- Howard Brennan lied at the lineup because he was scared for his family.
- Howard Brennan had the ability to estimate a man's height and weight from seeing him in a crouched position from the chest up.
- Klein's mistakenly put February on a March deposit slip
- J. M. Poe forgot to mark the shells
- Studebaker accidentally didn't photograph the bag
- The police forgot to check Oswald's pockets for hours after he was arrested
- Buell Frazier was mistaken about the length of the package
- Linnie Mae Randle was mistaken about the length of the package
- Linnie Mae Randle could see through a wall
- Essie Mae Williams just didn't notice the bag Oswald was carrying
Bill Newman
First day affidavit
?I thought the shot had come from the garden directly behind me, that it was on an elevation from where I was as I was right on the curb. I do not recall looking toward the Texas School Book Depository. I looked back in the vacinity [sic] of the garden.?
FBI report
?NEWMAN first thought the President and Governor were playing some kind of a game and suddenly realized they had been shot and that he was perhaps in the line of fire because officers started running toward the arcade diectly back of him and his wife.?
Shaw trial
?Q: Now would you push the microphone aside and step down to the aerial photograph and identify that general area, just the general area from which the sounds came.
A: In my opinion, the sounds of the shots sounded as if they had come from directly behind me (indicating). I was standing near this light standard here, and I thought the shots were coming from back here, and apparently everybody else did because they all ran in that direction. ?
?Newman: (Indicating) ?This is all the grassy knoll area, and it was my opinion or my thought from the noise, that the shots were coming from directly behind in here. I would say that the shots could have been fired from here, but the further this way you go, the less likely it would have been. ?
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: I see. Now from the parking lot area behind the grassy knoll -- I am referring to the area north of the building here (indicating) --
A: Yes, sir.
Behind him. Not from his left side.
I urge you to look at the "Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald" the mock trial in London, with Gerry Spence and Vince Bugliosi as trial attorneys. Take a look at where Mr. Newman indicated where he was referring to when asked where on the map of Dealey Plaza he thought the shots came from. It wasn't to his right by a long shot. It was to his LEFT. He highlighted the area with a marker.
Which only shows that witness recollection may change as more time passes by.
If Bill Newman were to walk up to you and slap you on the face and point to you where he thought the shots came from, you'd tell him he is wrong. That's a typical conspiracy nutter. If you listen to Bill Newman describe the reason he thought the shot came from the area he referred to as "the garden", it isn't because he thought it sounded like it, it was because of how the president reacted during the fatal shot. Haven't you seen the Newman family interview with Stephen Fagin at The Sixth Floor Museum in 2013? It was broadcast on C-Span and is available on YouTube.
Note how the angle of looking at the chalk board changes at about 17 secs. so that the curve appears to be more elongated.
It's called editing to suit the point of view of the editor.
As Newman states in the video "I thought the shots came directly from"behind me'". Which he shows on the diagram.
The TSBD was not directly behind him.
Nobody said the shots came from the "right" behind him. He actually said "I thought the shots came from directly behind me."
You just don't want to believe him.
Nobody said the shots came from the "right" behind him. He actually said "I thought the shots came from directly behind me."
You just don't want to believe him.
Agreed the Grassy knoll fence was to the the right behind Newman, but the grassy knoll spread right across the area to the north of the underpass access road.. The grassy knoll wasn't just to the right of Zapruder, which a lot of LNs believe.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/newman1.jpg)
Brennan's first day affidavit of seeing a slender man white with a rifle in the very window where a sniper's nest with shells was found is supported by the Police Broadcast at 12:45 and proves that Brennan saw Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.
Right back at ya, the conspirators only had one job to and they even stuffed that up!
The other two shells were marked and verified.
Mr. BALL. Did you make a mark?
Mr. POE. I can't swear to it; no, sir.
Mr. BALL. But there is a mark on two of these?
Mr. POE. There is a mark. I believe I put on them, but I couldn't swear to it. I couldn't make them out any more.
the brown paper bag must have been accidentally moved and following strict Police procedure wasn't replaced for the photo because that would be naughty.
You rely on a Police report to tell that you that the very same Police discovered bullets on Oswald a couple of hours later, where does that go?
On the first weekend she told the FBI that the package was 3 feet long.
Really???, the garage was enclosed by slats.
So what?
Anyway so far from your compiled list I see the usual misrepresentations, ignorance and lies
which don't seem to lead to any specific conclusion.
Lame John I. excuses:
1) Everyone lied or planted evidence if it implicates Oswald (repeat in every instance but then deny this is what you are doing).
2) Suggest that every explanation that addresses an insane CTer claim is a "strawman" argument (demonstrating either a traumatic childhood experience with The Wizard of Oz or a way to avoid acknowledging the lunacy of these claims without having to address the substance)
3) Suggest all evidence is the product of an "opinion, "assumption," or "speculation." Fingerprints, hand writing, document, pictures - any inference drawn from this evidence is merely an opinion. This limitation does not, however, apparently apply to any nutty counter-alternative to Oswald's guilt no matter how improbable or baseless. If it is possible, then it can be entertained or implied so long as it lends itself to doubt about Oswald's guilt.
Lame John I. excuses:
1) Everyone lied or planted evidence if it implicates Oswald (repeat in every instance but then deny this is what you are doing).
2) Suggest that every explanation that addresses an insane CTer claim is a "strawman" argument
3) Suggest all evidence is the product of an "opinion, "assumption," or "speculation." Fingerprints, hand writing, document, pictures - any inference drawn from this evidence is merely an opinion.
This limitation does not, however, apparently apply to any nutty counter-alternative to Oswald's guilt no matter how improbable or baseless. If it is possible, then it can be entertained or implied so long as it lends itself to doubt about Oswald's guilt.
Sheriff John I. is the only one keeping you LNers honest. He doesn't propose CTs, he only calls out the LNer BS lame excuses and it drives them nuts. That's because foremost he is a logistician and he calls out all the fallacies, of which there are many, and destroys their arguments thru logic. The LNers only recourse is to accuse him of dishonesty and try to discredit him with extreme prejudice. They take all this so personally it's comical. It's all a frustrating game for them because they have the untenable position of defending the WC 100%. Oswald was a lone nut, period. No collusion, no conspiracy. All other evidence to the contrary must be attacked, dismissed or ignored. Oswald can't be the shooter in a conspiracy. Nope, the LNers are diehard WC defenders all the way baby! If they have to embarrass themselves via lame excuses, then so be it. It makes the JFK forum what it is. John I. tries to debate the LNers but they never give an inch because it is baked into their ideology, so their lame excuses get destroyed every time.
Now that is some major league arse-kissing... by a career minor leaguer about a paid gaslighter
All other evidence to the contrary
>>> What other 'evidence' might that be, Sherlock?
Now that is some major league arse-kissing... by a career minor leaguer about a paid gaslighter
All other evidence to the contrary
>>> What other 'evidence' might that be, Sherlock?
Minor leaguer??? :'( I know you are but what am I? Like you've never high-fived a fellow nutter? Isn't that all you do, every day, 24/7 on a JFK forum? Who is the career minor leaguer here? ;D
Now now...Chapman also expends a lot of effort cutting-and-pasting Bugliosi and McAdams.
You also need to stop trying to divert every thread with your off-topic strawman questions.
1) Howard Brennan lied at the lineup because he was scared for his family.
Brennan lied?
How so?
Mr. BELIN. Now, is there anything else you told the officers at the time of the lineup?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I told them I could not make a positive identification.
Mr. BELIN. When you told them that, did you ever later tell any offlcer or investigating person anything
different?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. When did that happen?
Mr. BRENNAN. I believe some days later-I don’t recall exactly-and I believe the Service man identifled hisself as being Williams, I believe, from Houston. I won’t swear to that-whether his name was Williams or not.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BRENNAN. And he could have been an FBI. As far as I remember, it could have been FBI instead of Secret Service.
But I believe it was a Secret Service man from Houston.
And I-
Mr. BELIN. What did he say to you and what did you say to him?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, he asked me-he said, “You said you couldn’t make a positive identification.”
He said, “Did you do that for security reasons personally, or couldn’t you?’ And I told him I could with all honesty, but I did it more or less for security reasons--my family and myself.
How is that lying?
Seriously, Graves?
He said that he really could make an identification but told the police that day that he could not.
That’s a lie. Unless you think that claim in his testimony was actually a lie. Then it’s just a different lie. But either way, he lied.
Everybody is capable of having a change of heart and telling a fib or two when they believe that they or their family might be in danger, so where's the beef if that was the case with Brennan?
So it wasn’t a lie, it was a “fib”. Got it. :D
I never said Euins was lying.
I’m asking why “what happened to the bullet” is a legitimate argument against a non-SBT throat shot (as if anybody really knows what happened to the alleged SBT bullet either), but not a legitimate argument against the speculative “first missed shot”. The fact that some witnesses reported an early shot doesn’t mean that shot missed.
If JFK was hit by a bullet to the throat, then that bullet has to have gone somewhere. Either it exits or stops while still in the body. If it stops, it shows up on an x-ray. If it fragments, it shows up all over the x-ray. If it goes all the way through JFK, even if the bullet is never found, it still leaves an exit wound somewhere. A bullet that hits the ground might dig into the earth, but it's more likely to ricochet or simply disintegrate on a hard surface as seen in "Inside the Target Car."
Too bad there isn't a straight-line path entering JFK's back at the T1 vertebrae and exiting the throat at C7. If there is then there isn't a LNer with guts to show us the trajectory using my 2 laser challenge. LNers is cheap, lazy bastages who are not interested in the truth. Prove me wrong, I DARE YOU! ;D
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasersJFK.jpg)
Too bad there isn't a straight-line path entering JFK's back at the T1 vertebrae and exiting the throat at C7. If there is then there isn't a LNer with guts to show us the trajectory using my 2 laser challenge. LNers is cheap, lazy bastages who are not interested in the truth. Prove me wrong, I DARE YOU! ;D
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasersJFK.jpg)
It's quite well known that bullets often do not travel in a straight line once they've hit something, and measurements have some amount of uncertainty built in, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with your straight line shtick. Other than the rest of us shouldn't take you seriously.
Lame John I. excuses:
1) Everyone lied or planted evidence if it implicates Oswald (repeat in every instance but then deny this is what you are doing).
2) Suggest that every explanation that addresses an insane CTer claim is a "strawman" argument (demonstrating either a traumatic childhood experience with The Wizard of Oz or a way to avoid acknowledging the lunacy of these claims without having to address the substance)
3) Suggest all evidence is the product of an "opinion, "assumption," or "speculation." Fingerprints, hand writing, document, pictures - any inference drawn from this evidence is merely an opinion. This limitation does not, however, apparently apply to any nutty counter-alternative to Oswald's guilt no matter how improbable or baseless. If it is possible, then it can be entertained or implied so long as it lends itself to doubt about Oswald's guilt.
It's quite well known that bullets often do not travel in a straight line once they've hit something,
Thumb1: Thumb1:
Way to chime in on a 2-year-old post, Brown!
Way to chime in on a 2-year-old post, Brown!
Then how do you know where the bullet(s) that wounded Connally originated from?
bullets often do not travel in a straight line once they've hit something
What does that mean.... "hit something"?
Are you saying that a bullet going through a body without hitting anything other than soft tissue will not travel in a straight line?
(https://images2.imgbox.com/50/29/gP4bRQ2M_o.jpg)
This is a 3D model from Render People. They claim their models are photorealistic by virtue of a 250-camera scan system. I added a high-poly skeleton scaled to the figure's height.
I had to articulate the skeleton's neck bones above T1 to match the figure's neck posture and orient the skull. All bones are connected to articulation points fixed on the original skeleton model. The SBT missile track entered at the model's C7 level and exited T1 level. It passed the spine without striking it or the first rib, but encountered the T1 vertebra's external process. So on a model that isn't replicating Kennedy's neck posture, the neck transit did come close in some regards to the proposed SBT transit.
BTW, it is possible for the SBT missile track to pass by the skeleton model at C7/T1 without striking any bone; I have seen this on the skeleton model alone.
If the bullet, coming downwards from left of the car, went through Kennedy in a straight line, as depicted in the photo on the top left of your gif, there is IMO no way that it could have struck Connally where he was hit. That bullet path would have resulted in the bullet ending up somewhere between the two jump seats.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/87/11/G6jWMDiO_o.png)
These rough sketches show that in order for the bullet to go between the seats, it would require an approx. 30° right-to-left angle.
Depending on the exact position of the car and assuming the jump seats were where the sketches put them.
Having seen the interior of the actual car, I doubt that the sketches are correct.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/z225canningmap.png) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Canning back-project method (5% margin-of-error) Z225 shown because both men clear of sign; Z223 hit frame? | (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/reworked/wcr-sbtslope.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) WCR slope: 17° relative to car rail |
Any good reason to think that Connally had half his body hanging off the edge of the seat? Other than that it make things sort of line up?
Any good reason to think that Connally had half his body hanging off the edge of the seat? Other than that it make things sort of line up?
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/f144_sbttrajectory.gif) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Canning's original version (Z190) for the HSCA | (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/z225canningmap.png) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) My version using Canning's back-projection unchanged (Z225) |
IMO, Canning's figures were placed a little too far inboard. I would move both a few inches towards their right. The large ovals represent the shoulders, not where the hips were.
I don't see how a bullet emerging from Kennedy's throat would end up between the jump seats. Only in a CT scenario.
You can't eyeball anything and I don't buy your graphics. You need to develop a more sophisticated 3D model and show the trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD in and out of JFK and in and out and in and out and into Connally. I'll let you get away with this if you have an exact 3D model to scale and you are very specific re the entrance/exit wounds. Short of that, you are wasting your time.
Note that you (or anyone) can also use the 2 laser challenge for 3 people.
First, line up JFK's surrogate to match the entrance/exit wounds, then remove JFK's surrogate and insert/fit Connally's surrogate into the scene and match up his rib/wrist/thigh relative to the MB trajectory (providing it was a straight line). Take photos of both surrogates and superimpose them into 1 image. Then note the body positions and look to the Z film to find the frame that best fits. Otherwise, a 3D re-enactment is the ONLY exercise that will advance this and it's cheap and easy and anyone can do it.
You expect us to believe that your CAD rendering is accurate and detailed enough to resolve the MB trajectory, which even YOU can't confirm is true. You are living in a 2D world projected from 3D via a physics engine. Lots of potential error with your methods since you are a CAD operator, not a geomaticist that knows how 3D->2D projection works.
Be the first to do all that and post it here.
If the bullet, coming downwards from left of the car, went through Kennedy in a straight line, as depicted in the photo on the top left of your gif, there is IMO no way that it could have struck Connally where he was hit. That bullet path would have resulted in the bullet ending up somewhere between the two jump seats.
Be the first to do all that and post it here.
The "Render People" 3D model was to show the SBT-angled trajectory through a realistic person in a casual position. The single-bullet trajectory through both men is another matter for another day.
For one lacking in knowledge of 3D modeling and photogrammetry, you really shouldn't be making such offensive comments. It's like a Trump Tweet.
Hear hear! Thumb1:
I have a friend who works in forensics for the police and they say that the worst thing to hinder solving a crime is if there are eyewitnesses. Just because someone gives their account of what they witnessed does not make it fact, so to use eyewitness reports from Dealey Plaza as some sort of argument against the LN theory is ridiculous.
How about looking at the hard evidence that was actually found on the 6th floor rather than sodding about with unreliable testimonies?
Sorry, but I've been a photogrammetrist working with digital 3D modeling before you were crapping in your pants (unless you're an old man who has resumed crapping in your pants). For over 30+ years I've developed CAD applications for GIS mapping for Google Maps and I have several apps that currently compete with ArcGIS. Test me if you have doubts. On that note, I think I'm entitled to know what your qualifications are re 3D modeling. Are you an operator or a player?
So what happened to the bullet? And how come a speeding bullet that would have only slightly been slowed down by travelling through flesh caused no damage to the interior of the car?
I have a friend who works in forensics for the police and they say that the worst thing to hinder solving a crime is if there are eyewitnesses. Just because someone gives their account of what they witnessed does not make it fact, so to use eyewitness reports from Dealey Plaza as some sort of argument against the LN theory is ridiculous.
