Can anybody name one piece of physical evidence conclusively tied to Oswald which is of such significance that it beyond reasonable doubt clearly points to his guilt?
Prepare yourself for long wait, Martin.
JohnM
Commission Exhibit 399? :P
Jerry,
On it's own, CE-399 doesn't tell us much of anything. It has to be coupled with at least one other piece of evidence to have any evidentiary value. The same goes with pretty much all of the evidence. And that's why I haven't bothered responding to the OP.
- A nonspecific reference to Bugliosi's "53".
Jerry,
On it's own, CE-399 doesn't tell us much of anything. It has to be coupled with at least one other piece of evidence to have any evidentiary value. The same goes with pretty much all of the evidence. And that's why I haven't bothered responding to the OP.
What did I tell you!
(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
Could it actually be your position that all there really is are some individual pieces of physical evidence which perhaps can be tentatively linked to Oswald in some creative manner and require support from other similar pieces to construct a mere circumstantial case by making assumptions?
That's pretty much the entire case against Oswald in a nutshell.
It is worthless
He left his wedding ring at home.
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
Amazing!
Is there really no LN who can name one piece of physical evidence conclusively tied (or even just tentatively, yet convincingly) linked to Oswald that is so credible it points to his guilt?
Name one LNer who claims any one piece of evidence, on it's own, would convict.
... evidence ...doesn't exist. 🤣
Where did I use the words "would convict"?
Hi RC...
I know. Have you ever read this book called the Bastard Bullet by a guy named Marcus?
He completely destroyed the SBT.
JF
That's it... It's all over now.
Poor dumb cop, eh John...
... muddled the numbers and facts of the real SBT
Mr. SPECTER. Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes, could that bullet have gone through or been any part of the fragment passing through President Kennedy's head in Exhibit No. 388?
Commander HUMES. I do not believe so, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And could that missile have made the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?
Commander HUMES. I think that that is most unlikely ... The reason I believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be intact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations.
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Humes, under your opinion which you have just given us, what effect, if any, would that have on whether this bullet, 399, could have been the one to lodge in Governor Connally's thigh?
Commander HUMES. I think that extremely unlikely. The reports, again Exhibit 392 from Parkland, tell of an entrance wound on the lower midthigh of the Governor, and X-rays taken there are described as showing metallic fragments in the bone, which apparently by this report were not removed and are still present in Governor Connally's thigh. I can't conceive of where they came from this missile.
Commission Exhibit 399, is supposed to have:I encourage all to read this complete page.....
entered President Kennedy?s upper back,
passed through his upper back and lower neck,
come out of his throat just below the Adam?s apple,
entered Governor John Connally?s back close to his right armpit,
passed through his body, smashing several inches of one rib,
come out of the right side of his chest,
passed through his right wrist, breaking the radius bone,
embedded itself in his left thigh,
and finally, while Connally was laying on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital, the bullet worked its way out of his thigh and fell onto the stretcher, where it was discovered by a hospital employee.
The "fact of the real Single Bullet Theory"? So it is admitted there that it is indeed a theory?
Either that or someone's head seems to be "muddled".
Ladies and gentleman.....
The Report muddles the facts!
Here's what happened... CE 399 was planted on a stretcher.
I believe it was fired from the suspect rifle...but previously ...into a mattress maybe then retrieved and kept to use as incriminating evidence so that it could be identified by ballistics.
Another 'bread crumb' someone has called it.
We have a number of guest viewers, so for the benefit of all...I encourage all to read this complete page.....
http://22november1963.org.uk/ce-399-magic-bullet-planted-or-genuine
Who was the 'hospital employee that found' that bullet...does anyone know?
As your link above mentions, Darrell Tomlinson was the hospital worker who said he found it.I reviewed the testimony of Tomlinson pasting some here.
Questions about planting a bullet:
Mr. TOMLINSON. I don't know anything about what could have happened to them in between the time I was gone, and I made several trips before I discovered the bullet on the end of it there.....I have questions too.
later testimony......
Mr. SPECTER. Now, after I tell you that, does that have any effect on refreshing your recollection of what you told the Secret Service man?
Mr. TOMLINSON. No it really doesn't---it really doesn't.
