Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10
41
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Brown Paper Bag
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 09:34:15 PM »
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 07:34:19 PM
If you want me to reply to this mess, clean up the post.

On second thought don't even bother. I am not wasting my time in going over the same lies and assumptions every time.

All this constant BS about "logical inference" when it is in fact a mere assumption, the BS about "matching" fibers, the idiotic conclusions based on "common sense" claims and massive lies, like that the paper bag was not folded up when it was found (when the WC actually said it was) and your bogus claim that I consider the polygraph as evidence that Frazier accurately recalled the length of the package (when in fact he told to truth about how he saw Oswald carry in the cup of his hand and under his armpit) is more enough for me to conclude that you are a complete idiot who couldn't tell the truth if it saved his life. We're done.

I accept your surrender.
42
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Brown Paper Bag
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 09:33:01 PM »
Quote from: Bill Brown on Yesterday at 04:49:46 PM
This is where you're confused.  I'm not the one picking and choosing.  I'm willing to throw out everything Whaley says about what Oswald was wearing inside his cab.  YOU are the one insisting Oswald was wearing a jacket inside the cab.

Another reason to doubt Oswald was wearing a jacket post-assassination is that his former landlady spotted him on Cecil McWatters bus shortly after the assassination. She described a hole Oswald had in the elbow of a shirt, a whole that was present in the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested. Bledsoe could not have seen that hole if Oswald was wearing a jacket.

"Having considered the probabilities as explained in Stombaugh's testimony, the Commission has concluded that the fibers in the tuft on the rifle most probably came from the shirt worn by Oswald when he was arrested, and that this was the same shirt which Oswald wore on the morning of the assassination. Marina Oswald testified that she thought her husband wore this shirt to work on that day. The testimony of those who saw him after the assassination was inconclusive about the color of Oswald's shirt,72 but Mary Bledsoe, a former landlady of Oswald, saw him on a bus approximately 10 minutes after the assassination and identified the shirt as being the one worn by Oswald primarily because of a distinctive hole in the shirt's right elbow. 73 Moreover, the bus transfer which he obtained as he left. the bus was still in the pocket when he was arrested.74 Although Oswald returned to his roominghouse after the assassination and when questioned by the police, claimed to have changed his shirt,75 the evidence indicates that he continued wearing the same shirt which he was wearing all morning and which he was still wearing when arrested."

From pages 124-125 of the Warren Commission Report.

Note to Martin Wiedmann:
This is how one provides a cite to support a statement one has made. I realize it's not possible for you to do this when you have just made something up out of thin air.
43
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Podcast On Tippit
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 09:22:00 PM »
Quote from: Bill Brown on Yesterday at 09:12:35 PM


I was wondering when the childish crap would start. I obviously expected it as it is usually at the moment when you get stuck.

Old school LN temper tantrums are still around.... Hilarious!
44
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Brown Paper Bag
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 09:19:15 PM »
Quote from: Bill Brown on Yesterday at 09:09:48 PM
You simply don't get it.  I posted an image of both affidavits, with no commentary; just the images, nothing more.  YOU then challenged their authenticity.  Then we went from there.  Perhaps you should scroll back and have a look.

As for the documents being fake, as you claim... I completely disagree.  Like I told you before, the simple fact that the affidavits say "Erwin" (instead of Irving) should tell you that someone was transcribing as they were listening to Frazier speak with that unmistakable accent of his (as opposed to someone simply typing in the word "Erwin" for some other reason which makes no sense).  You don't display the ability to think logically.  That's your biggest problem.

Some things never change.

Perhaps you should scroll back and have a look.

I did. That's why I know there was no reason to bring up eating pizza with Frazier. Oh wait, perhaps a completely failed appeal to authority?

As for the documents being fake, as you claim... I completely disagree.

Of course you do. A LN will always accept anything that supports his narrative regardless if it is authentic evidence or not.

Like I told you before, the simple fact that the affidavits say "Erwin" (instead of Irving) should tell you that someone was transcribing as they were listening to Frazier speak

No. You just made that up. There isn't a notary that would accept such a mistake.

You don't display the ability to think logically.  That's your biggest problem.

Let me guess, you consider it to be completely logical to use documents from, off all places, Ridley's. Not to mention that they don't have the usual form of an affidavit (you have seen enough real ones to know this) and not to mention that Frazier's signature is completely different.