How many people were in Dealey Plaza that day? How many people, with all good intention, described what they saw? How many different accounts were there? How do you decide who is right and who is wrong?
Various survivors of the Titanic gave different accounts of how the ship sank. Some said it sank on one piece where as others stated it snapped in two before going under. That's quite a big thing to differ on.
I remember coming back from a football match one evening and having a heated argument with my friends about whether a player scored a volley with his left foot or right foot. Each of us were convinced we were right.
On Halloween I was walking home and some little spombleprofglidnoctobunss were setting off fireworks in the street. At first I thought the banging noises were coming from behind me. Then it sounded like they were coming from the street to the right of me. Turns out they were actually coming from up ahead of me. My point here is that I couldn't even accurately pinpoint the sound of loud bangs in normal calm surroundings, let alone with people screaming and seeing half of the president's head being blown away.
Desperately clinging on to something like what Frazier said about how Oswald was carrying the bag or how long someone said said they thought it was in order to create an argument is pointless. How about looking at the hard evidence that was actually found on the 6th floor rather than sodding about with unreliable testimonies?
Some interesting (and scientific) reading on eyewitnesses here - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
So what happened to the bullet?
I have no idea. Who searched the limo again before the FBI team arrived?
And how come a speeding bullet that would have only slightly been slowed down by travelling through flesh caused no damage to the interior of the car?
Who said there was no damage to the interior of the car?
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/books/simpleact/neck-transit-upward-deflection.png)
Mark Fuhrman thought a deflection near the start of the neck transit went on to cause the indentation in the windshield frame. Others think the dent there was caused by one of the large spent fragments from the head shot.
I think what Baxter was getting at is there was no intact bullet (from the neck transit that was mostly, if not all, soft tissue) recovered in the limo and no bullet holes in the upholstery. Maybe they were foolish, but the Commission figured a barely-slowed bullet exiting the throat and traveling downward would have struck something to the immediate front of Kennedy.
Maybe they were foolish, but the Commission figured a barely-slowed bullet exiting the throat and traveling downward would have struck something to the immediate front of Kennedy.
so to use eyewitness reports from Dealey Plaza as some sort of argument against the LN theory is ridiculous.
But with the Tippit shooting, where they support the LN theory, those eyewitness reports are reliable, right?
How about looking at the hard evidence that was actually found on the 6th floor
And by that you mean a paper bag, made from TSBD shipping materials, with several unidentifiable prints on them and one identifiable palmprint from Oswald who happened to work in the building and frequently was on the 6th floor, right?
Furman's use of the word "probably" in the first gif is telling you that he is speculating.
The picture shown in the second gif shows Kennedy and Connally's position relative to eachother. IMO it's actually fairly accurate, in spite of the fact that it had the path of the bullet coming from behind rather than from the side of the car.
I think what Baxter was getting at is there was no intact bullet (from the neck transit that was mostly, if not all, soft tissue) recovered in the limo and no bullet holes in the upholstery.
Of course that is what he was getting at. However, as the limo was already searched prior to Frazier and his FBI team arrived we can never be sure what was really found or not. Frazier was handed bullet fragments and told they came from the car. There isn't a court in the land that would have accepted such evidence! What in the world were those guys thinking when they decided to search the car and thus contaminate the crime scene? What plausible motive could they have had to not wait for the forensic team of the FBI?
As for there being no bullet holes in the upholstery, how do you know? Have you seen photos of the interior of the limo?
How about the fact that Oswald's jacket (verified by Marina that it was his) was found dumped nearby?
The fact that Johnny Brewer saw Oswald duck into his shop when a police car went by,
thought he looked suspicious so followed him to the Texas Theatre
and the fact that Oswald then pulled out a revolver and fired at a cop
when they came into the theatre to question him?
For a completely innocent man who had definitely not shot the President or Tippit, do you not find that peculiar behaviour?.
Well, yeah that and the fact that OSWALD'S RIFLE was found hidden on the 6th floor too.
Not to mention that out of the entire staff of TSBD Oswald was the only one who legged it from the building
and was missing from a later head count. That he had broken his usual visiting routine by going to visit Marina the night before to allegedly pick up some "curtain rods" which he took to work with him. Also, do you not find it a bit of a coincidence that he took off his wedding ring for the first time and left it on Marina's dresser that morning?
I'd say those 6 points alone (which are the first few that comes to mind) are a fair indication of Oswald's guilt
Incidentally, whatever happened to the curtain rods in the paper bag that Oswald took into work with him that morning?
I can kind of understand how people might believe there was a second shooter or that he was part of a larger group, but with such a ridiculous amount of both hard and circumstantial evidence against Oswald,
I really don't get how some people can believe he was totally innocent and had nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination.
I think I read that there has been something like 80+ assassins, 40+ groups or organisations and two to three hundred people accused of being responsible or involved in the assassination over the the years and yet not one of those have produced real credible or reliable evidence. Where as Oswald, this poor innocent man, has so many points against him.
And when exactly did I say that? From what I remember there were several contradictory statements to Tippit murder too so the same rule applies to that.
How about the fact that Oswald's jacket (verified by Marina that it was his) was found dumped nearby? The fact that Johnny Brewer saw Oswald duck into his shop when a police car went by, thought he looked suspicious so followed him to the Texas Theatre and the fact that Oswald then pulled out a revolver and fired at a cop when they came into the theatre to question him?
For a completely innocent man who had definitely not shot the President or Tippit, do you not find that peculiar behaviour?.
Well, yeah that and the fact that OSWALD'S RIFLE was found hidden on the 6th floor too. Not to mention that out of the entire staff of TSBD Oswald was the only one who legged it from the building and was missing from a later head count. That he had broken his usual visiting routine by going to visit Marina the night before to allegedly pick up some "curtain rods" which he took to work with him. Also, do you not find it a bit of a coincidence that he took off his wedding ring for the first time and left it on Marina's dresser that morning?
I'd say those 6 points alone (which are the first few that comes to mind) are a fair indication of Oswald's guilt and certainly more viable than a handful of 200+ different eyewitness statements claiming otherwise.
Incidentally, whatever happened to the curtain rods in the paper bag that Oswald took into work with him that morning?
I can kind of understand how people might believe there was a second shooter or that he was part of a larger group, but with such a ridiculous amount of both hard and circumstantial evidence against Oswald, I really don't get how some people can believe he was totally innocent and had nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination.
I think I read that there has been something like 80+ assassins, 40+ groups or organisations and two to three hundred people accused of being responsible or involved in the assassination over the the years and yet not one of those have produced real credible or reliable evidence. Where as Oswald, this poor innocent man, has so many points against him.
Yawn! Are we really going to go down this lame path?
How do you know JFK sustained injuries to his neck or that Governor Connally received a bullet wound to his back, wrist & thigh? Did you personally inspect their bodies? No, you didn't. Therefore it's clearly all lies and it never even happened. ::)
The fact that Johnny Brewer saw Oswald duck into his shop when a police car went by
I would say that poor Mr. Baxter was just handed a taste of Warren Commission Derangement Syndrome. There's no known cure. :P
Oswald didn't duck into the shop, but notably, did enter the foyer (or whatever they call it) which effectively got him off the sidewalk. Brewer said he thinks he saw him in his store in the past apparently; maybe you confused that part.
Yes, maybe Lee was just nervously looking for some new shoes for Junie.
-- MWT ;)
Who said he was nervous?
I think I read that there has been something like 80+ assassins, 40+ groups or organisations and two to three hundred people accused of being responsible or involved in the assassination over the the years and yet not one of those have produced real credible or reliable evidence. Where as Oswald, this poor innocent man, has so many points against him.
Yes, maybe Lee was just nervously looking for some new shoes for Junie.
-- MWT ;)
"Former Los Angeles District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi estimated that a total of 42 groups, 82 assassins, and 214 people had been accused in various Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories"
-Wikipedia
You missed my point.
See if you can figure it out.
It was? You mean the white jacket found by nobody-knows-who, supposedly under a car in a “nearby” parking lot (and by “nearby” you mean 2 blocks away) was the gray jacket that Marina said was an old shirt?
He didn’t actually enter the shop, he just looked in the windows.
Brewer said “funny”, not suspicious, and he didn’t see anybody enter the theater. But is this supposed to prove that this man killed a policeman?
That’s not a fact.
They didn’t “question him”, they conducted an illegal search and arrested Oswald for murder without a warrant or probable cause.
“Peculiar behavior” is not evidence of murder.
“Oswald’s rifle”. LOL.
Not true. Other employees including Charles Givens didn’t return after the motorcade.
This is all biased rhetoric, not evidence of murder.
Of course you would.
I don’t know and neither do you. Is that supposed to be evidence of murder too?
You haven’t mentioned any “hard evidence” yet!
I don’t know if he was totally innocent or not, but you certainly haven’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.
That’s the problem with relying on Bugliosi for your information. You end up thinking lawyer rhetoric is evidence and that you can arbitrarily dismiss anything you want by just calling it not “credible”.
That evil, evil, evil Deep State agent, Brewer, for one, and at least one person in the sparsely-filled theater who said he was a-switchin' seats like crazy and sittin' next to people he evidently didn't know, as though he was a-tryin' to "blend in" and look innocent an' everythang.
D'oh
But I suppose it could be argued he was just tryin' to find his evil, evil, evil Deep State handler who was, unbeknownst to poor old Lee "The Pawn" Oswald, was a-settin' him up to be the patsy for the assassination!
LOL
-- MWT ;)
PS And earlier, didn't the cabdriver say Oswald had told him to let him out a block or two past his residence, as though he was checkin' it out so see if the police wuz there yet?
Would that be the same Oswald who;
- didn't blink an eye when Officer Baker pointed a revolver at him?
- wanted to give his taxi to a woman, when he was supposed to be "on the run"?
- was cool, calm and collected (or words to that effect) during his interrogation, according to Chief Curry?
Chapman
What makes you think I was addressing you in particular?
>>> Reply#95
PS Brewer thought maybe he'd seen Oswald nervously hanging around that shoe store at least once before?
>>> Brewer didn't say anything of the sort. Neither did I. You continue to miss my point. Again, see if you can figure it out.
Gentlemen,
I noticed that there is still some confusion about which officer found Oswald's jacket under a parked vehicle. Let me try to help clear up the matter.
First, the DPD radio log is of importance. At around 1:25 p.m. an officer with call sign 279 (listed as "unknown") contacts dispatch and says:
We believe we've got that suspect on shooting this officer out here. Got his white jacket. Believe he dumped it on this parking lot behind this service station at 400 block East Jefferson, across from Dudley Hughes, and he had a white jacket on. We believe this is it.
See CE 1974, page 62:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1139&search=CE_1974#relPageId=894&tab=page
The 'unknown' officer #279 was officer J.T. Griffin of the Traffic Division of the Dallas Police Department according to Lawrence Exhibit 2, page 2:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137&search=lawrence_exhibit#relPageId=510&tab=page
I trust this will put an end to the we-don't-know-who- found-the- jacket nonsense.
That doesn't clear up the matter. Griffin was the officer who reported to Dispatch that the jacket had been found. That doesn't tell us who it was that actually found the jacket.
Gentlemen,
I noticed that there is still some confusion about which officer found Oswald's jacket under a parked vehicle. Let me try to help clear up the matter.
First, the DPD radio log is of importance. At around 1:25 p.m. an officer with call sign 279 (listed as "unknown") contacts dispatch and says:
We believe we've got that suspect on shooting this officer out here. Got his white jacket. Believe he dumped it on this parking lot behind this service station at 400 block East Jefferson, across from Dudley Hughes, and he had a white jacket on. We believe this is it.
See CE 1974, page 62:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1139&search=CE_1974#relPageId=894&tab=page
The 'unknown' officer #279 was officer J.T. Griffin of the Traffic Division of the Dallas Police Department according to Lawrence Exhibit 2, page 2:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137&search=lawrence_exhibit#relPageId=510&tab=page
I trust this will put an end to the we-don't-know-who- found-the- jacket nonsense.
Gentlemen, - Tim, John, Martin-
It appears I misspoke and apologize. However it seemed logical and rational to me that the officer who found the jacket actually called it in himself.
But I note that in the radio log officer Griffin refers to more than just himself by the use of the phrase We believe this is it. Therefore the possibility that he just called it in after another officer found the jacket can not be denied. No doubt the officer who actually discovered the discarded jacket in the parking lot typed up a report or is listed on the evidence log sheet, but I can't bloody find it. Most annoying >:(
Thumb1:
Griffin was the officer who reported to Dispatch that the jacket had been found.
Do you believe that Griffin would have reported that he had found a WHITE Jacket if the Jacket had been gray? The jacket in evidence is NOT WHITE......
Hi Walt, I hope that you're doing well. Maybe Griffin saw this jacket:
(https://i.imgur.com/Rnmcx3F.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/FeYT84k.png)
What do you think? Possible?
Griffin was the officer who reported to Dispatch that the jacket had been found.
Do you believe that Griffin would have reported that he had found a WHITE Jacket if the Jacket had been gray? The jacket in evidence is NOT WHITE......
Show ten people a color picture of Oswald's jacket and ask them what color it is. I bet you get several different responses white, gray, tan. It is a non-descript color. We know Oswald was wearing a jacket when he left his boardinghouse around 1PM but he is not wearing it less than a hour later when arrested. Where do you think it went?
(https://i.postimg.cc/s2WNRmQW/jacket-initials1-zps70d8a969.jpg)
JohnM
Speculating about what did or did not happen to a jacket is by no standard evidence of anything.
No we don't know that Oswald was wearing a jacket when he left the boardinghouse. The only person who claimed that Oswald left wearing a jacket was Earlene Roberts and she failed to identify CE 162 because she believed that Oswald's jacket was darker. Buell Frazier's testimony suggests that Oswald was wearing CE 162 to Irving on Thursday evening. If Frazier is correct, there is no way that same jacket could have been at North Beckley at 1PM the next day.
Walt indicated that the jacket in evidence is not the one found because it was described as "white." Do you believe that characterizing this jacket as white instead of gray precludes it from being the one found by the police? Earlene Roberts was the ONLY witness to see Oswald at the boarding house. So dismissing her testimony just because she was the only person who saw him is silly. She indicates that he had a jacket on. Witnesses at the Tippit scene described a person they later identified as Oswald wearing a jacket. Multiple witnesses, therefore, connect Oswald to a jacket before his arrest. But when he is arrested, there is suddenly no jacket. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to sort out what happened. Oswald understood that witnesses had seen a man wearing a jacket murder Tippit. He removes the jacket in an attempt to change his appearance.
Marina said:
Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's--an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Oops -- LOL
Huh? Marina is looking right at the piece of clothing and says it's Oswald's, what about that makes you "laugh out loud", why do you find that funny?
Btw the way you are constantly rolling about on the floor laughing your guts out, comes across as psychotic!
JohnM
Btw the way you are constantly rolling about on the floor laughing your guts out, comes across as psychotic!
Speaking from experience, are you?
Marina is looking right at the piece of clothing and says it's Oswald's
Yes indeed, and she confirmed what Buell Frazier said in his testimony; that Oswald was wearing CE162 to Irving on Thursday evening. Care to explain how it could have gotten to North Beckley the next day for Roberts to see Oswald putting it on?
SorryOttoRogerWeidmann, Earlene Roberts was quite specific that Oswald was zipping up his jacket as he left the rooming house. Btw attacking Roberts and casting aspersions that she saw the precise action of zipping just because she was blind in one eye is pathetic.
Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Mr. BALL. He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.
JohnM
Mr. BALL - On that day you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What color was the jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.
Mr. BALL - Did it have a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types.
Mr. BALL - It isn't one of these two zipper jackets we have shown?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Frazier says "I didn't pay much attention to the package".
Mr. BALL - All right.
When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.
Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.
Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
JohnM
Total dishonesty by Mytton, as per usual. We know from the evidence that Oswald only had two jackets. When Frazier was shown CE 163 he said;
Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.
That only leaves CE 162, which is the grey jacket. So, regardless of the less than perfect description by Frazier the grey jacket must be the one Oswald was wearing to Irving on Thursday evening and Marina confirmed it;
Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember anything else he was wearing at that time?
Mrs. OSWALD. It seems he had that jacket, also.