Mr. SPECTER. So, would it be a fair summary to say that when I first started to talk to you about it, your first view was that the stretcher you took off of the elevator was stretcher A, and then I told you that the Secret Service man said it was---that you had said the stretcher you took off of the elevator was the one that you found the bullet off, and when we talked about the whole matter and talked over the entire situation, you really can't be completely sure about which stretcher you took off of the elevator, because you didn't push the stretcher that you took off of the elevator right against the wall at first?
Mr. TOMLINSON. That's right.
Mr. SPECTER. And, there was a lot of confusion that day, which is what you told me before?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Absolutely. And now, honestly, I don't remember telling him definitely-I know we talked about it, and I told him that it could have been. Now, he might have drawed his own conclusion on that.
Mr. SPECTER. You told the Secret Service agent that you didn't know where---
Mr. TOMLINSON. (interrupting). He asked me if it could have been brought down from the second floor.
Mr. SPECTER. You got the stretcher from where the bullet came from, whether it was brought down from the second floor?
Mr. TOMLINSON. It could have been--I'm not sure whether it was A I took off.
Mr. SPECTER. But did you tell the Secret Service man which one you thought it was you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I'm not clear on that---whether I absolutely made a positive statement to that effect.
Mr. SPECTER. You told him that it could have been B you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. That's right.
Mr. SPECTER. But, you don't remember whether you told him it was A you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I think it was A---I'm not really sure.
You might as well have
Really?
I actually lowered the bar and purposely did not ask for anything more than the naming of a piece of physical evidence conclusively linked to Oswald that clearly points to his guilt, but it seems even that bar was too high for the LNs
Name one LNer who claims any one piece of evidence, on it's own, would convict.
I reviewed the testimony of Tomlinson pasting some here.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tomlinso.htmI have questions too.
Why did the Secret Service need to interview Tomlinson a week after the FBI did?
Seems like the president's body guards were more conscientious/diligent after he was killed than they ever were before hand.
Questions alright...that the Commission should have answered.
Gosh, if only there was something to distinguish Oswald from other men who may have left their rings at home that day. What could it be?
Something about, I don't know, working in the building where a shooter shot JFK?
Maybe, perhaps, something about carrying a large package into the building?
Something about leaving nearly all of his money behind that day?
Something about holding radical anti-US views?
No, we're supposed to ignore all of that and just think about the ring.
And, if CE 399 isn't the bullet that went through JFK, then where IS that bullet? Did it disappear?
Not too high, not if any of you were in any way reasonable, even in the slightest.
As JFK said, if someone wanted to shoot him with a rifle from a tall building there was nothing anyone could do about it. That is unless the President would stop traveling in an open limo; which is what happened after the assassination.
Did the SS perform poorly? Yes, it certainly appears so but I'm not sure they could have stopped Oswald - who I think shot JFK - from killing the president.
As to my questions: It's pretty obvious - at least to me - that it would be impossible to plant a bullet BEFORE the actual event occurred. How could any "planters" foresee what happened? How could they be sure that the bullet they planted wouldn't be an extra one, one that would show their conspiracy? How could they know that the bullet that did hit JFK didn't fragment so that their phony bullet would expose their acts?
Answer: they couldn't.
Besides, the bullet that exited JFK's throat/neck had to go somewhere. Where did it go?
Congratulations. You've just demonstrated that the wedding ring is irrelevant. If it's about other "evidence" then the ring has nothing to do with it.
So did scores of other people. Were any of them even asked about their wedding rings?
You mean the package that was too short to hold the alleged murder weapon? I suspect lots of employees carried in packages that were too short to hold the alleged murder weapon.
You mean the way he left money for Marina every time he visited?
Something about admiring JFK and thinking he was doing a very good job.
Why wouldn't we ignore all that? It's not evidence of anything.
So did scores of other people. Were any of them even asked about their wedding rings?
You mean the package that was too short to hold the alleged murder weapon?
I suspect lots of employees carried in packages that were too short to hold the alleged murder weapon.
You mean the way he left money for Marina every time he visited?
Something about admiring JFK...
powerful emotional symbolism
Oswald didn't merely forget his Wedding Ring but with powerful emotional symbolism left his Wedding Ring in Marina's family heirloom.
What, the package that Frazier never payed specific attention to, that package?
