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.
