don't bother replying to this

What? And let you get away with this kind of BS? Not a chance.....

OK, busted! Maybe an incy, teeny weeny bit of me did come on here just to pick immature fights but I swear that wasn't my intention when I signed up. I did honestly hope to enhance my knowledge but it seems that's not really how JFK forums work. Am I right to assume that American people can get pretty defensive and indiscriminately dislike someone entirely depending on what their views on the assassination are? Is it a bit like how British people are divided over Brexit?

I do apologise to Tom Scully if I picked a fight with him for no reason, but being civil doesn't seem to be the theme of this forum. And admit it, you enjoy it as much as me.

p.s. Are we Brits really that easy to detect?