Sure but why would Oswald LIE about the contents of the package?, Oswald told Frazier the long package contained curtain rods but Oswald told the Dallas Police that Frazier was mistaken and that he only had sandwiches.
And don't forget Oswald also said he carried his lunch on his lap, another LIE!
Btw while in custody Oswald's LIES whenever the rifle came up were extremely incriminating;
1. Lying about buying, possessing and being seen using the murder weapon.
2. Lying about his package.
3. Lying about where he put his package.
4. Lying about the backyard photos.
5. Lying about never living at Neeley Street.
6. etc etc
And hypothetically if Oswald believed his marriage was over by leaving his ring in Marina's cup then why would he leave most of his money and only leave himself with a pocket of change and a five dollar note?
Are you sure? Oswald admired Kennedy so much that while Oswald's hero was passing by the building, Oswald steadfastly refused to witness what would surely be a once in a lifetime opportunity and instead just sat in the lunchroom? LOL!
Well, there we have it!
Not one LN can name a single piece of physical evidence against Oswald that isn't problematic. What better way to demonstrate that the case against Oswald is based on mere assumptions rather than actual evidence?
Can anybody name one piece of physical evidence conclusively tied to Oswald which is of such significance that it beyond reasonable doubt clearly points to his guilt?
Sheesh Martin, you can't even remember your own OP.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,638.0.html
Oswald's Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD is evidence against Oswald that isn't problematic. However, would it be enough on it's own to convince a jury of Oswald's guilt? Probably, but there is the slight chance that it would not. Now, include the shell casings found in the Sniper's nest and the evidence against Oswald becomes conclusive. Replace the shell casings with the fragments found in the limo or CE-399 and the case against Oswald is similarly conclusive.
As your link above mentions, Darrell Tomlinson was the hospital worker who said he found it.
Questions about planting a bullet:
How did the "planters" know to plant a bullet that was only "slightly" damaged if it was to have gone through at least one person the President? And no one else?
How did the "planters" know they could plant that bullet before they knew how many other bullets would be recovered? How could they have known that CE 399 would not be the "extra bullet" that would blow the whole plot? That it wouldn't reveal another shooter?
How did the "planters" know what general size, shape and condition the bullet could be - had to be - before the actual bullets would be found? Before Connally was operated on? What if a large part of the bullet that hit JFK was found in JFK's neck or upper back, a piece or fragment that was too big to have come from CE 399? What if a large piece was lodged in Connally? What if it had gone through JFK and hit the interior of the car? Or another passenger?
How did the "planters" know before the assassination they could do all of this, i.e, plant that specific bullet with its unique qualities, afterwards? That their actions wouldn't reveal the plot?
And, if CE 399 isn't the bullet that went through JFK, then where IS that bullet? Did it disappear?
How did the "planters" know to plant a bullet that was only "slightly" damaged if it was to have gone through at least one person the President? And no one else?Whoever planted that bullet was not concerned with what it was supposed to have inflicted. A bullet that could be definitely linked to the suspected rifle was what was desired.
How did the "planters" know they could plant that bullet before they knew how many other bullets would be recovered? How could they have known that CE 399 would not be the "extra bullet" that would blow the whole plot? That it wouldn't reveal another shooter?Same as above. Only that bullet would be found. The fix was in. This is why the body of the president was Shanghai-ed back to DC ASAP.
How did the "planters" know what general size, shape and condition the bullet could be - had to be - before the actual bullets would be found? Before Connally was operated on? What if a large part of the bullet that hit JFK was found in JFK's neck or upper back, a piece or fragment that was too big to have come from CE 399? What if a large piece was lodged in Connally? What if it had gone through JFK and hit the interior of the car? Or another passenger?Asking the same basic question redundantly. The president's dead body received more 'protection' than when he was alive!
How did the "planters" know before the assassination they could do all of this, i.e, plant that specific bullet with its unique qualities, afterwards? That their actions wouldn't reveal the plot?The fix was in! Good Grief Charlie Brown!
And, if CE 399 isn't the bullet that went through JFK, then where IS that bullet? Did it disappear?No. For all we know there are still bullets in the president's body. They put him in the ground ASAP by orders of LBJ.