Mr. RANKIN. Exhibit 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
And Earlene Roberts said she was paying more attention to the TV :D
Total dishonesty by Mytton, as per usual.
We know from the evidence that Oswald only had two jackets.
I don't have to call Marina a liar. She confirmed herself that she had lied to investigators. That should have been a red flag, but somehow it wasn't. They probably needed her testimony too desperately to care.
That only leaves CE 162, which is the grey jacket.
And Earlene Roberts said she was paying more attention to the TV
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to sort out what happened.
Huh? Marina is looking right at the piece of clothing and says it's Oswald's,
That's a great analogy, Frazier remembered Oswald putting the Bag on the back seat of the car and btw Oswald told Fritz that he kept it on his lap. Frazier also remembered Oswald having the bag in his cupped hand and told the London Trial that the bag could have been out in front. Jerry Organ made a great graphic showing how Oswald possibly held the rifle.
She thought they were showing her an old shirt. Or maybe they were.
Or maybe they were.
"could have been"
First he had to dump the two jackets he was wearing in Whaley's cab prior to entering the rooming house.
ROFL
Total dishonesty by Mytton, as per usual. We know from the evidence that Oswald only had two jackets. When Frazier was shown CE 163 he said;
Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.
That only leaves CE 162, which is the grey jacket.
She thought they were showing her an old shirt. Or maybe they were.
In LN clown world anything is possible:
No other jackets were inventoried by the DP so you must be referring to the two additional jackets mentioned by Whaley that where dumped on North Beckley, or?
Especially when your witness had a "very important reason to pay attention":
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.
"different clothing" -- ROFLMAO
In LN clown world anything is possible:
ROFLMAO
Especially when your witness had a "very important reason to pay attention":
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.
Far out, all I did was quote what Frazier said and you go totally ballistic.
Do you mean evidence from Marina?
No, Frazier said he saw Oswald wear a different grey jacket on more than one occasion and who knows how many jackets Oswald had acquired since moving away from Marina? There's a BIG difference between a woolen jacket and CE162.
Btw Marina does say it "seems" to be the same jacket, as obviously she had no special reason to pay attention whereas when Oswald killed Tippit the eyewitnesses had a very important reason to pay attention and the eyewitnesses at or close to the crime scene positively identified Oswald wearing a jacket while holding a revolver.
Mr. FRAZIER - To be frank with you, I didn't notice that much about the jacket, but I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before.
Mrs. OSWALD. It seems he had that jacket, also.
That's a great analogy, Frazier remembered Oswald putting the Bag on the back seat of the car and btw Oswald told Fritz that he kept it on his lap. Frazier also remembered Oswald having the bag in his cupped hand and told the London Trial that the bag could have been out in front. Jerry Organ made a great graphic showing how Oswald possibly held the rifle.
So, like Frazier, Roberts didn't pay attention to minor details but seeing Oswald in different clothing and zipping up the jacket was an imprintable memory.
Besides Oswald's jacket was filmed at the Parking lot near to where Tippit was killed and shown on WFAATV later that day. Case Closed.
(https://i.postimg.cc/RFGGMHg4/Osw-ald-ditched-jacket.jpg)
JohnM
Start with an insult, right on queue.
And yet once again(YAWN) end with the oh so intelligent "rolling around the floor laughing" but the irony is you come across as a bitter little man who has yet to master the simple concept of a civil conversation, so you stay safe inside insulting the "enemy" on the internet. I can't possibly imagine what motivates a nobody like you to be such a Troll, does it give you a Woody?
JohnM
And yet once again(YAWN) end with the oh so intelligent "rolling around the floor laughing" but the irony is you come across as a bitter little man who has yet to master the simple concept of a civil conversation, so you stay safe inside insulting the "enemy" on the internet. I can't possibly imagine what motivates a nobody like you to be such a Troll, does it give you a Woody?
It must be easy for you to recognize your own behavior, because you've just described yourself to a T.
Two decades of "research"....
I'd say Big Deal that your tan jacket Davis girl ran to the Patton side door when she was supposed to be at the front door with sis-in-law......
So you don't consider WC testimony evidence?
And do keep us updated when you've learned counting, adding and subtracting.
Thumb1:
In '63, Whaley described what his infamous passenger was wearing and he made no mention of any jacket. He even described, in detail, Oswald's shirt.
Take it or leave it, them's the facts.
Who knows why Whaley described one thing in '63 and then something different in his testimony in '64, but at least now you'll hopefully stop stating as a fact that Oswald was wearing two jackets in the cab.
Lose your pissy attitude and read the FBI reports.
Lose your pissy attitude...
So which door was it?
your Oswald cab ride is totally bust.
I wasn't there, so why are you asking me?
Because you can't deal with this massive slip-up by the Davis girl.
But I do know there was a murder and two women who gave near identical accounts with the understandable difference here and there.
"understandable " -- LOL
They lived in the house so there's no way they would mistake the 10th St. door and the Patton side door. Virginia Davis suffered an epic meltdown when she had to recall the events while questioned by Belin, solid evidence of a kooked up narrative.
Is this Tag Team debating today?
I reply to Otto and Weidmann replies
I reply to Weidmann and Otto replies
I again reply to Otto and Weidmann replies?
JohnM
Walt indicated that the jacket in evidence is not the one found because it was described as "white."
iirc it was described as being white during several radio calls, by different people.
Earlene Roberts was the ONLY witness to see Oswald at the boarding house. So dismissing her testimony just because she was the only person who saw him is silly.
No more or less silly than to rely fully on that witness.
The reason not to instantly accept her testimony is not that she was the only witness at the roominghouse, but the fact that Buell Frazier testimony suggests that Oswald was wearing the grey jacket (CE 162) to Irving on Thursday evening and Otto has just shown us that Marina also confirmed that. There is no physical way for a jacket that was in Irving on Thursday evening to end up at North Beckley on Friday after noon. Which in turn justifies the question what jacket, if any, did Earlene Roberts really see?
We know from her testimony that she was blind in one eye and that she was concentrating on getting the TV to work, which means she would have been standing with her back turned to the living room. The walk from Oswald's room to the front door is a matter of seconds and if Roberts was looking at the TV she would probably only have seen him leaving as he reached the front door to go outside. All this justifies the conclusion that Roberts would only have seen Oswald for two or three seconds at best and she could easily have been mistaken about what he was wearing. Officer Baker was and he saw Oswald up close in the TSBD lunchroom and Whaley was, despite having Oswald sitting next to him in his cab. The testimony of Frazier and Marina clearly suggests that Roberts was indeed mistaken.
I've been compiling a list of lame excuses that LNers make to "explain" away conflicting or contradictory evidence in this case. Feel free to suggest any additions.
- Howard Brennan lied at the lineup because he was scared for his family.
- Howard Brennan had the ability to estimate a man's height and weight from seeing him in a crouched position from the chest up.
- Klein's mistakenly put February on a March deposit slip
- J. M. Poe forgot to mark the shells
- Studebaker accidentally didn't photograph the bag
- The police forgot to check Oswald's pockets for hours after he was arrested
- Buell Frazier was mistaken about the length of the package
- Linnie Mae Randle was mistaken about the length of the package
- Linnie Mae Randle could see through a wall
- Essie Mae Williams just didn't notice the bag Oswald was carrying
- Arnold Rowland was lying about seeing an elderly black man
- Arnold Rowland was lying about seeing two men on the sixth floor
- So was Carolyn Walther
- So was Ruby Henderson
- Amos Euins was mistaken about seeing a colored man in the sixth floor window
- Amos Euins was mistaken about seeing a man with a bald spot in the sixth floor window
- Jack Dougherty just didn't notice the bag Oswald was carrying
- Marina Oswald was mistaken about the camera viewfinder and how many pictures she took
- The bullet holes don't match because JFK's jacket was bunched
- The lower hole in the autopsy back photo is just a spot of blood
- In every interview and affidavit Charles Givens gave for over 4 months after the assassination he forgot the detail about going back to the sixth floor to get cigarettes and seeing Oswald there.
- Bonnie Ray Williams was mistaken when he said in his affidavit that he only heard two shots
- Carolyn Walther was mistaken about seeing a man with a brown sport coat
- Richard Randolph Carr was mistaken about seeing a man in a brown sport coat in an upper floor of the TSBD
- James Worrell was mistaken about seeing a man in a dark sports jacket run out the back of the building
- The first 6 officers on the 6th floor just didn't notice the long bag
- Helen Markham didn't understand the question 6 times
- The clock at Markham's washateria was slow
- T. F. Bowley's watch was slow
- Margie Higgins' clock was slow
- The clock at Memorial Hospital was slow
- Roger Craig was lying about seeing a Mauser
- Roger Craig was lying about seeing Oswald run down the hill and get into a Nash Rambler
- So was Marvin Robinson
- So was Mrs. James Forrester
- Ed Hoffman was lying about seeing two men behind the fence break down a rifle
- Gordon Arnold was lying about being on he grassy knoll during the assassination and shots being fired from behind him
- Rose Cheramie was lying about riding in a car with two men who told her that they were going to kill the president in Dallas in just a few days
- Acquilla Clemons was mistaken about seeing two men at the scene of Tippit shooting from her front porch, one who had a pistol and was waving the other man away, neither of whom resembled Oswald.
- Frank Wright was mistaken about seeing a man standing over Tippit after he was shot and then driving away in a gray, 1951 Plymouth coupe.
- Gerald Hill was mistaken about the shells being from an automatic .38
- Gerald Hill was mistaken about there being 3 shells in Benavides' cigarette packet
- Julia Ann Mercer was mistaken about seeing two men exit a green Ford truck with what looked like a gun case and carry it up the grassy knoll at about 10:50.
- Sam Holland was mistaken about seeing a puff of smoke come out from under trees on the grassy knoll
- Bernard Haire was lying about seeing police escort a man with a white pullover shirt from the rear of the Texas Theater
- Aletha Frair was lying about seeing Lee Oswald's driver's license
- So was Lee Bozarth
- Sylvia Odio was mistaken about Oswald visiting her apartment in Houston with two hispanic men in late September, 1963
- Annie Odio was also mistaken about the same thing
- Darrell Tomlinson was mistaken about which stretcher he found a bullet on
- O.P. Wright was mistaken about what the bullet looked like
- Bardwell Odum was mistaken when he said he never saw CE399 or showed it to anybody
- Earlene Roberts was mistaken about a police car stopping and honking while Oswald was in the rooming house
- Eugene Boone was mistaken about the Mauser
- Seymour Weitzman was mistaken about the Mauser
- Marrion Baker was mistaken about the 3rd or 4th floor suspect
- Victoria Adams was mistaken about when she went down the stairs
- Carolyn Arnold was mistaken about seeing Oswald in the second floor lunchroom at 12:25
- The Parkland doctors were all mistaken about the back of the head wound
- George Burkley was mistaken about the location of the back wound
- Sibert and O?Neill were mistaken about a back wound below the shoulders, a shallow back wound, and surgery to the head area
- Rosemary Willis was mistaken about a shot coming from the grassy knoll
- Jean Hill was lying about seeing a shooter on the grassy knoll
- Bill Newman was mistaken about a shot coming from directly behind him
- Nellie Connally was mistaken about seeing JFK reacting after the first shot
- John Connally was mistaken about which shot hit him
- John Connally had a "delayed reaction" from being struck in the chest by a bullet
- Jack Ruby was demented when he said "Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world".
- Whaley didn't record his passenger times accurately
- Oswald forgot that he was carrying around an ID card with the name he used to purchase the guns he used that day
- Oswald just happened to have 5 wallets
- The other 7 firearms experts weren't as skilled as Nicol
- The other photography experts weren't as skilled as Kirk
- The other fingerprint experts weren't as skilled as Scalice's examination of photographs 30 years later
- The post office forgot to follow their own rules about PO box delivery
- Railway Express forgot to follow their own rules about delivery of weapons
- Louis Feldsott said that Klein's purchased C2766 in June, 1962, but he really meant February, 1963.
- The police didn't record interrogations in those days
- Carl Day forgot to tell the FBI about the palmprint
- Paraffin tests aren't reliable, except when they are
- Vince Drain wrote up two versions of the report on the paper bag characteristics before the results were determined so that he could just throw away the one that was incorrect.
- Dr. Shaw at Parkland just accidentally referred to a fragment in Connally's leg as a bullet
- Oswald snuck off from work in the morning when he was supposed to be working to walk to a post office over a mile away and back in order to go buy a money order and mail an order to Klein's and then falsified his timesheet and nobody noticed.
- The police just accidentally mistook a copper-jacketed 6.5mm bullet for a .30 caliber steel-jacketed bullet
- John Hurt got drunk and just tried to call Oswald in jail to express his outrage over what Oswald had done. Actually, no, wait, the switchboard operator just made up the whole story.
- Joseph Milteer just made a lucky guess
- W.R. (Dub) Stark was mistaken about Tippit's phone call from the record shop
- So was Louis Cortinas
- Albert Bogard was lying about Oswald test driving a car
- So was Eugene Wilson
- So was Frank Rizzo
- Malcolm Price was mistaken about Oswald practicing at the Sports Drome Rifle Range
- So was Garland Slack
- Edith Whitworth was mistaken about the Oswalds coming in to the Furniture Mart and looking for a gun part
- Dial Ryder was lying about mounting a scope on an Argentinian rifle for a customer named Oswald
- Dr. Humes burned his autopsy notes because he didn't want the president's blood to fall into hands of people with peculiar ideas about the value of that type of material. But he also burned a copy of the notes and a first draft report that had no blood on them, and he neglected to burn Boswell's autopsy notes, even though they did have blood on them.
- Seth Kantor was mistaken about seeing Jack Ruby at Parkland
- Butch Burroughs was lying when he said he sold popcorn to Oswald at 1:15
- Benavides thought the killer had a squared-off hairline because the guy's jacket collar was hiding the actual hairline
- Marina confused Nixon with LBJ (i.e. the Vice President) who was in Dallas in April '63.
- R.J. Gebelein from the Winchester-Western company really meant 1954 when he wrote to Stewart Galanor that their last production of the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano cartridges was in 1944.
- Shirley Randall was mistaken about SS asking her to get "...someone to come and wash the blood out of the car"
- The SS had to remove blood spatter evidence to get the bubble top back on.
- The SS had to remove more blood spatter evidence so they could drive the car.
added by Rick McTague:
- Dr. Evalea Glanges lied when she stated that there was a "through and through bullet hole, front to back" in the windshield of the limo.
- Dr. Malcom Perry was either mistaken or lied when he told the press 3 times on 11/22/63 that the throat wound was an entrance wound.
- Lee Bowers lied about seeing the 3 cars entering and driving in the parking lot the 20 minutes before the shooting, the men inside them, the 2 men behind the fence, a flash of light, gun smoke and hearing the last 2 shots "almost on top of each other".
- Every person who said they smelled gunsmoke in the area after the shooting is lying.
- Richard C. Dodd was lying about gunsmoke coming from the top of the hedges at the top of the grassy knoll and footprints and cigarette butts behind the fence.
- J. C. Price (atop the Terminal Annex building) was lying about the shots coming from the area near the triple underpass and seeing a man running behind the fence, through the parking lot and behind the TSBD.
- James L. Simmons lied about seeing a puff of smoke from the wooden fence and hearing shots come from that area.
- Charles Brehm lied about the skull fragment from JFK's head fly back and to the left.
- Robert Vinson was lying about seeing LHO on the CIA flight out of Dallas to Roswell.
Does characterizing the jacket found as white preclude it from being the one placed in evidence or not? Walt has suggested that because the jacket was described as "white" it cannot be the same one in evidence, Do you agree or not? In my opinion, that jacket could be reasonably described as white, gray, or even tan depending on the light or shade.
I've been compiling a list of lame excuses that LNers make to "explain" away conflicting or contradictory evidence in this case. Feel free to suggest any additions.
- Howard Brennan lied at the lineup because he was scared for his family.
- Howard Brennan had the ability to estimate a man's height and weight from seeing him in a crouched position from the chest up.