I think my biggest problem is that I am talking to a dumbass who thinks he is thinking logically!
45
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Podcast On Tippit
« Last post by Bill Brown on Yesterday at 09:12:35 PM »
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 09:10:44 PM
But no worries, Bill... It's not the first time you've run away from a simple question.  Thumb1:

46
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Podcast On Tippit
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 09:10:44 PM »
Quote from: Bill Brown on Yesterday at 09:03:20 PM
I'm not trying to avoid any discussion on Earlene Roberts.  Unlike you, I do not wish to argue over things just for the sake of arguing.  We've discussed Roberts a million times.  Maybe a week from now I'll want to argue with you some more.  Right now?  No interest.  I've made my points.

I was asking you why Roberts was so damned special. I did not ask you to argue about it.

But no worries, Bill... It's not the first time you've run away from a simple question.  Thumb1:

47
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Brown Paper Bag
« Last post by Bill Brown on Yesterday at 09:09:48 PM »
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 08:32:51 PM
I didn't speak of having dinner with Buell Frazier until it was necessary.

And what exactly made it necessary? There wasn't anything, as far as I can tell. By your own words, you knew two weeks ago that the "affidavits" can from Ripley's. That should have been enough to know that they couldn't be relied on.

And no, Frazier didn't acknowledge that the rifle was in the bag. The massive difference with his autograph on the car registration makes it obvious those documents are fake.
And you understood that also two weeks ago, because if you thought for a second that they were authentic you would not have had a need to discuss them with Dave Perry.

You simply don't get it.  I posted an image of both affidavits, with no commentary; just the images, nothing more.  YOU then challenged their authenticity.  Then we went from there.  Perhaps you should scroll back and have a look.

As for the documents being fake, as you claim... I completely disagree.  Like I told you before, the simple fact that the affidavits say "Erwin" (instead of Irving) should tell you that someone was transcribing as they were listening to Frazier speak with that unmistakable accent of his (as opposed to someone simply typing in the word "Erwin" for some other reason which makes no sense).  You don't display the ability to think logically.  That's your biggest problem.
48
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Podcast On Tippit
« Last post by Bill Brown on Yesterday at 09:03:20 PM »
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 08:05:22 PM
I didn't say they were of by six minutes. Based on what Bowles said they could have been. But I actually do not believe they were six minutes off.
They give Bowley's radio call at 1:17. If the timestamp was off by six minutes, Bowley would have made the call at 1:11, which is not possible because the drive from the school took 13 minutes. I believe it's likely that Bowley really made his call at around 1:14 (real time), which would make the timestamps off by roughly 3 minutes,

And still no answer about Roberts..... Why am I not surpirsed?

I'm not trying to avoid any discussion on Earlene Roberts.  Unlike you, I do not wish to argue over things just for the sake of arguing.  We've discussed Roberts a million times.  Maybe a week from now I'll want to argue with you some more.  Right now?  No interest.  I've made my points.
49
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Brown Paper Bag
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 08:32:51 PM »
Quote from: Bill Brown on Yesterday at 07:29:42 PM

I have no need to lie.  Also, I have pics.  Not that you'll ever see them.

As for your "ego" comment, you're being foolish.  I didn't speak of having dinner with Buell Frazier until it was necessary.  I posted the two affidavits where Frazier acknowledges that the rifle was in the car.  You called them fakes.  That prompted me to inform you that I've already made an attempt to verify.

Like you, I simply wanted to verify for myself (in this case, the authenticity of the two affidavits).  If I had plans to speak of what was discussed during this pizza dinner with Buell, then I would have asked him (and Dave Perry) right then and there if I could discuss (on various internet forums and Facebook groups) what we talked about.

How many times are you going to comment on something which you know nothing about?

I didn't speak of having dinner with Buell Frazier until it was necessary.

And what exactly made it necessary? There wasn't anything, as far as I can tell. By your own words, you knew two weeks ago that the "affidavits" can from Ripley's. That should have been enough to know that they couldn't be relied on.

And no, Frazier didn't acknowledge that the rifle was in the bag. The massive difference with his autograph on the car registration makes it obvious those documents are fake.
And you understood that also two weeks ago, because if you thought for a second that they were authentic you would not have had a need to discuss them with Dave Perry.

50
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Podcast On Tippit
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 08:05:22 PM »
Quote from: Bill Brown on Yesterday at 07:57:00 PM

So two minutes for "this" clock, plus two minutes for "that" clock, plus two minutes for the "other" clock means the timestamps are off by six minutes.  Got it.
 ::)

I didn't say they were of by six minutes. Based on what Bowles said they could have been. But I actually do not believe they were six minutes off.
They give Bowley's radio call at 1:17. If the timestamp was off by six minutes, Bowley would have made the call at 1:11, which is not possible because the drive from the school took 13 minutes. I believe it's likely that Bowley really made his call at around 1:14 (real time), which would make the timestamps off by roughly 3 minutes,

And still no answer about Roberts..... Why am I not surpirsed?
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10