Whoever planted that bullet was not concerned with what it was supposed to have inflicted. A bullet that could be definitely linked to the suspected rifle was what was desired.Same as above. Only that bullet would be found. The fix was in. This is why the body of the president was Shanghai-ed back to DC ASAP. Asking the same basic question redundantly. The president's dead body received more 'protection' than when he was alive! The fix was in! Good Grief Charlie Brown! No. For all we know there are still bullets in the president's body. They put him in the ground ASAP by orders of LBJ.
Oswald's Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD is evidence against Oswald that isn't problematic. However, would it be enough on it's own to convince a jury of Oswald's guilt? Probably, but there is the slight chance that it would not. Now, include the shell casings found in the Sniper's nest and the evidence against Oswald becomes conclusive. Replace the shell casings with the fragments found in the limo or CE-399 and the case against Oswald is similarly conclusive.
Oswald's Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD is evidence against Oswald that isn't problematic.
Would you oblige me and take a couple of minutes and explain to me how Lee could have hid that rifle under a wooden pallet of books that was FIVE (5) FEET from the aisle at the top of the stairs. ....
And I'm not requesting that you explain the BS about the rifle being jammed between boxes of books that were only a couple of feet from that aisle.... Detective Robert Studebaker recorded the rifle as being on the floor 15 feet four inches from the north wall..... that distance places the rifle over five feet fom the aisle....
| (http://i68.tinypic.com/n1zbbs.jpg) | (http://i65.tinypic.com/25hfwoo.jpg) |
How could Lee Oswald have hid that rifle that was nearly his full height away from the aisle?? Explanation please...
The shell casings and fragments (if genuine) might implicate a particular rifle, but not a shooter.
Can anybody name one piece of physical evidence conclusively tied to Oswald which is of such significance that it beyond reasonable doubt clearly points to his guilt?
Can anybody name one piece of credible evidence conclusively tied to the assassination which is of such significance that it beyond reasonable doubt clearly points to a conspiracy?
I can't.
Now can you answer Martin's question?
I answered it with a question. I agree with Tim Nickerson regarding the combination of evidence. The preponderance of the evidence points to LHO. That is what convinced me.
Can anybody name one piece of credible evidence conclusively tied to the assassination which is of such significance that it beyond reasonable doubt clearly points to a conspiracy?
I'm sure that I could call out at least six pieces of evidence that points to a conspiracy....But at the same time I'm sure that you couldn't see them....We're waiting...?.
We're waiting...?.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
In other words; just pile up as much as you like, don't question it or examine it closely, call it evidence and conclude that the preponderance of evidence points to LHO.....
It doesn't matter if a conspiracy can be proven or not. Even if it can't be proven, it still does not allow the conclusion that Oswald did it (alone), so your question has very little to do with my question. Care to try again?
I'm sure that I could call out at least six pieces of evidence that points to a conspiracy....But at the same time I'm sure that you couldn't see them....
You have a habit of attempting to put words and ideas into posts that I never said or even hinted at. Please stop.
What is the point of the question? The criminal justice system does not require that there be ANY ONE piece of evidence sufficient to convict.
Perhaps you should try to communicate more clearly. I am merely telling you what I have understood your position seems to be.
A preponderance of evidence is hardly any good if the evidence itself is weak, speculative and questionable, right?
If you go there and state that a preponderance of evidence points to LHO's guilt, you must feel comfortable that the actual evidence is authentic and valid, right?
So, if I have misrepresented what you have said, please tell me what exactly I misunderstood and I will gladly correct my post(s).
I do communicate clearly. You are jumping to conclusions about my position and how I got there. Again, please stop.
I do communicate clearly.
No, you are making grand claims without wanting to own the obvious implication of that claim. In my neck of the woods they call that "blowing hot air".
You are jumping to conclusions about my position and how I got there. Again, please stop.
There you go again.... If I am jumping to conclusions it's only because you fail to explain what it is exactly that you are saying.
As long as you keep doing that, I will continue to try and understand you by "jumping to conclusions".
A far easier way of doing things is if you would simply state your position clearly, but it seems you don't want to go there....
Your jumping to conclusions isn?t likely to get a good response from me.
Me just asking you for an explanation to avoid having to jump to conclusions isn't getting a good response from you either?.
By jumping to conclusions I might just get a response from you telling me that I've got something wrong. Perhaps, that in turn will eventually lead me to what it is you are really saying....