- Klein's mistakenly put February on a March deposit slip
- J. M. Poe forgot to mark the shells
- Studebaker accidentally didn't photograph the bag
- The police forgot to check Oswald's pockets for hours after he was arrested
- Buell Frazier was mistaken about the length of the package
- Linnie Mae Randle was mistaken about the length of the package
- Linnie Mae Randle could see through a wall
- Essie Mae Williams just didn't notice the bag Oswald was carrying
- Arnold Rowland was lying about seeing an elderly black man
- Arnold Rowland was lying about seeing two men on the sixth floor
- So was Carolyn Walther
- So was Ruby Henderson
- Amos Euins was mistaken about seeing a colored man in the sixth floor window
- Amos Euins was mistaken about seeing a man with a bald spot in the sixth floor window
- Jack Dougherty just didn't notice the bag Oswald was carrying
- Marina Oswald was mistaken about the camera viewfinder and how many pictures she took
- The bullet holes don't match because JFK's jacket was bunched
- The lower hole in the autopsy back photo is just a spot of blood
- In every interview and affidavit Charles Givens gave for over 4 months after the assassination he forgot the detail about going back to the sixth floor to get cigarettes and seeing Oswald there.
- Bonnie Ray Williams was mistaken when he said in his affidavit that he only heard two shots
- Carolyn Walther was mistaken about seeing a man with a brown sport coat
- Richard Randolph Carr was mistaken about seeing a man in a brown sport coat in an upper floor of the TSBD
- James Worrell was mistaken about seeing a man in a dark sports jacket run out the back of the building
- The first 6 officers on the 6th floor just didn't notice the long bag
- Helen Markham didn't understand the question 6 times
- The clock at Markham's washateria was slow
- T. F. Bowley's watch was slow
- Margie Higgins' clock was slow
- The clock at Memorial Hospital was slow
- Roger Craig was lying about seeing a Mauser
- Roger Craig was lying about seeing Oswald run down the hill and get into a Nash Rambler
- So was Marvin Robinson
- So was Mrs. James Forrester
- Ed Hoffman was lying about seeing two men behind the fence break down a rifle
- Gordon Arnold was lying about being on he grassy knoll during the assassination and shots being fired from behind him
- Rose Cheramie was lying about riding in a car with two men who told her that they were going to kill the president in Dallas in just a few days
- Acquilla Clemons was mistaken about seeing two men at the scene of Tippit shooting from her front porch, one who had a pistol and was waving the other man away, neither of whom resembled Oswald.
- Frank Wright was mistaken about seeing a man standing over Tippit after he was shot and then driving away in a gray, 1951 Plymouth coupe.
- Gerald Hill was mistaken about the shells being from an automatic .38
- Gerald Hill was mistaken about there being 3 shells in Benavides' cigarette packet
- Julia Ann Mercer was mistaken about seeing two men exit a green Ford truck with what looked like a gun case and carry it up the grassy knoll at about 10:50.
- Sam Holland was mistaken about seeing a puff of smoke come out from under trees on the grassy knoll
- Bernard Haire was lying about seeing police escort a man with a white pullover shirt from the rear of the Texas Theater
- Aletha Frair was lying about seeing Lee Oswald's driver's license
- So was Lee Bozarth
- Sylvia Odio was mistaken about Oswald visiting her apartment in Houston with two hispanic men in late September, 1963
- Annie Odio was also mistaken about the same thing
- Darrell Tomlinson was mistaken about which stretcher he found a bullet on
- O.P. Wright was mistaken about what the bullet looked like
- Bardwell Odum was mistaken when he said he never saw CE399 or showed it to anybody
- Earlene Roberts was mistaken about a police car stopping and honking while Oswald was in the rooming house
- Eugene Boone was mistaken about the Mauser
- Seymour Weitzman was mistaken about the Mauser
- Marrion Baker was mistaken about the 3rd or 4th floor suspect
- Victoria Adams was mistaken about when she went down the stairs
- Carolyn Arnold was mistaken about seeing Oswald in the second floor lunchroom at 12:25
- The Parkland doctors were all mistaken about the back of the head wound
- George Burkley was mistaken about the location of the back wound
- Sibert and O?Neill were mistaken about a back wound below the shoulders, a shallow back wound, and surgery to the head area
- Rosemary Willis was mistaken about a shot coming from the grassy knoll
- Jean Hill was lying about seeing a shooter on the grassy knoll
- Bill Newman was mistaken about a shot coming from directly behind him
- Nellie Connally was mistaken about seeing JFK reacting after the first shot
- John Connally was mistaken about which shot hit him
- John Connally had a "delayed reaction" from being struck in the chest by a bullet
- Jack Ruby was demented when he said "Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world".
- Whaley didn't record his passenger times accurately
- Oswald forgot that he was carrying around an ID card with the name he used to purchase the guns he used that day
- Oswald just happened to have 5 wallets
- The other 7 firearms experts weren't as skilled as Nicol
- The other photography experts weren't as skilled as Kirk
- The other fingerprint experts weren't as skilled as Scalice's examination of photographs 30 years later
- The post office forgot to follow their own rules about PO box delivery
- Railway Express forgot to follow their own rules about delivery of weapons
- Louis Feldsott said that Klein's purchased C2766 in June, 1962, but he really meant February, 1963.
- The police didn't record interrogations in those days
- Carl Day forgot to tell the FBI about the palmprint
- Paraffin tests aren't reliable, except when they are
- Vince Drain wrote up two versions of the report on the paper bag characteristics before the results were determined so that he could just throw away the one that was incorrect.
- Dr. Shaw at Parkland just accidentally referred to a fragment in Connally's leg as a bullet
- Oswald snuck off from work in the morning when he was supposed to be working to walk to a post office over a mile away and back in order to go buy a money order and mail an order to Klein's and then falsified his timesheet and nobody noticed.
- The police just accidentally mistook a copper-jacketed 6.5mm bullet for a .30 caliber steel-jacketed bullet
- John Hurt got drunk and just tried to call Oswald in jail to express his outrage over what Oswald had done. Actually, no, wait, the switchboard operator just made up the whole story.
- Joseph Milteer just made a lucky guess
- W.R. (Dub) Stark was mistaken about Tippit's phone call from the record shop
- So was Louis Cortinas
- Albert Bogard was lying about Oswald test driving a car
- So was Eugene Wilson
- So was Frank Rizzo
- Malcolm Price was mistaken about Oswald practicing at the Sports Drome Rifle Range
- So was Garland Slack
- Edith Whitworth was mistaken about the Oswalds coming in to the Furniture Mart and looking for a gun part
- Dial Ryder was lying about mounting a scope on an Argentinian rifle for a customer named Oswald
- Dr. Humes burned his autopsy notes because he didn't want the president's blood to fall into hands of people with peculiar ideas about the value of that type of material. But he also burned a copy of the notes and a first draft report that had no blood on them, and he neglected to burn Boswell's autopsy notes, even though they did have blood on them.
- Seth Kantor was mistaken about seeing Jack Ruby at Parkland
- Butch Burroughs was lying when he said he sold popcorn to Oswald at 1:15
- Benavides thought the killer had a squared-off hairline because the guy's jacket collar was hiding the actual hairline
- Marina confused Nixon with LBJ (i.e. the Vice President) who was in Dallas in April '63.
- R.J. Gebelein from the Winchester-Western company really meant 1954 when he wrote to Stewart Galanor that their last production of the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano cartridges was in 1944.
- Shirley Randall was mistaken about SS asking her to get "...someone to come and wash the blood out of the car"
- The SS had to remove blood spatter evidence to get the bubble top back on.
- The SS had to remove more blood spatter evidence so they could drive the car.
added by Rick McTague:
- Dr. Evalea Glanges lied when she stated that there was a "through and through bullet hole, front to back" in the windshield of the limo.
- Dr. Malcom Perry was either mistaken or lied when he told the press 3 times on 11/22/63 that the throat wound was an entrance wound.
- Lee Bowers lied about seeing the 3 cars entering and driving in the parking lot the 20 minutes before the shooting, the men inside them, the 2 men behind the fence, a flash of light, gun smoke and hearing the last 2 shots "almost on top of each other".
- Every person who said they smelled gunsmoke in the area after the shooting is lying.
- Richard C. Dodd was lying about gunsmoke coming from the top of the hedges at the top of the grassy knoll and footprints and cigarette butts behind the fence.
- J. C. Price (atop the Terminal Annex building) was lying about the shots coming from the area near the triple underpass and seeing a man running behind the fence, through the parking lot and behind the TSBD.
- James L. Simmons lied about seeing a puff of smoke from the wooden fence and hearing shots come from that area.
- Charles Brehm lied about the skull fragment from JFK's head fly back and to the left.
- Robert Vinson was lying about seeing LHO on the CIA flight out of Dallas to Roswell.
Richard, when they resort to arguing white versus grey, well, you know they've lost the argument. They know it, too... or they wouldn't argue such a lame non-issue.
A testament to your dishonesty is that you "forgot" to copy this part:
Mr. BELIN. I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Virginia Davis Deposition, Exhibit 2, and ask you to state if this is your signature on here?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Would you read the contents of your deposition Exhibit 2, and I will ask you if there is anything there that is inaccurate. (Reads statement.)
Mr. BELIN. You have read Exhibit 2?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Is there anything in that statement that is inaccurate in any way?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Is that what you told the police of Dallas on November 22, 1963?
Mrs. DAVIS. That's right.
The Patton door was Virginia's front door so it doesn't make "Patton" go away. Too bad Virginia was such a bad liar but being able to fool you shows how bad your skill set is and nicely explains why you constantly find yourself cornered and having hissy fits.
Should we have a look at when her sister in law called the police or do you need a break?
A testament to your dishonesty is that you "forgot" to copy this part:
Too bad Virginia was such a bad liar but being able to fool you shows how bad your skill set is and nicely explains why you constantly find yourself cornered and having hissy fits.
Should we have a look at when her sister in law called the police or do you need a break?
Wonderful workout on the bike, Johnny, as you explain how the impossible scenario becomes a small expected discrepancy that could have been been corrected by her on the spot before signing the affidavit.
Sure, I fully enjoyed the gotcha moment, so let take the short version:
Mr. BELIN. Is there anything in that statement that is inaccurate in any way?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Is that what you told the police of Dallas on November 22, 1963?
Mrs. DAVIS. That's right.
What you failed to clarify (LOL) is why she would sign a false statement when the event was fresh in her mind, or did I miss that part?
Instead you're now doing the inverse Bill Brown sing & dance act claiming her '64 recollection is to be trusted over the '63 statement. What a clown show you two have put up lately, and BTW, worth noting how quick B.B. clammed up after being schooled.
Are you ready to guess which of the Davis girls gave Dhority the fourth shell?
Instead you're now doing the inverse Bill Brown sing & dance act claiming her '64 recollection is to be trusted over the '63 statement. What a clown show you two have put up lately, and BTW, worth noting how quick B.B. clammed up after being schooled
Wonderful workout on the bike, Johnny, as you explain how the impossible scenario becomes a small expected discrepancy that could have been been corrected by her on the spot before signing the affidavit.
Sure, I fully enjoyed the gotcha moment, so let take the short version:
Mr. BELIN. Is there anything in that statement that is inaccurate in any way?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Is that what you told the police of Dallas on November 22, 1963?
Mrs. DAVIS. That's right.
Are you ready to guess which of the Davis girls gave Dhority the fourth shell?
I'm only going to say this once more,
they were both together,
they both heard shots,
they both went to the door,
they both saw Oswald cutting across the yard,
they both saw Oswald fiddling with his gun,
You can't see the yard from the Patton street door.
Case Closed!
As they say actions are louder than words and Virginia was fixated on Oswald's actions and simply glossed over the street name. As they say in the classics "Familiarity breeds contempt".
We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at Patton Street. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun.
Mrs. Virginia Davis Affidavit 22nd November 1963
(https://i.postimg.cc/PfcM3xnC/ce-531.jpg)
Btw Bill's forgotten more about the Tippit murder than you'll ever know.
Recently you stamped your little feet and demanded evidence when I made a typo and said something like "Oswald caught buses and cabs", I usually quickly read through a post for any typo, grammatical error or simplifying certain points and then I post but that just flew right by me, it happens, we're all human. And I didn't just encounter a Policeman being shot just down the road and the stress of seeing the probable killer fiddling with his weapon, she was excited and as I said she just glossed over what is really beyond insignificant.
You're taking actual physical act of handing over the bullet way too literally, they were both there and they gave the shell and both took credit, why is that a problem?
JohnM
they both went to the door,
they both saw Oswald cutting across the yard,
they both saw Oswald fiddling with his gun,
You can't see the yard from the Patton street door.
But you can see (on the photo) the front door of the Davis' house on 10th street.
Now, how long do you think it took the killer to pass that door and jump over the fence at the Patton side?
I replied to Otto and will wait for his response, I don't have time to respond to two posters, sorry bout that. But feel free to finish your above post from your POV and if I find your analysis interesting I'll consider responding. K.
JohnM
Instead you're now doing the inverse Bill Brown sing & dance act claiming her '64 recollection is to be trusted over the '63 statement. What a clown show you two have put up lately, and BTW, worth noting how quick B.B. clammed up after being schooled.
Btw Bill's forgotten more about the Tippit murder than you'll ever know.
Thanks John. Sadly, this is true. ;D
You really need to get your ego under control
It's a comment on my part about how bad my memory is getting as I get older, Dumb Ass.
Whaley was long gone when Oswald supposedly entered his cab.
I've already pointed this out to you once.
This is stuff a five-year-old can work out,.
No, it's a comment by an arse-licker to which you "humbly" respond with a emoji that tells another story.
So you didn't get it. Got it.
Move on for once instead of endlessly discussing trivial nonsense unrelated to anything at all just for the sake of arguing.
Then start arguing a case that is actually defensible and stop talking down to me as it does impress at all.
So you're accusing Whaley (along with both of the Davis girls) of telling porkie pies in order to better set up Saint Lee of the Oswalds.
The Whaley issue is really odd and goes nowhere, if Oswald used public transport to get the the rooming house that has absolutely no bearing on his guilt and the only real viable alternative is that Oswald had a getaway car which has a huge impact on his guilt. Besides Oswald eventually admitted getting on and off a bus and catching a cab because he's not as desperate as these CT's and realizes that it has little impact on his guilt.
And the Davis girls just happened to live a couple of doors down from a random killing but somehow they became involved within hours and they both had to quickly make up some story and because poor Virginia made a simple "typo" she is accused of being the spawn of Satan! You can't make this up, these Kooks are comedy Gold!
JohnM
Hardly a "typo" as it was there in the draft, but nice try,
The only pulp around here is inside your own head.
Let's have some more fun coming out of Virginia's testimony:
(Three minutes of silence.)
Mr. BELIN. Now, Mrs. Davis, you may not be able to remember just what exactly the time sequence was. You have been sitting here about 3 minutes, and if you don't remember what the time sequence was, why I would like to have you so state. But if you do remember---or do you want more time to think about it?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, the best I can remember, it was before that we saw the boy cut across the yard that we called the police, the best that I can remember.
More nonsense.
I've seen you admit that Marina was shown a jacket.
The first day affidavit's are very similar, are you suggesting that they couldn't get their stories straight?
Btw both women Positively Identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man they saw! Thumb1:
In '63, Whaley described what his infamous passenger was wearing and he made no mention of any jacket. He even described, in detail, Oswald's shirt.
Take it or leave it, them's the facts.
Who knows why Whaley described one thing in '63 and then something different in his testimony in '64, but at least now you'll hopefully stop stating as a fact that Oswald was wearing two jackets in the cab.
Lose your pissy attitude and read the FBI reports.
Does characterizing the jacket found as white preclude it from being the one placed in evidence or not? Walt has suggested that because the jacket was described as "white" it cannot be the same one in evidence, Do you agree or not? In my opinion, that jacket could be reasonably described as white, gray, or even tan depending on the light or shade.
Btw if there was any collusion and a possible conspiracy, or whatever paranoid delusion you're having today, with the Davis girls then surely wouldn't they have all the important details be exactly the same, the fact that there is so many consistencies in their stories but with small expected discrepancies speaks highly of their authenticity.
Saint Lee of the Oswalds.
I have no first hand knowledge of what they showed her. They showed the blue jacket to Benavides. Why?
