JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on November 19, 2018, 09:06:15 PM

Title: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Bill Brown on November 19, 2018, 09:06:15 PM
I created this thread versus hijacking other threads.  This thread is not intended to mock.  I ask in all sincerity..

Martin Weidmann, John Iacoletti,

Would you mind listing the evidence in the case that you DO consider authentic?  Or, if you'd rather, I can list various pieces of evidence and you can let me know if you accept it as valid or not.
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 19, 2018, 10:35:25 PM
I created this thread versus hijacking other threads.  This thread is not intended to mock.  I ask in all sincerity..

Martin Weidmann, John Iacoletti,

Would you mind listing the evidence in the case that you DO consider authentic?  Or, if you'd rather, I can list various pieces of evidence and you can let me know if you accept it as valid or not.

This might surprise you, but I think most of the evidence that we know is probably authentic. Whether it justifies the conclusions based upon it and the context in which it's being presented is another matter.
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Bill Brown on November 19, 2018, 10:51:30 PM
This might surprise you, but I think most of the evidence that we know is probably authentic. Whether it justifies the conclusions based upon it and the context in which it's being presented is another matter.

Okay.  Can you give me an example of a piece of evidence, which you believe is authentic, that doesn't justify the conclusion reached, based upon that piece of evidence?
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Bill Brown on November 21, 2018, 07:07:07 AM
This might surprise you, but I think most of the evidence that we know is probably authentic. Whether it justifies the conclusions based upon it and the context in which it's being presented is another matter.

Okay.  Can you give me an example of a piece of evidence, which you believe is authentic, that doesn't justify the conclusion reached, based upon that piece of evidence?
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 21, 2018, 11:21:57 AM
Okay.  Can you give me an example of a piece of evidence, which you believe is authentic, that doesn't justify the conclusion reached, based upon that piece of evidence?

This thread is not intended to mock.  I ask in all sincerity..

Yeah, right.....

You've already shown your true colors again in another thread. I have no intention to go further with this conversation..
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Bill Brown on November 21, 2018, 10:52:11 PM
This thread is not intended to mock.  I ask in all sincerity..

Yeah, right.....

You've already shown your true colors again in another thread. I have no intention to go further with this conversation..

Stop being so dramatic all the time.

To me, it appears that you aren't comfortable with listing pieces of evidence against Oswald that you feel are authentic... or you feel that there isn't any evidence against Oswald that you feel is authentic.

Which is it?
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 21, 2018, 11:00:42 PM
Stop being so dramatic all the time.

To me, it appears that you aren't comfortable with listing pieces of evidence against Oswald that you feel are authentic... or you feel that there isn't any evidence against Oswald that you feel is authentic.

Which is it?

No dramatics, its only a matter of time before you turn nasty. It's in your nature. You can not have a normal discussion because you need to win and feel superior all the time and when you get stuck (which you will deny ever doing) you either run or show us your nasty side. This time the latter just happened a bit faster than last time, that's all.

And I don't really give a damn how it appears to you?
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Bill Brown on November 21, 2018, 11:32:21 PM
No dramatics, its only a matter of time before you turn nasty. It's in your nature. You can not have a normal discussion because you need to win and feel superior all the time and when you get stuck (which you will deny ever doing) you either run or show us your nasty side. This time the latter just happened a bit faster than last time, that's all.

And I don't really give a damn how it appears to you?

I showed my supposed "nasty side"?  This thread is but two pages long.  Where did I get nasty?

I did ask in all sincerity... and I'll ask in all sincerity again...

Can you list one piece of evidence, which supports Oswald being guilty, that you believe is authentic?
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Bill Brown on November 22, 2018, 02:03:32 AM
Martin Weidmann has made seven posts in this thread, so far.  Not one of them lists an example of even one piece of evidence against Oswald which Weidmann feels is indeed authentic.

All Weidmann has done so far is become argumentative in one instant and then accuse me of being nasty in the next.
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Bill Brown on November 24, 2018, 02:28:15 PM
It looks like Weidmann is making excuses, explaining why he does not wish to participate in this thread.  I could be wrong, but that is how it looks to me.  I haven't been nasty, yet Weidmann is using that as an excuse to not participate.
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Oscar Navarro on November 24, 2018, 07:08:56 PM
It looks like Weidmann is making excuses, explaining why he does not wish to participate in this thread.  I could be wrong, but that is how it looks to me.  I haven't been nasty, yet Weidmann is using that as an excuse to not participate.

It's like trying to speak to a pre-recorded message.
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Allan Fritzke on November 24, 2018, 09:02:08 PM
I created this thread versus hijacking other threads.  This thread is not intended to mock.  I ask in all sincerity..