It's a bit like trying to get blood out of a stone, but there you go....
Have you asked a question without first telling me what you think my position is and how I arrived there? Perhaps I missed it.
Evasive... you want to be taken seriously? Stop playing games...
I didn?t think so.
Let's agree to disagree? you keep playing games and I'll keep on jumping to obvious conclusions that you don't like....
How many other people just ignore you?
Can anybody name one piece of physical evidence conclusively tied to Oswald which is of such significance that it beyond reasonable doubt clearly points to his guilt?
How many other people just ignore you?
Sheesh Martin, you can't even remember your own OP.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,638.0.html
Have you asked a question without first telling me what you think my position is and how I arrived there? Perhaps I missed it.
I tried that once. I asked you what specifically convinced you that Oswald did it. You didn?t want to go there. So, yeah, I think you?re playing games too.
I have no desire to ?play games? here? I have better things to do with my time. If you can honestly say to yourself that you have given both sides of the controversy a fair consideration with an open mind, I respect your opinion. Even though I might not agree with your opinion. Only you know for sure whether you have. No matter what you might say to others.
The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing. People have tried to discredit the evidence and I believe that I give their opinions a fair, open-minded consideration. If you believe that you have and have a different opinion, then I respect that. That is my position.
The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing.
That's true.....The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing...that there was a conspiracy behind the coup d e'tat....
I have no desire to ?play games? here? I have better things to do with my time. If you can honestly say to yourself that you have given both sides of the controversy a fair consideration with an open mind, I respect your opinion. Even though I might not agree with your opinion. Only you know for sure whether you have. No matter what you might say to others.
The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing. People have tried to discredit the evidence and I believe that I give their opinions a fair, open-minded consideration. If you believe that you have and have a different opinion, then I respect that. That is my position.
Oswald himself.
Never ignore the highest-paid trolls
Bill Chapman
Hunter of Trolls
The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing.
So you keep claiming, while ?open-mindedly? refusing to examine any of this evidence.
In other words, there is no single piece of physical evidence, conclusively tied to Oswald, which is of such significance that it beyond reasonable doubt clearly points to his guilt?
Is that what you are saying?
I see you're back to projecting again...
I have already examined the evidence. What is so difficult to understand about that statement?
I have already examined the evidence. What is so difficult to understand about that statement?
That?s one theory. Another would be that you can?t actually justify your state of convincedness with anything besides an appeal to authority.
I have examined the evidence from several points of view. First several CT viewpoints , then the official report, several LN viewpoints, my own research, viewpoints of forum discussion, etc
Your theory has no evidence to support it.
Your theory has no evidence to support it.
That's rich, since you have no clue if John even has a theory and what it is.
It's also ignorant and arrogant at the same time. The only theory that actually presents conclusions not supported by the evidence is the WCR.
If you would stop jumping to conclusions and actually read his post, you might be able to see that I was referring to his stated theory regarding me.
Let's agree to disagree? you keep playing games and I'll keep on jumping to obvious conclusions that you don't like....
Let's agree to disagree?You can't even get people here to agree with that (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/deadhorsebeat_2.gif)
Show us an obvious conclusion
I have examined the evidence from several points of view. First several CT viewpoints , then the official report, several LN viewpoints, my own research, viewpoints of forum discussion, etc
None of that is reflected in anything you have written here. All you?ve done is said that you?re convinced, you?re not interested in discussing the evidence, and that you?ve ?already considered? all the objections to the evidence and you don?t care because your mind is made up.
That?s great for you, but not a particularly compelling defense of the official narrative.
It basically amounts to ?The WC said it, I believe it, and that settles it?. Ok, but lots of us don?t.
None of that is reflected in anything you have written here. All you?ve done is said that you?re convinced, you?re not interested in discussing the evidence, and that you?ve ?already considered? all the objections to the evidence and you don?t care because your mind is made up.
That?s great for you, but not a particularly compelling defense of the official narrative.
It basically amounts to ?The WC said it, I believe it, and that settles it?. Ok, but lots of us don?t.
None of that is reflected in anything you have written here. All you?ve done is said that you?re convinced, you?re not interested in discussing the evidence, and that you?ve ?already considered? all the objections to the evidence and you don?t care because your mind is made up.