The Whaley issue is really odd and goes nowhere, if Oswald used public transport to get the the rooming house that has absolutely no bearing on his guilt and the only real viable alternative is that Oswald had a getaway car which has a huge impact on his guilt.
And the Davis girls just happened to live a couple of doors down from a random killing but somehow they became involved within hours and they both had to quickly make up some story and because poor Virginia made a simple "typo" she is accused of being the spawn of Satan!
FBI reports are secondhand information.
This doesn't change the fact that you've already admitted that Marina was shown a jacket. C'mon. Own it. You can do it.
What it does at beast is show that witnesses don't always know what they're looking at, and at worst that the WC misstated exhibit numbers.
There's nothing to "own", Bill. Sorry. How could I "admit" something that I have no knowledge of?
Whaley, in his affidavit, described the shirt Oswald was wearing, in detail. Nothing about two jackets. Whaley signed this. So now what?
So now you're implying that they might not have showed Marina 162 but mistakenly called it 162 as they were presenting it to her. Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook, I guess.
The inconsistency of the Davis accounts merely means that you cannot rely on their accuracy.
Formally known as a false dichotomy fallacy.
Nice catch.
Thumb1:
Actually, the white spots of something ended up as a gold stripe:
Mr. BALL. Wait a minute, we have got the shirt which you have identified as the rust brown shirt with the gold stripe in it.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Another Bill Brown comeback failure.
Dear Dumb Ass,
I didn't say the shirt had white spots on it.
I said Whaley gave a detailed description, something he wouldn't have done if his passenger was wearing two jackets over top of the shirt.
Is that really necessary?
No, but Whaley did. Nobody claimed you did.
How do you know what Whaley “wouldn’t have done”?
No, but Whaley did. Nobody claimed you did.
Is this Tag Team debating today?
I reply to Otto and Weidmann replies
I reply to Weidmann and Otto replies
I again reply to Otto and Weidmann replies?
JohnM
Thumb1: Yes, a very familiar occurrence, and I did used to find it very odd that Otto always randomly jumped in to defend Weidmann.
After a strange post one day where one of them accused me of implying something about them that I'd actually implied about the other, I came to the conclusion that Weidmann & Otto are actually the same person. Weidmann having created the Otto Black account to back up his claims and help fight his corner.
Now I just have a good chuckle to myself whenever I see the Otto/Weidmann combination in full swing.
Thumb1: Yes, a very familiar occurrence, and I did used to find it very odd that Otto always randomly jumped in to defend Weidmann.
After a strange post one day where one of them accused me of implying something about them that I'd actually implied about the other, I came to the conclusion that Weidmann & Otto are actually the same person. Weidmann having created the Otto Black account to back up his claims and help fight his corner.
Now I just have a good chuckle to myself whenever I see the Otto/Weidmann combination in full swing.
Now comes the difficult part where Nutters always fail: Providing the evidence to support their claim.
Hi Vincent, you probably don't know but a few years back Bill and I independently came to the same conclusion that Roger Collins invented a new alias Martin Weidmann to do as you say above, and funnily enough Roger Collins disappeared soon after. And it's that clear after Roger was thoroughly humiliated, he thought to himself I'll show em' and he never stopped inventing aliases.
But it doesn't take long for the aliases to expose themselves.
Richard recently made me laugh, he replied to Mongo about Bill's debate, but it's not in the thread anymore because Mongo's posts have all been taken off line, Yay!
Maybe Bill would take on yourself(....), Otto, Roger Collins, and Martin in one debate. I bet it would even be easy to get all of you together in one place.
Richard Smith
JohnM
Hi Vincent, you probably don't know but a few years back Bill and I independently came to the same conclusion that Roger Collins invented a new alias Martin Weidmann to do as you say above, and funnily enough Roger Collins disappeared soon after. And it's clear that after Roger was thoroughly humiliated, he thought to himself I'll show em' and he never stopped inventing aliases.
But it doesn't take long for the aliases to expose themselves.
Richard recently made me laugh, he replied to Mongo about Bill's debate, but it's not in the thread anymore because Mongo's posts have all been taken off line, Yay!
Maybe Bill would take on yourself(....), Otto, Roger Collins, and Martin in one debate. I bet it would even be easy to get all of you together in one place.
Richard Smith
JohnM
I came to the conclusion that Weidmann & Otto are actually the same person.
But if they were, how come Otto "always randomly jumped in"?
Now comes the difficult part where Nutters always fail: Providing the evidence to support their claim.
I'd put Weidmann/Iacoletti (of 'Dancing Monkeys' fame) right up there in the 'get a room, already' department
I came to the conclusion that Weidmann & Otto are actually the same person.
But if they were, how come Otto "always randomly jumped in"?
Now comes the difficult part where Nutters always fail: Providing the evidence to support their claim.
EXACTLY! if it is so blatantly obvious to all these Oswald worshippers that the Dallas police and FBI lied about everything Oswald (allegedly) said, why would they state that Oswald refused to admit he owned the rifle? Why inform the public that Oswald said the backyard photos were fake? Why report that Oswald denied putting the long brown paper package in the back of Frazier's car? Or that he didn't shoot the President or Tippit?
If it was such a stitch up and they all cohered to lie about everything in order to frame him, why not just say that he admitted to all these things or at least that he refused to comment. With no recordings they could have claimed anything so why "make up" or lie about stuff that casts doubts or could avert liability from him?
I know this point has been made by several other people on this forum but so far I have yet to see anyone come up with a suitable reply
I couldn't help but notice Weidbeck is spending a lot of time on the " Lee Oswald The Cop Killer." thread.
Obviously trying to get that last minute cramming in.
Actually, I was looking for one of your posts in which you talked about ambulance 602 and it's arrival at the wrong location, as it is proof that 602 was indeed the ambulance dispatched to the Tippit scene.
It's something John Iacoletti asked about, but maybe you missed that.
Glad to be of service.
Now get your arse across to the "Brown/Weidmann mini-debate" thread.
#showtime
Who the hell do you think you are?
Glad to be of service.
Now get your arse across to the "Brown/Weidmann Mini-Debate" thread.
#showtime
Or rather the "Brown v Weidmann/Beck/Collins (depending on which account he's using today) Mini-Debate" as it should be called now.
Thumb1: Yes, a very familiar occurrence, and I did used to find it very odd that Otto always randomly jumped in to defend Weidmann.
After a strange post one day where one of them accused me of implying something about them that I'd actually implied about the other, I came to the conclusion that Weidmann & Otto are actually the same person. Weidmann having created the Otto Beck account to back up his claims and help fight his corner.
Now I just have a good chuckle to myself whenever I see the Otto/Weidmann combination in full swing.
I'd put Weidmann/Iacoletti (of 'Dancing Monkeys' fame) right up there in the 'get a room, already' department
Why are you replying to these clowns?
I figured out some time ago that "Mytton" and Baxter are the same person. And it isn't the first time. Whenever "Mytton" disappears for a while some other character pops up, writes a stream of posts and disappears again when "Mytton" returns.
Nothing to worry about. It's circle the wagons time! That's all.
Btw. Baxter joined the forum in late 2019 and has only posted some 80 posts since, yet he seems to be very much aware about what is going on at the forum, between some members. His first post clearly illustrates that he wasn't a newcomer to the subject when he joined.
Why are you replying to these clowns?
I figured out some time ago that "Mytton" and Baxter are the same person.
And it isn't the first time.
Whenever "Mytton" disappears for a while some other character pops up, writes a stream of posts and disappears again when "Mytton" returns.
Btw. Baxter joined the forum in late 2019 and has only posted some 80 posts since, yet he seems to be very much aware about what is going on at the forum, between some members. His first post clearly illustrates that he wasn't a newcomer to the subject when he joined.
Reply to yourself as if you are two people. Nice
Next tact, take the pressure off and make an identical claim with the nearest Lner you can find.
Yeah, after Bill and I caught out Roger Collins, he said Bill and I were the same person, lightning strikes twice.
That achieves absolutely nothing?, but having two members here simultaneously supporting each other, now that's an entirely different situation. Muhahaha!
Paranoia hits a new low, this is a public Forum and besides members with multiple aliases there is no secret what goes on here. Baxter's first post contains nothing ground breaking, if I was allowed to join the ED Forum my first post would clearly indicate I was not a newcomer, how is that evidence?
JohnM
Next tact, take the pressure off and make an identical claim with the nearest Lner you can find.
What pressure? You are blowing hot air and you know it.
Yeah, after Bill and I caught out Roger Collins, he said Bill and I were the same person, lightning strikes twice.
Stop lying. I never said anything of the kind, so prove me wrong.
That achieves absolutely nothing?, but having two members here simultaneously supporting each other, now that's an entirely different situation. Muhahaha!
Says one of several LNs who do nothing else but supporting eachother. Go figure....
Care to compare your posting record with that of Baxter?
Paranoia hits a new low, this is a public Forum and besides members with multiple aliases there is no secret what goes on here. Baxter's first post contains nothing ground breaking, if I was allowed to join the ED Forum my first post would clearly indicate I was not a newcomer, how is that evidence?
Paranoia? As in Roger Collins (who is not even a member) is Martin Weidmann who in turn is Otto Beck and so on?
Baxter's first post contains nothing ground breaking, if I was allowed to join the ED Forum my first post would clearly indicate I was not a newcomer, how is that evidence?
Who needs evidence? You have been claiming falsely that I am Roger Collins and have never presented a shred of evidence for it other than your pathetic opinion. But a far better question to ask is; why aren't you allowed to join the ED Forum? Could it be they've got your number over there?
What pressure?
You are blowing hot air and you know it.
Stop lying. I never said anything of the kind, so prove me wrong.
And that "Mark Connors", wasn't/isn't that you? If memory serves, he never joined in any kind of discussion and only popped up once in a while to post an attack on non-LN member only to disappear as quickly as he appeared.
Says one of several LNs who do nothing else but supporting eachother. Go figure....
Care to compare your posting record with that of Baxter?
Paranoia? As in Roger Collins (who is not even a member) is Martin Weidmann who in turn is Otto Beck and so on?
But a far better question to ask is; why aren't you allowed to join the ED Forum? Could it be they've got your number over there?
You're sweating bricks.
C'mon Marty, the more you fight, the more you expose.
You know full well that was the old Forum, but in the following post you are trying to take the pressure off yourself by accusing me of being Mark Connors.
Chalk and cheese, just like CT's, LNers all share a common philosophy but when patterns of behaviour break the status quo, then suspicions arise.
Go ahead and compare away and take special note of ALL the times where I directly supported Vincent Baxter and then cross reference these results with all the other members I directly supported and let's see where that gets us?
Yes, yes and yes!
(https://i.postimg.cc/FRn7mkwz/ed-forum-no-new-members.jpg)
JohnM
Vincent Baxter is obviously John Mytton.
Go ahead and compare away and take special note of ALL the times where I directly supported Vincent Baxter and then cross reference these results with all the other members I directly supported and let's see where that gets us?
A lot of talk but no denial. Very telling indeed.
A lot of talk but no denial.
Very telling indeed.
Huh? I gave you an open invitation "go ahead and compare away" all what you desire is in the public domain, what's stopping you?
Yes, your recent posts are indeed quite telling.
JohnM
Vincent Baxter is obviously John Mytton.
Huh? I gave you an open invitation "go ahead and compare away" all what you desire is in the public domain, what's stopping you?
Yes, your recent posts are indeed quite telling.
JohnM
Quote from: Peter Goth on November 09, 2019, 03:59:46 PM
Vincent Baxter is obviously John Mytton.
Peter Goth came and went in a short time and didn't even make 100 posts yet he formed a neato supporting friendship with guess who, wait for it,... "Martin Weidmann", as I keep saying, you can't make this up, Comedy Gold!
Peter Goth was quite obsessed with helping out poor Weidmann.
(https://i.postimg.cc/N00xxSqH/peter-gith-67.jpg)
And again, Peter Goth is desperate to get that answer for Marty.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zfPF278P/peter-gith-66.jpg)
And Gothy Baby even bumped a Weidmann post maybe he thought he was posting for Weidmann.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rwjJxcbT/peter-gith-68.jpg)
And here's Peter Goth supporting Otto.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MGzLJ9k6/peter-gith-70.jpg)
Thanks for the link Marty, any more?
JohnM
The mere fact that you feel the need to defend yourself is telling all by itself. "Mytton" doth protest too much, methinks :D
Now, let's see if you want to put your money where your mouth is.... I will pay you $100.000 when you prove Otto and I are the same person. But when Otto and I prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we are not, will you compensate us both with $50.000? It's either that or admit you are blowing hot air.... What's it going to be "Mytton"?
I can't wait watching "Mytton" running away from this one....
Ok you're on, I want both of you to fly to Sydney Australia with corresponding proof of identification and I will quite happily refund your flight money and pay you both fifty thousand dollars US each and if you fail to comply I will expect one hundred thousand dollars.
Forward me the name and details of your solicitor and let's get this actioned.
JohnM
Why would Otto and I fly to Sydney? The last time I was there you were a no show. Rather than having two people flying to a destination, why don't you just fly to the US? I'll even pay for your flight.
Or alternatively, just provide your solicitor's contact details to me in a pm and we'll sort it out from there. This is gonna be so much fun....
I'll even pay for your flight.
“Mytton” is way too much of a coward to do that. It would necessitate exposing his real identity.
There's no need to complicate things.
Offer Duncan a cut and let him resolve the dispute.
Thumb1:
No, for the kind of money that Weidmann demands, the only way to resolve this is for the three of us to meet face to face to face and you bring photo ID, birth certificate, letters addressed to you, etc etc, proving beyond all doubt you are Otto Beck and Martin Weidmann does likewise and then after this evidence is examined by myself and my solicitor, will I cough up the money. You can't lose!
Anyway don't worry Weidmann is rich and will pay for my flight and obviously I will need my solicitor to fly with me, and unless you live in the same city in America or Europe as Weidmann, what are the chances??, he will presumably pay for your flight too!
I look forward to meeting you both and maybe as soon as next week.
JohnM
Any progress on the evidence gathering?
How many "tells" so far?
Easily the stupidest contribution from you in a good while!
Nice, I have my passport, just get me a ticket from Sydney to your destination of choice in America and I'll see you at the airport.
Here's an example of flights from Sydney to Los Angeles just to give a rough price guide and they do have flights all over America and I can be anywhere you choose by early next week, I'm free for the next few weeks and am covid compliant, so give me your solicitor details and Let's get it on! Quickly quickly!
Btw these are Aus dollars and your price in US dollars will be less.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L8Zrkxfv/syd-to-Los-Angeles.jpg)
https://secure.flightcentre.com.au/SWAm7NHG/results
JohnM
Just provide me with the personal details I need to do the booking. I will contact Otto to find out where he is, so you can fly to the nearest airport. You can bring your solicitor if you like, but I am not paying for that. And, before I do anything, I will require confirmation from your bank that you have the funds to compensate Otto and me. As soon as I receive that, I will have my lawyers prepare a legally binding agreement that you will pay when Otto and I provide the proof you need and/or in case of a no show on your part.
Just provide me with the personal details I need to do the booking.
You can bring your solicitor if you like, but I am not paying for that.
And, before I do anything, I will require confirmation from your bank that you have the funds to compensate Otto and me.
As soon as I receive that, I will have my lawyers prepare a legally binding agreement that you will pay when Otto and I provide the proof you need and/or in case of a no show on your part.
Next tact, take the pressure off and make an identical claim with the nearest Lner you can find.
What pressure? You are blowing hot air and you know it. And this Baxter thing is nothing new. I figured that out some time ago. Unlike you, though, I merely found it pathetically funny and sad at the same time.
Yeah, after Bill and I caught out Roger Collins, he said Bill and I were the same person, lightning strikes twice.
Why don't you just show that rather than just claiming it? You do know you've got zero credibility, right?
That achieves absolutely nothing?, but having two members here simultaneously supporting each other, now that's an entirely different situation. Muhahaha!
Says one of several LNs who do nothing else but supporting eachother. Go figure....
Care to compare your posting record with that of Baxter?
Another good question would be; why are you desperately defending Baxter who rarely posts on this forum?
