Mr.CHAPMAN: You're grasping at straws again. Bottom line is that several people ID'd Oswald.
MR.WEIDMANN: No. That's not the bottom line. You are the one grasping at straws as none of these witnesses were ever subject to a cross-examination. You just take their "observations" at face value.
Mr.CHAPMAN: I can't vouch for what other people see. Anywho, the witnesses gave Oswald's face a good deal of value.
Mr.CHAPMAN: You couldn't do it so nobody else can. Now there's some rational thinking right there.
Mr.WEIDMANN: I did not claim that, but you see to claim that everybody, except me could.... talk about rational thinking!
Mr.CHAPMAN: Everybody? Nope; just the witnesses IDing Oswald
Mr.WEIDMANN: Not everything is about you! But since you asked, do you consider Sam Holland credible?
Mr.CHAPMAN: Where did I imply that your statement was about me specifically. You stated* that every LNer claims Dealey Plaza witnesses unreliable. As for Sam Holland, or any other witness for that matter, I cannot personally find anyone of them unreliable. They saw what they saw as far as I'm concerned. Even a little dog in Jackie's lap or JFK standing up in the limo.
*https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,697.msg51913.html#msg51913
Mr.WEIDMANN: Instead of desperately clinging on to your ODIA scenario, why don't you give a try to look at the "evidence" more honestly and objectively?
Mr.CHAPMAN: No doubt an undertaking that has to result in agreement with you in order to be considered valid by you...
Mr.WEIDMANN: Oh, wait, that might be just too much to ask of you.....
Mr.CHAPMAN: Oh, wait... asking me to agree with you? Yeah, that's a bridge too far, Tex.