That?s great for you, but not a particularly compelling defense of the official narrative.
It basically amounts to ?The WC said it, I believe it, and that settles it?. Ok, but lots of us don?t.
Do you think that I need to hear your personal viewpoint before I say that the evidence is overwhelming convincing? Is your viewpoint THAT important?
I didn?t say the things you wrote. Those are your words. I am not trying to tell you that you have to defend your conclusions to me. I am only suggesting that it is wise to have an open mind.
Which brings us back to the basic question I asked earlier; what in the world are you doing here?
It seems at least a bit strange to me that you join a forum that discusses the case against Oswald and thus also the evidence only to refuse to discuss the evidence or the case.
You keep on telling us that you didn't say things you clearly implicitely did say and you keep telling everybody to have an open mind whilst at the same time displaying time after time that your own mind is clearly closed.
In any event, now the members of this forum have noted your opinion that the evidence is "overwhelming convincing", is there anything left to be discussed with you?
I joined many years ago to learn. I was here long before the forum had to start all over and all of us had to re-register. If I remember correctly my screen name was porterhaus. I have already discussed many aspects with a lot of different members. I don?t have a desire to repeat the arguments that have been discussed countless times before.
You are behaving like I?m some newcomer that is saying things that I never said.
I joined many years ago to learn.
Fair enough. So did I, just not so long ago
I was here long before the forum had to start all over and all of us had to re-register.
Which is exactly why I asked the question. Why did you re-register, when you don?t have "a desire to repeat the arguments that have been discussed countless times before."
Seems like a waste of time....
You are behaving like I?m some newcomer that is saying things that I never said.
Newcomer or not, you are very good at not saying things that you are clearly saying. Perhaps talking in riddles is your new hobby?
I keep returning from time to time to see if there is any new items that are being discussed. Typically I say what I mean and mean what I say. However, misunderstandings are common here and other similar venues.
I appreciate your comments Paul. I keep hoping that something new will be uncovered but know that it is unlikely. My first post here involved looking for evidence of the timing of the shot that the WC never defined the timing of. I have explored many avenues and learned a lot. I don?t claim to be an expert, don?t have all the details memorized, but I do believe that I have looked at this with an open mind. And that is the point that I wish to make.
You are right. However, I don?t think that I yet know everything about the assassination that I would like to know. And I really do want to have an open mind. This is a place where both sides of the controversy can be discussed. So here I am.
I keep returning from time to time to see if there is any new items that are being discussed.
Despite the fact that you know that is unlikely;
So, what to make of this;
Except you are not discussing anything. Go figure!
However, misunderstandings are common here and other similar venues.
Misunderstandings can very often be simply avoided by speaking more clearly and explaining something when asked.
If you have anything new to discuss, let?s hear it!
Another way to avoid misunderstandings is to avoid jumping to conclusions.
Another way to avoid misunderstandings is to avoid jumping to conclusions.
No, because jumping to conclusions is part of a process to trying to understand. Even if one does not jump to a conclusion the misunderstand will still be there, albeit unresolved.
When you keep talking in riddles and implicitely saying things that you claim you are not saying, you basically invite people to jump to conclusions.
The conclusion I have now jumped to whilst btw having in open mind, is that you, like some of your LN brothers, have nothing significant to offer and are only wasting my time.
Asking a question instead of telling someone that they said something that they didn?t might be something for you to consider doing.
So please ignore me. I promise I won?t be offended.
Asking a question instead of telling someone that they said something that they didn?t
That wouldn't happen of course if you answered questions to begin with, which of course you don't!
So please ignore me.
Since you offer no contribution to the discussion(s) or the forum, that might indeed be the best advice you have ever given.
You seem to be eager to give other people advice on what they should do, so let's see if you are as equally eager at accepting advice; perhaps you should ask yourself why the majority of people you have talked to in your posts since re-joining all have the same or at least similar opinion of you?.
Another way to avoid misunderstandings is to avoid jumping to conclusions.
No, because jumping to conclusions is part of a process to trying to understand. Even if one does not jump to a conclusion the misunderstanding will still be there, albeit unresolved.
When you keep talking in riddles and implicitely saying things that you claim you are not saying, you basically invite people to jump to conclusions.