Btw. Baxter joined the forum in late 2019 and has only posted some 80 posts since, yet he seems to be very much aware about what is going on at the forum, between some members. His first post clearly illustrates that he wasn't a newcomer to the subject when he joined.
Quote from: Vincent Baxter on November 04, 2019, 12:29:05 AM
EXACTLY! if it is so blatantly obvious to all these Oswald worshippers that the Dallas police and FBI lied about everything Oswald (allegedly) said, why would they state that Oswald refused to admit he owned the rifle? Why inform the public that Oswald said the backyard photos were fake? Why report that Oswald denied putting the long brown paper package in the back of Frazier's car? Or that he didn't shoot the President or Tippit?
If it was such a stitch up and they all cohered to lie about everything in order to frame him, why not just say that he admitted to all these things or at least that he refused to comment. With no recordings they could have claimed anything so why "make up" or lie about stuff that casts doubts or could avert liability from him?
I know this point has been made by several other people on this forum but so far I have yet to see anyone come up with a suitable reply
The mere fact that you feel the need to defend yourself is telling all by itself. "Mytton" doth protest too much, methinks :D
Now, let's see if you want to put your money where your mouth is.... I will pay you $100.000 when you prove Otto and I are the same person. But when Otto and I prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we are not, will you compensate us both with $50.000? It's either that or admit you are blowing hot air.... What's it going to be "Mytton"?
I can't wait watching "Mytton" running away from this one....
No, my personal details are not the issue and when you cop out I have a new stalker, so no way. The air fair is only peanuts and I will cover it and I will meet you at your location and you being a man of his word said you will refund me when I arrive. Where do you live? Which city am I flying too?
No worries, but you have a hundred thousand dollars to throw around so you pay for classy accommodation. K?
Of course that goes without saying, just send me your solicitors details and I will forward those details onto my solicitor. Btw being a techno geek with good advice, I did very well with Bitcoin and have many times the amount required, so this pocket money is insignificant.
Sure, again that's the whole point of this exercise! Duh! So stop flapping your gums and forward me your legal details and lets get this figured out once and for all.
JohnM
Haha! This thread has made my day.
Wiedmann: "I figured it some time ago..." it's just you only decided to mention it for the first time after it came to light that you and Otto are the same person? You thought you'd accuse the two people who found you out of the exact same thing too ::)
"You do know you've got zero credibility, right?" said the person who's just lost any ounce of credibility he might have had by being exposed as someone who created an alter-ego solely to back him up in forum debates. :D :D :D
Compare all you like. I can tell you now that apart from me occasionally applauding Mytton's comments in private from behind my computer screen, there has been very little onscreen interaction between us. Therefore making the notion that we're the same person pretty invalid.
A month or so ago me and you ('you' being your Weidmann moniker) were having rather lengthy ongoing discussions about TV shows dealing in unsolved crimes, whether guilty suspects lie to police, methods of gaining knowledge from books or online, etc, etc. Where was Mytton, or any other LNer on this forum, to join in and back me up during those discussions, eh?
They were nowhere to be seen because our conversation had gone so far off topic from the JKF assassination that it had become only relevant to us two and therefore nobody else felt compelled to join in....all except a certain Otto Beck, of course, who couldn't wait to comment on subjects or previous discussions that didn't involve him. All criticising me and sticking up for you....hmmm, don't need to be Juliet Bravo to work out that one.
Where is this so-called "desperate defending" of me that Mytton is allegedly doing? Maybe you could log in as Otto Beck and get him to point it out for me?
Hahaha! So according to you my first ever post on this forum "clearly illustrates that he wasn't a newcomer to the subject when he joined.". That is possibly one of the dumbest things either you or your Otto pseudonym have ever said. Of course I wasn't a newcomer to the bloody subject when I joined the forum. Do you think I just randomly stumbled upon a forum about a subject I knew nothing about and decided to post on it for the hell of it?
Clearly the assassination of JFK was a subject that had interested me for several years and therefore I purposely searched online for some kind discussion board to join. That's how it works, Weidmann/Beck, you seek forums dedicated to subjects that you are interested or have prior knowledge about. Not the other way round.
And just because I've only posted 80 times (and incidentally I had posted more than that but it would appear quite a few threads were deleted recently when .... disappeared) doesn't mean anything. I quite often read the forum without posting.
Your stupid claims and attempts at distraction are coming across as pretty desperate. Don't worry though, I'm sure once the initial hilariousity of you posing as two people has worn off people might take your posts serious again. After all, sometimes you do raise some interesting points.
Oh yeah, I vaguely remember Peter Goth. Whatever happened to him?
Did you forget the log in for his account or something, Weidmann? :D :D :D
No, my personal details are not the issue and when you cop out I have a new stalker, so no way.
Why would I cop out? This will be the easiest money I will earn this year. And yes, your personal details are the issue here, because without those no legally binding document can be drawn up.
The air fair is only peanuts and I will cover it and I will meet you at your location and you being a man of his word said you will refund me when I arrive. Where do you live? Which city am I flying too?
So, why the change of heart? You didn't really think I would just go and pay for a ticket for a guy named John Mytton when I already know there is nobody by that name registered in Sydney. But if you want to pay for the ticket yourself, be my guest, and of course I will refund the money to John Mytton. You don't think I'm going to hand out money to somebody I can't identify?
No worries, but you have a hundred thousand dollars to throw around so you pay for classy accommodation. K?
Who said anything about "classy accommodation"? You wanted a personal meeting to resolve the matter, so you can pay for that. It's not really important if I have $100.000 to throw around as I will never have to spend it.
Of course that goes without saying, just send me your solicitors details and I will forward those details onto my solicitor.
Let's do that the other way around, shall we?
Btw being a techno geek with good advice, I did very well with Bitcoin and have many times the amount required, so this pocket money is insignificant.
Good for you....
Sure, again that's the whole point of this exercise! Duh!
I challenged you, remember? You either accept and follow through or you don't. I'm not going to give any information to a guy who doesn't even want to provide his personal details.
Stop trying to change the rules.
Why would I cop out? This will be the easiest money I will earn this year. And yes, your personal details are the issue here, because without those no legally binding document can be drawn up.
And yes, your personal details are the issue here, because without those no legally binding document can be drawn up.
So, why the change of heart? You didn't really think I would just go and pay for a ticket for a guy named John Mytton when I already know there is nobody by that name registered in Sydney. But if you want to pay for the ticket yourself, be my guest, and of course I will refund the money to John Mytton. You don't think I'm going to hand out money to somebody I can't identify?
Who said anything about "classy accommodation"?
You wanted a personal meeting to resolve the matter, so you can pay for that.
Let's do that the other way around, shall we?
I challenged you, remember?
You either accept and follow through or you don't.
I'm not going to give any information to a guy who doesn't even want to provide his personal details.
Stop trying to change the rules.
Wrong argument. I said that whenever Mytton disappears for a while some other character pops up, with a similar writing style and the same old BS arguments as him. That's exactly what happened here!
That's why I'm bringing my solicitor, when we see both you and Otto and IF we have determined that the forms of ID you both provide are genuine I will simply deposit the money into your account.
When I'm standing in front of you I will be identifiable and when I'm taking your money I will give you my bank details.
So you invite me half way around the World and won't look after me?
Without a personal meeting, how were you hoping to weasel out of this?
Why, you issued the challenge, you issue the details, simple as that!
You challenged me and I set the rules, and now you want to back out of the rules, no way!
How many ways can I say I accept, I accept I accept.
But your challenge was about your personal details, who I am is irrelevant, so stop running and give me your details so I know where to go.
I set the rules with my first reply, stop copying me and get a move on, it's getting cold here and I want to go to the NorthernnHemisphere.
It's quite simple, what Airport do I go to meet you, Mr Weidmann?
JohnM
Poor Chapman. He tries so hard to get attention.
A far more easier way of doing this is asking Duncan to check Otto's and my IP's. If one of those is in the US and the other in Europe, your entire fairytale self destructs..
I will contact Otto to find out where he is,
So you now know where Otto lives? But earlier you didn't have a clue and I don't recall any posts where Otto said where he lives? Ouch! A good liar needs an equally good memory.
Btw VPN's are very effective and you expected me to hand over 100,000 dollars based on this very easily manipulated nonsense? Seriously?
JohnM
So you now know where Otto lives?
Actually, I don't know. I'm guessing he's in the States. It seems you missed the word "If" at the start of the sentence....
VPN's are very effective and you expected me to hand over 100,000 dollars based on this very easily manipulated nonsense? Seriously?
No, I will expect you to hand over $100.000 because you are wrong.
Now, how about those contact details of your solicitor, so that my lawyers can get in touch with him?
I'm guessing he's in the States.
Now, how about those contact details of your solicitor, so that my lawyers can get in touch with him?
Amazing. Exactly the long winded response one would expect from John Mytton. Go figure that the two of you are so alike. Same writing style, the same stupid laughing about your own remarks. You really could be twins.... But you really aren't, are you now, Johnny?
Wiedmann: "I figured it some time ago..." it's just you only decided to mention it for the first time after it came to light that you and Otto are the same person?
First of all, nothing of that kind ever "came to light". You just made it up. And the message I posted by Peter Goth was from a PM he wrote me, which should tell you that back in 2019 we had already figured out who Vincent Baxter really was.
The reason that I did not mention it is a simple one.
It would play straight into John Mytton's hands because he would use it as another diversion. And besides, I couldn't care less. I already knew what to expect from Mytton is this most certainly wasn't beyond him. For years now he has been accussing people of being somebody else. This would be just another one of those pointless discussions.
by being exposed as someone who created an alter-ego solely to back him up in forum debates.
Care to back up that accusation?
I can tell you now that apart from me occasionally applauding Mytton's comments in private from behind my computer screen, there has been very little onscreen interaction between us. Therefore making the notion that we're the same person pretty invalid.
Another typical "Mytton" remark. Boy it's scary just how much the two of you are alike.
Where was Mytton, or any other LNer on this forum, to join in and back me up during those discussions, eh?
Wrong argument. I said that whenever Mytton disappears for a while some other character pops up, with a similar writing style and the same old BS arguments as him. That's exactly what happened here!
That's some guess, based on what?
I told you, that's absurd, I will get to where ever you are and then we can agree to the details but I first need a destination, please PM with your name and address.
JohnM
Yeah, yeah! ::)
I think we're probably more laughing at you than at our own remarks.
You sound quite irked though, Weidmann. Anyone would think you'd been caught doing something really pathetic and foolish on a forum by the way you're acting :D
So you even PM yourself from these fake accounts too? This is bonkers!
Was it because you only thought of it after it came to light that you were using multiple accounts to back your arguments?
Ermm, yeah. That makes perfect sense. How would Mytton have used it as a diversion? A diversion from what?
Do I get the offer of $100,000 too?
If by a "typical 'Mytton' remark" you're referring to me stating that Mytton and I have barely interacted on this forum before then I can I just point out that telling the truth and alerting people to facts isn't exactly a unique trait possessed only by John Mytton, quite a few other people do that too so it's not exactly a killer blow.
And the purpose of doing this being?
What I do find interesting here is how you replied to everything else in my post but chose, not only to ignore, but completely delete the section I wrote about Otto Beck being the only other forum member who commented on the long winded and massively off topic thread we were both discussing a month or so back. The subject matter was so far removed from the original subject topic of reliable witnesses and each of our posts was of considerable length that even I was getting bored with the discussion.
However, Otto Beck seemed to take great interest in the subject and in reading the lengthy posts that weren't relevant or of interest to any other independent member of the forum and frequently posted comments backing up your side of the argument.
Strange that isn't it?
What is absurd is that you think I will play your pathetic little game. We are going to agree on the details before anything happens. Trough my lawyers, I will guarantee in writing that you will get $100.000 when you prove that Otto and I are the same person and you will guarantee to pay Otto and me $50.000 each when your claim is proven to be false. This is a "put your money where your mouth is" deal, so it's either done the proper way or you retract your idiotic claim.
What possible reason can you have for not even wanting to supply the contact details of your solicitor, if you truly believe you can collect $100.000 from me?
I've already explained to you that I don't believe for one second that you will instruct a solicitor to contact my lawyers, which is why I want to do it the other way around and document everything so that you won't get away with claiming that no contact was made.
please PM with your name and address.
You already know my name and my address is none of your business. I am not inviting you to stay with me. All we need is a meeting place, which can be arranged by the lawyers as part of the agreement.
All we need is a meeting place
You did the same thing with the original Bill Brown Online debate where you escalated the "rules" until the whole concept was abandoned.
That's not very hospitable?
Anyway I'm tired of your Crap. Let's get down to the basics, you don't have $100,000, I doubt you even have 15 cents and to make a wager of such a large amount for something so easily manipulated can only spring from the mind of a child. Grow up!
JohnM
More "Mytton"-esq argumentative BS.
Btw, earlier you said;
Clearly the assassination of JFK was a subject that had interested me for several years and therefore I purposely searched online for some kind discussion board to join. That's how it works, Weidmann/Beck, you seek forums dedicated to subjects that you are interested or have prior knowledge about.
Isn't it just amazing to see just how you manage to predominantly talk about anything but the assassination. Go figure....
You did the same thing with the original Bill Brown Online debate where you escalated the "rules" until the whole concept was abandoned.
No I didn't. There was no talk about an on line debate. I proposed a person to person debate and Bill tried to change that to an on line debate.
Anyway I'm tired of your Crap. Let's get down to the basics, you don't have $100,000, I doubt you even have 15 cents and to make a wager of such a large amount for something so easily manipulated can only spring from the mind of a child. Grow up!
Wow, that's a very mature post! :D So, you're walking away from a possibility to make $100.000, just because you want to hide your true identity? Gotcha....
Or is possible that you somehow figured out that you were wrong all along and did not want to risk it, now it comes down to a written agreement being required?
You just blinked, Johnny..... Thumb1:
So, you're walking away from a possibility to make $100.000
No, I'm walking away from someone who lives in a world of delusion.
JohnM
"You do know you've got zero credibility, right?" said the person who's just lost any ounce of credibility he might have had by being exposed as someone who created an alter-ego solely to back him up in forum debates. :D :D :D
No, I'm walking away from someone who lives in a world of delusion.
Dang, there goes my $50k!
Watching our techno geek in an attempt to prove that Martin posted from my account would have been a blast.
Thumb1:
Gee, who could have seen that coming? :D
Wow, didn't see that one coming!
So why don't you name your best witness and we'll see what that brings.
OK?
Gee, who could have seen that coming? :D
A far more easier way of doing this is asking Duncan to check Otto's and my IP's. If one of those is in the US and the other in Europe, your entire fairytale self destructs..
Best witness?
I'm assuming you mean best witness as far as Oswald staying at 1026 North Beckley.
Easy - Mrs Johnson, owner of the house.
Anyone reading her WC testimony would conclude Oswald lived there.
Weidmann demanded a face to face debate with Bill Brown to avoid cheating, yet here in a confrontation with far far higher stakes, Weidmann ran from the very suggestion of a face to face to face meeting and demanded the entire decision making process to rely on easily manipulated IP addresses and this is to be the sole determining factor in a one hundred thousand dollar wager.
The following post seriously came from the mind of Weidman and as I say, you can't make this up.
Geo-spoofing: How to change your location online
If you want to unblock region-locked websites and services, you’ll need a VPN. We’ll show you how to pretend to be in a different country and let you know the best VPNs to fake your location.
https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/geospoofing/
JohnM
Why, because of this killer evidence?
Have you read her WC testimony?
Even the most tinfoil fanatic (not that I'm saying you are one) would have to agree this is not a woman making up a fictitious tenant.
Btw I don't know the first thing about VPN. I've heard about it, but I haven't got a clue how it works and there has never been a reason for me to use one.
Funny... ever heard of a VPN?
Even more funny.... why are you so desperately trying to prove that you are in Australia when you've just said you couldn't care less....
You seemed to know how a VPN works when you claimed I could be using one to pretend I was posting from Australia. :D
JohnM
Didn't she try to sell "Oswald related material" or was that her son?
The problem I have with her story is that she claimed to identify Oswald because of a hole in his shirt sleeve, when there isn't a single first day photograph showing a hole in Oswald's shirts' sleeve.
One of the guys who works for me suggested that might be the case, after I told him about your no show when we were at Lady Elliot Island and could not find a "John Mytton" registered in Sydney.
