Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Bill Chapman]

Sure he is... and most of them only saw the killer for seconds. They all must have had 20/20 vision and perfect ID skills.
>>> You're grasping at straws again. Bottom line is that several people ID'd Oswald.

Having gone through the experience myself I just don't buy it.
>>> You couldn't do it so nobody else can. Now there's some rational thinking right there.

Your desperation of clinging those line up ID's whilst at the same time claiming (as all LNs have to) that the Dealey Plaza witnesses were unreliable is remarkable!
>>> Point out which Dealey Plaza witnesses I claim unreliable.

[Rob Caprio]

...and we all know that watches in 1963 were always accurate.  Right?

Gimme a break.

You're real issue is showing how LHO would have gotten to Tenth and Patton. The WC couldn't.

[Rob Caprio]

Callaway is joined by others in ID'ing Oswald

Quote them.

[Martin Weidmann]

Sure he is... and most of them only saw the killer for seconds. They all must have had 20/20 vision and perfect ID skills.
>>> You're grasping at straws again. Bottom line is that several people ID'd Oswald.

Having gone through the experience myself I just don't buy it.
>>> You couldn't do it so nobody else can. Now there's some rational thinking right there.

Your desperation of clinging those line up ID's whilst at the same time claiming (as all LNs have to) that the Dealey Plaza witnesses were unreliable is remarkable!
>>> Point out which Dealey Plaza witnesses I claim unreliable.

You're grasping at straws again. Bottom line is that several people ID'd Oswald.

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.

You couldn't do it so nobody else can. Now there's some rational thinking right there.

I did not claim that, but you see to claim that everybody, except me could.... talk about rational thinking!

Point out which Dealey Plaza witnesses I claim unreliable.

Not everything is about you! But since you asked, do you consider Sam Holland credible?


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?

Oh, wait, that might be just too much to ask of you.....

[Bill Chapman]

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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

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... 

No.. If and when your honest and objective examination of the evidence yields another conclusion, which you can subsequently explain and defend, rather than just mindlessly parrot the WC narrative, I will consider it valid even if it disagrees with my conclusions.... Who knows, you might even persuade me to look at things differently.

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.

Don't you first need to know what I think and what my conclusions are before you can decide that you can agree with them or not?

[Bill Chapman]

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... 

No.. If and when your honest and objective examination of the evidence yields another conclusion, which you can subsequently explain and defend, rather than just mindlessly parrot the WC narrative, I will consider it valid even if it disagrees with my conclusions.... Who knows, you might even persuade me to look at things differently.

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.

Don't you first need to know what I think and what my conclusions are before you can decide that you can agree with them or not?

Mr.WEIDMANN: No? If and when your honest and objective examination of the evidence yields another conclusion, which you can subsequently explain and defend, rather than just mindlessly parrot the WC narrative, I will consider it valid even if it disagrees with my conclusions.... Who knows, you might even persuade me to look at things differently.
Mr.CHAPMAN: I?m not trying to persuade anyone of anything here.
Mr.WEIDMANN: Don't you first need to know what I think and what my conclusions are before you can decide that you can agree with them or not?
Mr.CHAPMAN: Sheep, lemmings?. now mindless parrots. My, my. All of which dovetails back your abundantly-transparent notion that no other conclusions but yours will ever really be valid.

[Martin Weidmann]

Mr.WEIDMANN: No? If and when your honest and objective examination of the evidence yields another conclusion, which you can subsequently explain and defend, rather than just mindlessly parrot the WC narrative, I will consider it valid even if it disagrees with my conclusions.... Who knows, you might even persuade me to look at things differently.
Mr.CHAPMAN: I?m not trying to persuade anyone of anything here.
Mr.WEIDMANN: Don't you first need to know what I think and what my conclusions are before you can decide that you can agree with them or not?
Mr.CHAPMAN: Sheep, lemmings?. now mindless parrots. My, my. All of which dovetails back your abundantly-transparent notion that no other conclusions but yours will ever really be valid.

Mr.CHAPMAN: I?m not trying to persuade anyone of anything here.

Are you sure about that? Could have fooled me....

Mr.CHAPMAN: Sheep, lemmings?. now mindless parrots. My, my. All of which dovetails back your abundantly-transparent notion that no other conclusions but yours will ever really be valid.

I never used the terms "sheep" or "lemmings" and you do in fact parrot the WC narrative mindlessly. The only opinion of your own you seem to have is about what I would consider valid and you're even wrong about that!