The conclusion I have now jumped to whilst btw having an open mind, is that you, like some of your LN brothers, have nothing significant to offer and are only wasting my time.
[/quot
>>> Charles you can fix your HTML by adding an "e" and a square bracket to this
I am not here for a popularity contest.
So you can say why you are not here, but you can't or won't say why you are here not taking part in discussions. You are truly hilarious!
I was 10-years old and in the classroom at school when the assassination took place. I think that most everyone would agree that it is highly unlikely that I had anything to do with any alleged conspiracy. You might want to consider refocusing your attention to the assassination. Most readers are probably more interested in the assassination than they are in little old me.
Most readers are probably more interested in the assassination than they are in little old me.
Indeed, so why are you here?
Only telling people to have an open mind? I hope not because that would insult their intelligence and show you to be highly arrogant.
Btw, you made this about you.... not me!
you keep telling everybody to have an open mind whilst at the same time displaying time after time that your own mind is clearly closed.
Are you just paid to harass people that have a different viewpoint than you?
Bingo!
Charles, before you ?got tired of having the same arguments?, was there ever a time that you specified what particular evidence you found so convincing and why?
I fully expect you to evade this question too...
Am I paid? Really?
And how in the world would you or I know if our viewpoints differ when you are unwilling to discuss them?
Who is jumping to conclusions now?
I think that the reason you keep wanting to have the same old arguments is that you are not very secure in your opinion. I am satisfied with my opinion. I have examined the evidence and answered any questions that I had to my satisfaction. Sometimes my questions were presented here and discussed.
I ASKED a question. I didn?t make a claim. Conclusions are different than questions.
It was obvious what you were doing and putting a question mark behind it doesn't alter that one bit.
The only part of the "question" that possibly required an answer was if I was being paid, which was a ridicilous question to begin with..
That I "harass people that have a different viewpoint" was and is a claim not a question.
I think that the reason you keep wanting to have the same old arguments is that you are not very secure in your opinion.
Jump to conclusions much?
I am satisfied with my opinion.
Yes, so you say. And in that there's no big suprise there. Every zealot is convinced that he is right. However, not having the guts to discuss the evidence and coming up with a lame excuse for that, is a far better indicator of just how secure you really feel then something you just think.
I have examined the evidence and answered any questions that I had to my satisfaction.
So you keep saying... but why? Are you perhaps trying to convince yourself?
Sometimes my questions were presented here and discussed.
Great... so your questions should be discussed, but you are not willing to discuss the questions of others.....
You really are some piece of work.
I think that the reason you keep wanting to have the same old arguments is that you are not very secure in your opinion.
Yes that part is a claim. Maybe you do understand the difference. And if you claim that it isn?t true then I think most people would disagree with you.
I prefaced the opinion with the words ?I think.? That defines it as an opinion, not a claim.
Really?
So you are in the habit of giving opinions you don't necessarily agree with sufficiently to claim it?
In any case, why don't you stop presenting your opinion as if it was a claim?
I'm sure that I could call out at least six pieces of evidence that points to a conspiracy....But at the same time I'm sure that you couldn't see them....We're waiting...?.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Beuller........Beuller.......Cakebread
Why don?t you stop making claims that you know are untrue? I have asked you to stop several times and you still insist that you are going to keep doing it.
Untrue?
It seems to me you don't even know what the word means. You keep talking in riddles, making claims that you can/will not back up with anything solid. It's pathetic.
There isn't anything I said that wasn't true. And you can't provide a single example of something that isn't true.
As long as you keep playing these immature games I will indeed continue to keep on calling you out about things you claim you are not saying whilst actually saying it.
You have posted 63 times since March 28 and none of your post have been either part of a discussion or otherwise informative, which - again - justifies the question what it is exactly that you are doing here, except bore us all to death of course?
I give up. You are completely hopeless. Good luck.
How big is your mirror?
I doubt his mirror is big enough to see the reflection a giant fool....
Regardless, it turned out that Charles Collins is just one more LN who believes evidence which he can or will not explain, defend or discuss.
Particularly annoying after he demanded (in the other thread) that I explain myself after I said that what little evidence there is that points to LHO is weak and circumstantial and all of it is questionable, arguable, impeachable, or tainted in some way. I responded with a lengthy and detailed explanation. Then all of a sudden he?s not interested in discussing the evidence.