You're thinking Bledsoe ::)
She wanted her scrap of paper back with Oswald's false signature on it to stick on ebay.
You're thinking Bledsoe ::)
You say you could not find a "John Mytton" registered in Sydney, where did you look?
JohnM
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Weidmann's problem is he doesn't know the evidence and it doesn't help that he's drunk as a skunk.
JohnM
I have no idea where my team looked, but I am sure - knowing them - they did a good job.
I fully understand this is a pathetic diversion on your part, but I'll play along. Are you now claiming there is a John Mytton registered in Sydney?
Look I fully understand that you don't want to reveal your true identity, but I couldn't care less that your real name isn't "John Mytton". I've known that for a long time and I would sign a non disclosure agreement to protect your true identity in an instant.
And the message I posted by Peter Goth was from a PM he wrote me, which should tell you that back in 2019 we had already figured out who Vincent Baxter really was.
So you even PM yourself from these fake accounts too? This is bonkers!
And the message I posted by Peter Goth was from a PM he wrote me, which should tell you that back in 2019 we had already figured out who Vincent Baxter really was.
So you even PM yourself from these fake accounts too? This is bonkers!
:D you talk like Mytton.
:D you talk like Mytton.
At least now we know where you get your "expertise" from....
Btw, don't they have newspapers in Australia anymore or did you perhaps get these links from your mate Vincent?
I'm a writer. There are basic rights of authorship, and courtesy among other writers.
Understanding David's process, This occurred member to member on the ED Forum.
He quoted the words exactly as written, posted them on to his own site, and added his own commentary to it.
So David --
If I said something to you that was CT (which, I'm not, by the way), and you took the words exactly as I wrote them.
And post them on your website, but then you went on to say,
Blah blah blah
From the EF Forum.....
-snip-
The only response I can possibly muster after reading such a bizarre allegation is this one....
WTF?
When you have finished with your rants don't forget to click the Donate button!
Hmmmm… but taking parts of conversations on other forums and placing them on your propaganda site for you to attack and ridicule whatever and whenever you want without the other persons involved in the original conversation having any access to your site to reply …….. that's freedom of speech in your mind?
So, “Mytton”, with your mad sleuthing skillz you can make some easy money on the challenge. Maybe you can even create a gif and superimpose arrows on it. That will prove everything. Go for it!
Wow, didn't see that one coming!
So why don't you name your best witness and we'll see what that brings.
OK?
Interesting, that the comment that Weidmann posted was a PM, that's why it conveniently wasn't in Goth's history, so anyway I thought I'd check some "Goth Dates" and after a hefty hiatus "The Goth is Back in Town" and coincidentally he/she is today looking at Weidmann's profile. Very strange.
(https://i.postimg.cc/GpqsLfwz/Goth-view-Weidmann-profile-20-22.jpg)
Btw The very first words of Goth's very first post was "I'm a writer"
Kinda like John Trojan I'm a photogrammetrist, nuclear scientist, etc
Kinda like Mongo's I'm an Engineer,
Kinda like Weidmann's "As my old Law Professor used to say"
Kinda like Roger Collins, I'm a Lawyer
-sigh-
JohnM
If we wait a bit longer he'll also be claiming that you and I are the same person..... What a pathetic weasel!
Hahaha! This is brilliant. So, if I'm correct Peter Goth's last log in was June or July 2020 when I looked at the weekend, and now, by sheer coincidence after being accused of being another one of Weidmann's pseudonyms, he's suddenly logged in again. Fantastic
So it would appear Weidmann hadn't forgotten the log in for that account after all :D
I do actually recall a three-way assault from the Weidmann, Otto, Goth combo. I was still very much a newcomer to the forum at the time but it all makes perfect sense now.
It's funny how the three of them all claim not to be CTers yet only ever go on the offensive towards LNers and will always take the side of CTers.
The Weidmann and Otto accounts have both stated to me on separate occasions that they are not CTers and in fact don't care who killed JFK its only the facts of the case that they are interested in. No doubt Goth would hold the same view if I'd asked him too.
I'm starting to wonder now how many others there have been over the years
Btw, don't they have newspapers in Australia anymore or did you perhaps get these links from your mate Vincent?
It's no secret that my name is not "John Mytton"
Except that won't happen because it's pretty clear that you and John Iacoletti are not the same person.
That's at least the third time you've goaded us into saying that now, planting a seed in the hope that someone will indeed accuse you both of being the same person and therefore John, being of an entirely different identity to yourself, will know our claims are wrong. Thus giving you the opportunity to say "See John, if they're wrong about us then they're clearly wrong about me being Otto, Goth, etc".
Nice try, but it's not going to work. It's abundantly clear now that you've created these other accounts to help fight your forum battles, throwing about pathetic and childish challenges of $100,000 that you know nobody in their right mind is going to seriously contemplate just shows how much of knob you must be feeling at being caught out.
In 2019 I wrote this to "Mytton"
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on November 20, 2019, 09:51:33 AM
Btw, don't they have newspapers in Australia anymore or did you perhaps get these links from your mate Vincent?
it seems that you and "Mytton", who now has finally admitted that this is not his real name
Quote from: John Mytton on Today at 02:09:55 AM
It's no secret that my name is not "John Mytton"
are still best buddies three years later, despite the fact that you only post on the forum when he is gone for a while....
Nice try, Johnny....
Hahaha! So you're using long lost quotes that Mytton dug out from 2019 and openly posted on this forum for all to see as your argument that we're the same person?
I suspect that if that was the case and these quotes were indeed such incriminating evidence then Mytton would have probably just kept them lurking in the forum archive somewhere hoping that they wouldn't be discovered.
More importantly though, what made you log into the Peter Goth account after nearly two years? And what's the reasoning behind the Otto Beck profile picture change?
Since it's "abundantly clear" why don't you pick up the challenge where Mytton left and score $100,000?
Your best witness wasn't there when Oswald allegedly went back.
So this evidently brings nothing to the table.
I suggest you improve your tactical skills before posting again.
The Weidmann and Otto accounts have both stated to me on separate occasions that they are not CTers and in fact don't care who killed JFK its only the facts of the case that they are interested in.
Come on, two accounts created within days of each other both immediately leaping in and defending Weidmann and creating some sort of forum tag team by ganging up on people?
It's pretty obvious. Am I going to bother going to all the hassle of getting lawyers involved in order to get an imaginary $100,000 that some oddball on the internet, who from what I've learnt this weekend probably isn't even called Martin Weidmann anyway, though?
The answer is no.
There was only one witness who was there when Oswald went back to his rooming house - Earlene Roberts.
What??? You can’t name one other witness who corroborates her account? Say it isn’t so!
Poor Danny, you're not really equipped for this game.
Pro-tip: Don't ask questions you don't know the answer to.
Of course I knew all along the best you had was the housekeeper, preoccupied with her TV, blind in one eye, and nobody to cooperate her.
So what? People with generic names like “Vincent Baxter” pop up here all the time spouting all the same “Oswald did it” rhetoric and propaganda.
Of course it is. It’s much easier to hide behind a keyboard and an anonymous identity and sling accusations than to put your money where your mouth is.
So how did he get his revolver and jacket if he didn't go back to the boarding house then?
What makes you think he did? Oh yeah, the Warren Commission said so.
Poor Danny, you're not really equipped for this game.
Pro-tip: Don't ask questions you don't know the answer to.
Of course I knew all along the best you had was the housekeeper, preoccupied with her TV, blind in one eye, and nobody to cooperate her.
Um, I'm still here and you already picked Gladys so no worries!
So what's the very best Mrs. Johnson has to offer?
Here we have Otto's fantasy that Oswald never lived at 1026 North Beckley and that the Johnsons and Earlene Roberts fabricated his existence at the house.
When did Otto say this? Surely he can't be serious?
Where does this latest theory go and what does is it supposed to prove?
It seems with every breath this conspiracy exponentially expands.
Btw Otto hasn't been doing this for very long so he still doesn't understand the basics.
JohnM
What makes you think he did? Oh yeah, the Warren Commission said so.
This evidently went over your head even though Iacoletti also pointed out the best you had was as weak as evidence comes.
And no, I haven't got any problem admitting an actual mistake.
I asked for the very best and you give me this mess?
So let's simplify and go straight to what you indicate is the very best and easily checkable detail:
Mr. Ball: He would watch television sometimes?
Mrs. Johnson: Yes,. sir watch television, with the other men renters...
So what did your check reveal?
As soon as she says this she has introduced the eleven other occupants into the fantasy. Why would she introduce such an easily checkable detail? Why would she drag eleven other men into the conspiracy?
Oswald initially told Fritz that he went to Beckley by bus and got his pistol.
Let's simplify further: How did you check if there were eleven other occupants, all male?
You don’t know what Oswald told Fritz. And anyway, I thought you considered Oswald a “liar”. Or is that only about the stuff you don’t already believe?
And anyway, I thought you considered Oswald a “liar”.
Sounds familiar and it's huge!
Do you plan to reveal what you found?
Any time soon?
You don’t know what Oswald told Fritz.
That's an awfully broad generalization, everyone's lies and that's why Jesus died for our sins.
I examine each statement in context of the overall picture.
For example Oswald lied every time the rifle was brought up;
Fritz told us Oswald said;
I don't own the rifle
I didn't kill Kennedy
I didn't kill a Police Officer
I only carried my lunch to work
"The only law I violated was in the show; I hit the officer in the show; he hit me in the eye and I guess I deserved it."
I'm not a naughty boy
Except that won't happen because it's pretty clear that you and John Iacoletti are not the same person.
That's at least the third time you've goaded us into saying that now, planting a seed in the hope that someone will indeed accuse you both of being the same person and therefore John, being of an entirely different identity to yourself, will know our claims are wrong. Thus giving you the opportunity to say "See John, if they're wrong about us then they're clearly wrong about me being Otto, Goth, etc".
Textbook loaded question. How do you know he “got his revolver and jacket” at all?
BS:
None of those made-up quotes were uttered by Fritz.
Well, because he had his revolver and jacket afterwards.
I know you refuse to accept anything other than high quality CCTV footageof Oswald doing anything as sufficient proof (and even then you'd probably ask "how do you know this isn't fake?"), but dumb reasoning like that isn't being big or clever or showing off any highly advanced investigative skills.
I could quite easily pose dumb questions like:
- How do you know witnesses did actually see puffs of smoke from the grassy knoll and weren't just making it up solely to get on TV?
- How do we know the doctors at Parkland weren't just extremely p*ssed off about the secret services taking JFK's body and so decided to get together and lie about the autopsy to confuse things and get back at them?
And you wouldn't be able to answer them with any conclusive proof either way, because we know there isn't any.
As other people have already stated on this thread, Oswald admitted to going to the boarding house to get his revolver. And yes, the Warren Commission stated he did too. Do I believe everything in the WC? No, I don't but if you're claiming that in this instance this isn't the case then what alternative proof can you offer to back that up, rather than just dismissing it asking "Well, how do you know he did? Just because the WC said so?"
Exactly, it's obvious that John only posts as himself and this continued baiting is just an obvious ruse, that if taken relaxes the pressure on the UnholyTrinityQuaternity.
JohnM
Blowing smoke again?
Quote me stating such nonsense or STFU.
I'm actually surprised I would state this in absolute terms, please provide quote.
No, doesn't work like that. We are now dealing with your very best evidence from Mrs. Johnson being the easily checkable detail of eleven roomers plus Oswald. Can you show evidence to support that claim or not?
Are you seriously telling me that if someone you were convinced of fake internet identity offered you $100,000 to prove them wrong, which would involve dragging in solicitors and paying for hours of legal work, you'd have taken him up on his offer? Do me a favour!
Arguments and opposing JFK theories aside; you must agree that you'd take the challenge about as seriously as I did?
L O L
No, you examine each statement in context of what you already believe.
Your evidence being that it conflicts with what your unsubstantiated beliefs are.
Well, because he had his revolver and jacket afterwards.
I know you refuse to accept anything other than high quality CCTV footageof Oswald doing anything as sufficient proof
I could quite easily pose dumb questions like:
- How do you know witnesses did actually see puffs of smoke from the grassy knoll and weren't just making it up solely to get on TV?
- How do we know the doctors at Parkland weren't just extremely p*ssed off about the secret services taking JFK's body and so decided to get together and lie about the autopsy to confuse things and get back at them?
And you wouldn't be able to answer them with any conclusive proof either way, because we know there isn't any.
As other people have already stated on this thread, Oswald admitted to going to the boarding house to get his revolver.
And John Iacoletti, I'm assuming by the lack of response to the above question that I asked you, you would indeed have acted in exactly the same way as I did when offered the $100,000 challenge?
So your stupid comment and attempt at an argument was kind of a bit stupid in hindsight, no?
Well, because he had his revolver and jacket afterwards.
At the risk of being called the same person as John ( :D) how the hell do you know what he had "afterwards", whatever that means?
::) Yeah, we've been there several times already, Martin. You can goad us all you like and come up with feeble and obvious attempts to encourage people on this forum to accuse you and John Iacoletti of being the same person as well, but it's clear Iacoletti isn't one of your made up accounts.
No matter how many times you post "Oh, I suppose you think me and John are the same person", "I'm surprised you're not accusing me and John of being the same person too", "Hey, John, they'll be accusing us of being the same person next", etc, etc. It's not going to happen.
I've got an idea though, if you so desperately want someone to accuse you both of being the same person, why don't you create an account under a different name and get that made up person to post the accusation? You obviously know how to do it.
::) Yeah, we've been there several times already, Martin. You can goad us all you like and come up with feeble and obvious attempts to encourage people on this forum to accuse you and John Iacoletti of being the same person as well, but it's clear Iacoletti isn't one of your made up accounts.
No matter how many times you post "Oh, I suppose you think me and John are the same person", "I'm surprised you're not accusing me and John of being the same person too", "Hey, John, they'll be accusing us of being the same person next", etc, etc. It's not going to happen.
I've got an idea though, if you so desperately want someone to accuse you both of being the same person, why don't you create an account under a different name and get that made up person to post the accusation? You obviously know how to do it.
The differing reactions are quite telling, you and me think being accused is funny because we know it's not true whereas Weidmann goes absolutely ballistic and makes absurd 100,000 dollar challenges and starts the usual diversionary tactics of erroneously linking other members to himself like Iacoletti, but we are way too smart to fall for these blatantly obvious deflections.
JohnM
Of course he did. The WC said so. Even if that’s true, how do you know he didn’t already have them?
That’s what people who make claims without sufficient proof always say.
You’re correct — which is why I don’t make any of those claims. What’s your point?
Correction: Fritz claimed months later that Oswald “admitted” this.
Hilarious. I don't want anybody to accuse me of anything,
but since you have accused me of being the same person as the one posting as Otto Beck, why don't you just prove it and earn yourself some cash?
Actually, Johnny, I know why not; because you're a pathetic coward who is only comfortable in his mum's basement, using false names, to make false accusations about people on the internet.
Goad, cool word!
Thumb1:
Vince, how does it feel being outclassed?
The differing reactions are quite telling, you and me think being accused is funny because we know it's not true whereas Weidmann goes absolutely ballistic and makes absurd 100,000 dollar challenges and starts the usual diversionary tactics of erroneously linking other members to himself like Iacoletti, but we are way too smart to fall for these blatantly obvious deflections.
JohnM
Hilarious. I don't want anybody to accuse me of anything, but since you have accused me of being the same person as the one posting as Otto Beck, why don't you just prove it and earn yourself some cash?
Goad, cool word!
Thumb1:
That's why I only put quotation marks on 1 quote,
but the rest are close enough
And John Iacoletti, I'm assuming by the lack of response to the above question that I asked you, you would indeed have acted in exactly the same way as I did when offered the $100,000 challenge?
There's a difference between belief and evidence, I stick to the evidence whereas you stick to your beliefs.
Ooo, look at the times at which the two above posts were posted.
Now, if I was to post something at a completely random time, lets say 02:36:33 AM, and then log out of my account, type in a different username and password, hit enter to log back in as a different user, select the 'General Discussion & Debate' forum, look for the topic thread that I'd just posted in as the other user, go to the last page, select a post to 'quote', compose a quick 3 or 4 word reply and then hit the 'post' submission button, I reckon it'd take me roughly 2mins 17 seconds. Which means my second post as a different user would appear at approximately 02:38:50 AM. Give or take a few milliseconds.