Martin Weidmann, John Iacoletti,

.... Or, if you'd rather, I can list various pieces of evidence and you can let me know if you accept it as valid or not.

Bill, I think he is waiting for you.  You said you would!  The ball is in your court.
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 24, 2018, 09:24:23 PM

Bill, I think he is waiting for you.  You said you would!  The ball is in your court.


Alan, I'm not waiting for Bill.

After not talking to him for a while, I decided, against my better judgment, to give it another try, when he said he was sincere and did not intend to mock. From experience in the past, I had my doubts about that but I aswered his question nevertheless. But before the discussion could go further, my doubts were confirmed when Bill mocked me for no reason in another thread. So, that was it for me. Now Bill is playing innocent and saying he didn't mock me in this thread, which is true but extremely disingenuous.
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Bill Brown on November 25, 2018, 12:01:36 AM
Bill, I think he is waiting for you.  You said you would!  The ball is in your court.

I said I would if he wanted me to.  He hasn't said whether he wants me to do that or not.
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Allan Fritzke on November 26, 2018, 03:34:58 AM
Lets face it Valenti is just a troll that hijacks all threads but has no other reason to post other than to interject with unbased spume!
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Allan Fritzke on November 26, 2018, 05:52:49 AM
Don't have to dig deeper, it floats! BS:
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Ray Mitcham on November 26, 2018, 10:55:19 AM
He did dig deeper: He just dug up a 600 year-old-word  ;)
Seems he's getting all lathered up...

Did you have  to look it up on Merriam Webster, Bill?
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Rob Caprio on November 26, 2018, 06:08:56 PM
BUMP

===================================

This reminds me of the Ben Holmes/Walt Cakebread show on ACJ. Aah, the memories.
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 26, 2018, 08:22:46 PM
Did you have  to look it up on Merriam Webster, Bill?

Is that a problem for you
Do you foam at the mouth when posting... don't go getting yourself in a lather, now
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Bill Brown on November 28, 2018, 10:36:31 PM
BUMP

=================================

I created this thread versus hijacking other threads.  This thread is not intended to mock.  I ask in all sincerity...

Martin Weidmann, John Iacoletti,

Would you mind listing a piece of evidence in the case, which points to Oswald's guilt, that you DO consider authentic?  Or, if you'd rather, I can list various pieces of evidence and you can let me know if you accept it as valid or not.
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Jerry Freeman on December 01, 2018, 03:03:29 AM
Did you have  to look it up on Merriam Webster, Bill?
Honestly, I had to look it up. I thought it meant some kind of bodily fluid :(
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 12, 2018, 12:08:52 AM
BUMP

=================================

I created this thread versus hijacking other threads.  This thread is not intended to mock.  I ask in all sincerity...

Martin Weidmann, John Iacoletti,

Would you mind listing a piece of evidence in the case, which points to Oswald's guilt, that you DO consider authentic?  Or, if you'd rather, I can list various pieces of evidence and you can let me know if you accept it as valid or not.

List various pieces of evidence that you think point to Oswald's guilt and define what you mean by "authentic".
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 12, 2018, 06:23:30 PM
List various pieces of evidence that you think point to Oswald's guilt and define what you mean by "authentic".

Let me point out that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person on the face of the earth who can be identified as being on the scene during both murders

Take that little gem to the (blood) bank
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on December 12, 2018, 07:47:44 PM
Let me point out that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person on the face of the earth who can be identified as being on the scene during both murders

Take that little gem to the (blood) bank

I'll add that it seems to me that someone who expects help, someone who is part of a larger conspiracy involving powerful elements or figures wouldn't shoot a police officer. Not in broad daylight, not in such an obvious manner.

Oswald's shooting of Tippit was the act of a desperate person, someone essentially fighting for his life. It's why he didn't worry about hiding the shells.

It's impossible here to prove a negative: that is prove that Oswald didn't have help. But if he did have help they must not have been people who he thought could free him if caught. Otherwise why blow away Tippit?
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Walt Cakebread on December 12, 2018, 08:11:23 PM
I'll add that it seems to me that someone who expects help, someone who is part of a larger conspiracy involving powerful elements or figures wouldn't shoot a police officer. Not in broad daylight, not in such an obvious manner.

Oswald's shooting of Tippit was the act of a desperate person, someone essentially fighting for his life. It's why he didn't worry about hiding the shells.

It's impossible here to prove a negative: that is prove that Oswald didn't have help. But if he did have help they must not have been people who he thought could free him if caught. Otherwise why blow away Tippit?

Lee Oswald DID NOT "blow away" Tippit!.....

Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 12, 2018, 11:51:02 PM
I'll add that it seems to me that someone who expects help, someone who is part of a larger conspiracy involving powerful elements or figures wouldn't shoot a police officer. Not in broad daylight, not in such an obvious manner.

Oswald's shooting of Tippit was the act of a desperate person, someone essentially fighting for his life. It's why he didn't worry about hiding the shells.

It's impossible here to prove a negative: that is prove that Oswald didn't have help. But if he did have help they must not have been people who he thought could free him if caught. Otherwise why blow away Tippit?

My post is in response to the OP: Oswald was the only person identified at the scene during both murders... therefore is valid evidence.

Aside from that, it seems to me Oswald was winging it.
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Bill Brown on December 13, 2018, 05:19:15 AM
List various pieces of evidence that you think point to Oswald's guilt and define what you mean by "authentic".

Again, would you mind listing a piece of evidence in the case, which points to Oswald's guilt, that you DO consider authentic?
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 15, 2018, 08:12:35 PM
Let me point out that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person on the face of the earth who can be identified as being on the scene during both murders

That would depend on what you think constitutes "identified".
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 15, 2018, 08:16:15 PM
Again, would you mind listing a piece of evidence in the case, which points to Oswald's guilt, that you DO consider authentic?

I'm taking you up on your offer:

Or, if you'd rather, I can list various pieces of evidence and you can let me know if you accept it as valid or not.

I'm pretty sure we disagree on what constitutes "evidence pointing to Oswald's guilt".
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Jon Banks on December 16, 2018, 02:35:33 PM
I'll add that it seems to me that someone who expects help, someone who is part of a larger conspiracy involving powerful elements or figures wouldn't shoot a police officer. Not in broad daylight, not in such an obvious manner.

Oswald's shooting of Tippit was the act of a desperate person, someone essentially fighting for his life. It's why he didn't worry about hiding the shells.

It's impossible here to prove a negative: that is prove that Oswald didn't have help. But if he did have help they must not have been people who he thought could free him if caught. Otherwise why blow away Tippit?

I?m inclined to believe Oswald shot Tippet but you can?t rule out a Conspiracy just based on the assumption that one guy was involved in two murders.

With that said, we don?t know where Oswald was going when Tippet stopped him or why Tippet got out of his car to approach Oswald. It?s plausible that Oswald was attempting to meet up with someone before the encounter with Tippet. I don?t believe the Texas Theatre was where he had originally intended to go...

Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Walt Cakebread on December 16, 2018, 03:54:47 PM
I?m inclined to believe Oswald shot Tippet but you can?t rule out a Conspiracy just based on the assumption that one guy was involved in two murders.

With that said, we don?t know where Oswald was going when Tippet stopped him or why Tippet got out of his car to approach Oswald. It?s plausible that Oswald was attempting to meet up with someone before the encounter with Tippet. I don?t believe the Texas Theatre was where he had originally intended to go...

we don?t know where Oswald was going when Tippet stopped him or why Tippet got out of his car to approach Oswald.

The man that Helen Markham saw JD Tippit tailing was walking EAST on the sidewalk on the south side of 10th street. When Markham first saw the man being tailed by Tippit he was walking east between Crawford street and Patton  street...and not far from Patton street.  Mrs Markham did not see the man puking, or gasping for breath, as an out of shape person would have been doing if they had just ran full tilt for over a mile, in a few minutes.

P.S. I forgot to point out that Lee's room at 1026 N Beckley was about one mile EAST WESTof 10th and Patton... but the man was walking NORTH EAST ....Which would have been TOWARD the rooming house, not away from it....

Actually the intersection of 10th & Patton is only about three blocks east of the roominghouse and about 8 blocks south ..

It is more accurate to say that 10th and Patton is about a mile ( walking distance) SE of the rooming house. 

Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 17, 2018, 01:35:01 PM
10th & Patton is east of the rooming house.
Title: Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
Post by: Walt Cakebread on December 17, 2018, 02:27:02 PM
10th & Patton is east of the rooming house.

Yes, .. that's correct..I'm in error.  In reality the rooming house is NORTH and west of 10th and Patton....
10th and Patton is about 8 blocks SOUTH and 3 blocks east of the rooming house.

Since the streets are not laid out on a N/S grid and they run diagonally to N/S it is a bit confusing.

However the point is still valid....Helen Markham said the man that Tippit was tailing was walking east ( actually NE ) on 10th.

The man was not gasping for breath, nor was he running, or walking fast.... The official lie is that Lee had dashed the mile from the rooming house to PAST the intersection of 10th & Patton and then reversed his course and walked back along the south side of 10th street and re-crossed Patton.    If that THEORY were true...and the man had been Lee Oswald he would have been gasping for air.