I'm not making any particular point here obviously. Just thought I'd share that bit of information with you all.
So are you now saying he had both the jacket and revolver on him all day?
Exactly! Which is why I was asking you what proof, or even just a justifiable reason, you had to question that Oswald didn't go back to the boarding house to get the revolver?
I didn't say you did make any of those claims. And the point was in the original post. I was highlighting that you don't have be a genius to apply unjustifiable questions or doubt to an occurrence that could actually be fact in the way that you constantly do
Fritz didn’t say that one either.
No you don’t. You stick to making a bunch of claims that you cannot substantiate and pretending like that settles the matter.
Really, I copied and pasted the quote from his testimony?
So you did. My mistake. Awesome memory he had.
So you did. My mistake.
Awesome memory he had.
Techno Johnny to the rescue!
This is actually posted from my main computer, as you call it.
No VPN, BTW.
Techno Johnny to the rescue!
This is actually posted from my main computer, as you call it.
No VPN, BTW.
Whew, what a meltdown!
As the saying goes: Don't advertise what you can't deliver.
Thumb1:
I don't know, he would also need to change his VPN from the US to Europe and that adds some time, it would be easier to just have your main computer and a tablet or even a phone.You know like we do!Otto's hit pieces are usually brief which are easily created with a phone.
JohnM
Uh-oh!
ROFLMAO -- If you were, you would have discovered the stupidest method of posting as two users.
Why complicate things when I simply "sucked up"?
No, I’m asking you how you know his got “his revolver and jacket” at the boarding house.
Why do evangelists always make up silly “so are you saying” strawman instead of just answering the question?
Duh. Because there’s no evidence he got a revolver at the boarding house.
Surely you know the difference between a fact and something that could be a fact.
And then you posted a reply anyway containing a false narrative.
"tongue in cheek" -- Chapman grade BS.
Even Mytton saw the need to "improve" your setup.
Nice try, BTW, there was no argument as I simply called out how demented your suggestion was.
FYI:
A persecutory deception occurs when a person believes that there is a conspiracy among others to attack, punish or harass him. Although these hallucinations and delusions seem strange to others, they are very real to the person with the disorder. These experiences can be scary and can cause people who experience them to hurt themselves or others.
Recognising a simple liar and charlatan takes minimal effort so you failed right off the bat. Whatever those few people "found out" lacks any kind of evidense for the simple reason that your multiple accounts scam only exists in your delutional mind. Which allows Martin and I to have double the fun as other members whenever your next rant is out.
A true copy and paste deal doesn't require editing, you fail again.
As exemplified above, this is exactly what's being described in the unmolested text I supplied:
Although these hallucinations and delusions seem strange to others, they are very real to the person with the disorder.
Thumb1:
Yeah, he was an experienced interrogator, that was his job. He was good at interrogating because after extensive grilling, criminals whose stories aren't grounded in reality, start to slip up and picking the anomalies in the criminals answers takes total recall. And having one of the biggest Murder event of all time right in his lap, will tend to stick in the memory.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked his residence address in Dallas and did he give it?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; he furnished the address of 1026 North Beckley.
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him anything about his address or did he volunteer the address?
Mr. FRITZ. He volunteered the address at Beckley?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mr. FRITZ. Well, I will tell you, whether we asked him or told him one, he never did deny it, he never did deny the Beckley Street address at all. The only thing was he didn't know whether it was north or south.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
What have evangelists got to do with anything?
So, look at any history book and the official story is that Oswald got a cab from Dealey Plaza to a few blocks away from his boarding house (we have a witness for this as well as Oswald stating that he got the taxi).
It also states that he went into his boarding house about 1pm (again we have a witness for this), Oswald himself claimed that he got his revolver
and it was indeed found on him when he was taken into custody at the theatre.
It's all there in black and white in the history books after extensive investigation from highly skilled and respected professionals in their field.
Now, are the witnesses 100% reliable? Maybe not. Can we 100% guarantee that that is what happened? Maybe not. But you're the one challenging the official historical account, so what do you have as evidence to prove otherwise?
And before you say it, no I don't believe everything I read but there are things we're never going to know 100% for sure.
To simplify things; a few people found out that you use multiple accounts solely to back up your views on a Internet forum and find the whole thing rather amusing.
Too bad Ball had to keep asking him to look at his report to “refresh” his memory.
Why don’t you tell us what your real name is, “Vincent”?
First, prove that "John Iacoletti" actually made the post that I'm replying to, then we can move on! K?
JohnM
To simplify things; a few people found out that you use multiple accounts solely to back up your views on a Internet forum and find the whole thing rather amusing.
These few people forgot to present even an iota of evidence for their accusations. Which is not surprising seeing as how they follow the same procedure with regard to the Kennedy assassination.
Why don’t you tell us what your real name is, “Vincent”?
Why do you reply to a post John wrote in reply to a Vincent Baxter post?
Got confused?
Damn it, I know I should of used my tablet! LOL!
JohnM
Never mind, Vincent. We'll pretend it never happened
Quote from: Vincent Baxter on April 21, 2022, 03:42:15 PM
What have evangelists got to do with anything?
They’re the ones repeating mythology as if it were the truth.
Quote from: Vincent Baxter on April 21, 2022, 03:42:15 PM
So, look at any history book and the official story is that Oswald got a cab from Dealey Plaza to a few blocks away from his boarding house (we have a witness for this as well as Oswald stating that he got the taxi).
Anybody can make up an “official story”.
Quote from: Vincent Baxter on April 21, 2022, 03:42:15 PM
It also states that he went into his boarding house about 1pm (again we have a witness for this), Oswald himself claimed that he got his revolver
Correction: Fritz claimed that Oswald said this.
Quote from: Vincent Baxter on April 21, 2022, 03:42:15 PM
and it was indeed found on him when he was taken into custody at the theatre.
Nope. When Oswald was taken into custody the alleged revolver was allegedly in the alleged possession of the alleged Bob Carroll. At least according to the official storytellers. But either way that tells you nothing about where or when the revolver was acquired.
You entire claim rests on what Fritz remembered days later.
Quote from: Vincent Baxter on April 21, 2022, 03:42:15 PM
It's all there in black and white in the history books after extensive investigation from highly skilled and respected professionals in their field.
Nice appeal to authority. Evangelists love those kinds of arguments.
Quote from: Vincent Baxter on April 21, 2022, 03:42:15 PM
Now, are the witnesses 100% reliable? Maybe not. Can we 100% guarantee that that is what happened? Maybe not. But you're the one challenging the official historical account, so what do you have as evidence to prove otherwise?
Sorry, but even “official historical account” writers have the burden of proving their own stories true.
Quote from: Vincent Baxter on April 21, 2022, 03:42:15 PM
And before you say it, no I don't believe everything I read but there are things we're never going to know 100% for sure.
Or even 50%. So why is it so hard to just stop at I don’t know? Why make up stories?
These few people forgot to present even an iota of evidence for their accusations. Which is not surprising seeing as how they follow the same procedure with regard to the Kennedy assassination.
Why don’t you tell us what your real name is, “Vincent”?
But I warn you, next time you say I'm JohnM, I'm going to make a $1,000,000 challenge and you better not walk away this time.VincentB
JohnM
Why do you reply to a post John wrote in reply to a Vincent Baxter post?
Got confused and used the wrong log in code?
Don't worry, I have known for a long time you were a fraud and John Mytton wasn't your name.
It's highly unlikely Vincent Baxter is your real name either.
You did not run away from the challenge for nothing.
And as far as the challenge goes, it still stands. We can still meet and find that Otto and I are not the same person. I never ran away from that, so why did you? I mean, I even agreed to sign a non disclosure agreement about your true identity, so what's holding you back from making some easy money?
and John Mytton wasn't your name.
It's highly unlikely Vincent Baxter is your real name either.
And as far as the challenge goes, it still stands.
We can still meet and find that Otto and I are not the same person.
I mean, I even agreed to sign a non disclosure agreement about your true identity, so what's holding you back from making some easy money?
Hey, they're some good questions and some good insults. I wish I'd have thought of them first and used them against you in a previous posts.
Oh wait....
Because I told you. Duh!
No kidding Einstein.
Prove to me that you got the money and we can have a further discussion.
I'm pretty busy now, but you two can come to bright and sunny Sydney Australia.VincentB
JohnM
Johnny/Vincent, you're over doing it. :D
A non disclosure agreement? Well why didn't you say so before. That makes your whole bullsh*t challenge 100% believable and creditable now.
Where do I sign up?
Because I told you. Duh!
I knew long before you told me, fraud.
Prove to me that you got the money and we can have a further discussion.
Sure, no problem whatsover, Just let me know how I can contact your solicitor and make sure that he has the proof that you have the money to pay Otto and me.
I'm pretty busy now, but you two can come to bright and sunny Sydney Australia.
There goes the weasel, running again
I knew long before you told me, fraud.
Sure, no problem whatsover, Just let me know how I can contact your solicitor and make sure that he has the proof that you have the money to pay Otto and me
There goes the weasel, running again
JohnnyM
VincentB
Incidentally, you never actually addressed the question of how you felt you could safely offer the $100,000 challenge on behalf of Otto Beck without consenting his approval first and how you were so confident that Otto Beck was in fact his real name and that he'd be able to prove his identity before throwing out your outlandish challenge?
I mean, I know the answer but I am intrigued as to what cock and bull reasoning you're going to give for it.JohnnyM
VincentB
https://i.postimg.cc/nr2tf983/Peter-Goth-is-back.jpg
Provide me with the contact details of your solicitor and make sure they have confirmation that you have the funds to pay Otto and me.
Still wanna sign up, weasel?
Incidentally, you never actually addressed the question of how you felt you could safely offer the $100,000 challenge on behalf of Otto Beck without consenting his approval first and how you were so confident that Otto Beck was in fact his real name and that he'd be able to prove his identity before throwing out your outlandish challenge?
I mean, I know the answer but I am intrigued as to what cock and bull reasoning you're going to give for it.JohnnyM
VincentB
Hey Vincent, Guess who's back!
JohnM
Ok prove it?
This is hilarious, it's your $100,000 dollar challenge not mine, prove to me you got the money.
How is inviting the two of you to Sydney, running away?VincentB
JohnM
Yeah, that's not quite how it works, Martin. You're the one who issued the challenge, so how about you PM me the contact details of your solicitor (and Otto's, ho ho ho!) along with the confirmation that you actually have the $100,000 that you voluntarily put up?
Not still giving it the big 'un now are you, Weidmann?
you never actually addressed the question of how you felt you could safely offer the $100,000 challenge on behalf of Otto Beck
Just how big an idiot are you? I issued the challenge, without asking Otto, for one simple reason:
there was no way in the world that you (as Mytton or Baxter) could ever prove that Otto and I are the same person, because we aren't.
how you were so confident that Otto Beck was in fact his real name
The actual answer is that I never was and still am not. But that's not important. Mytton (not his real name btw) claimed that Otto and I are the same person posting under different accounts.
I know there isn't a even a remote chance that he could prove that because we aren't. So even if the guy named Otto Beck is using an alias to post here, he still isn't the same person as I. Get it now, fool?
Do you really think Otto and I are going to fly half way around the word on the basis of the word of a fraud?
Well, for starters, you've done that before and it turned out to be bogus and secondly we now know, by your own admission, that your name is not Johnny Mytton, so why should we believe that you actually live in Sydney?
Because you're the same person?
Except that you are. And you knew we would never be able to provide solid evidence because we were never going to be mug enough to take up your ridiculous challenge in the first place.
Yeah, so did I.
Yeah, but if Otto Beck can't prove who he is then there is no way you can prove that you and him aren't the same person. So despite pointless toing and froing between each others legal representatives you'd still be unable to provide any physical evidence either way and therefore there'd be no possibility of money changing hands.
So in essence the whole notion behind your absurd $100,000 challenge was just so you give it the large and accuse us of being "weasels" and backing out of your foolproof proposal in a desperate attempt to convince others on this forum that your pathetic use of multiple accounts wasn't true?
I'm not sure which is the most sad; the fact you feel the need to use multiple accounts to fight your battles or your thinking behind this so called challenge.
Carbon copy "Mytton".. what a surprise.
Yeah, that's not quite how it works,
Yes it is actually. You made the claim and I challenged you. You can either stand by your claim, and provide the contact details of your solicitor, or you can back down from your bogus claim.
I don't have to prove anything to a weasel like you.
You made the claim that Otto and I are the same person, so when I challenge you, you can either accept the challenge (and the rules that go along with it) or run away as hard as you can, which is what I expect you to do.We made the claim, yes, but you made the challenge and then threw in unreasonable rules as you went along.
Btw, nice try Johnny!
Oh yeah, the time you came to Sydney and had your "team" do a "good" search, a search which was never specified, for the registered name of "John Mytton", a name you knew never existed? Hilarious!
Keep em coming.
JohnM
Give me the contact details of your solicitor and I will provide him with the confirmation. No problem whatsoever. However, I will require that he provide me with a similar confirmation about you.
Ooo, you seem to be getting a bit of a strop on now, Weidmann.
But you're the one issuing the challenge and with so much internet fraud in the world, surely it's up to you to provide proof that you have the means to fulfil the challenge you openly offered by providing us with sufficient proof of funds and a recognised legal representative before we take your challenge (that again you offered without provocation) seriously.
How are you going to check that we have sufficient funds? Ask us to provide you with our bank account number, sort code and mother's maiden name so you can check?
We made the claim, yes, but you made the challenge and then threw in unreasonable rules as you went along.
I tell you what, let's forget about your challenge and allow me to offer a new challenge whereby I will give you and Otto both £50.000 if I can't provide sufficient evidence that you and Otto are the same person within the next 12 months. If I do you have to give me £50,000 each.
To get things rolling you both have to PM me the name of your solicitors along with proof that you can both pay me the £50,000 when I come up with the evidence. If you don't take me up on this challenge then it's abundantly clear that you are the same person and that you're both spombleprofglidnoctobunsting bricks at being properly exposed to everyone.
Yeah, great. But that's not really relevant to what I was saying.
Anybody? So I can suddenly just go and make up my own "official story" of what happened in the JFK assassination and get all the history books changed can I?
Okay, correction, the revolver was taken out of Oswald's possession seconds before he was actually taken into custody at the theatre. Is that better?
Where as your entire claim that none of the above happened rests on what exactly?
Indeed. I can't for the life of me think why these so called evangelists would take the word of these highly skilled and respected professionals in their field
And the fact that the world accepted this account and printed it in all the history books around the world suggests that they did a satisfactory job of doing so.
You're saying the official verdict isn't the case so why not show us what you know and tell us what actually did happen.
They're hardly just making up fantasy stories are they. They're clearly basing their conclusion on factual occurrences and testimonies.
There's already been enough evidence to convince me
It's clearly stated on my profile, you plum. Or is that too difficult for you look at?
No, I mean your actual name.
This is an odd obsession, without skype or something similar, none of us can prove that any of us made any post, so why are you so hung up on LNer "names"? Strange!
JohnM
Said the guy who just admitted that "John Mytton" isn't his real name and who accuses other of using fake identities without a shred of evidence. Pathetic!
why are you so hung up on LNer "names"? Strange!
But you being hung up on CT's names and your false accusations about them isn't strange?
No, I mean your actual name.
So you are making accusations you can not prove. Got it!
Prove it to whom? Some internet troll who has already admitted he is not using his real name?
Get serious, will ya.... Give me the contact details of your solicitor and we'll have this sorted in 24 hours.
Unless I know your true identity, you are getting nothing from me by PM.
That shouldn’t surprise anybody. It’s Vincent’s approach to everything.
This is an odd obsession, without skype or something similar, none of us can prove that any of us made any post, so why are you so hung up on LNer "names"? Strange!
I'm pretty busy now, but you two can come to bright and sunny Sydney Australia.
There goes the weasel, running again
Because cowards gonna be cowards. What is it you’re afraid of?
“Mytton” can’t be away from school that long. His mum would kill him.
I've seen personal information being exploited time and time again,