In 54 years has it ever been proven that CE399 is the bullet found at Parkland?

[Martin Weidmann]

Name options 4, 5 and 6.

... no, I am not going to pick one for the simple reason that what I believe is insignificant to the discussion if it can not be backed up by some sort of evidence.

That's an admission that you have nothing. 

What substance are you on? In this thread I am asking a question, not making a claim I need to back up.

You are the one who has nothing, since so far you have failed completely to show that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was ever at Parkland Hospital.

[Martin Weidmann]

Nope, it's only "pretty simple" in your world. There are other options.

Name the options.

Stop whining and trying to divert the discussion to other topics. Instead provide the evidence that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 is in fact the same bullet Tomlinson found! Can you?

[Ross Lidell]

Stop whining and trying to divert the discussion to other topics. Instead provide the evidence that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 is in fact the same bullet Tomlinson found! Can you?

Asking for you to name the options is not "whining".

However... resorting to cliches (and nothing else) indicates a lack of intellectual rigor. 

Diverting to "another" topic? You just don't like how I prosecute "this" topic.

[Martin Weidmann]

Asking for you to name the options is not "whining".

However... resorting to cliches (and nothing else) indicates a lack of intellectual rigor. 

Diverting to "another" topic? You just don't like how I prosecute "this" topic.

And still not even a shred of evidence to show that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was ever at Parkland 

Btw you've been trying to talk about other things from your first post in this thread. I'll be more than happy to discuss any of the stuff you brought up when you start a new thread for that purpose. In this thread I prefer to stay on topic

Oh yeah, before I forget; I already gave an alternative option. If you have read the thread you would have known that!

[Ross Lidell]

What substance are you on? In this thread I am asking a question, not making a claim I need to back up.

You are the one who has nothing, since so far you have failed completely to show that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was ever at Parkland Hospital.

When a member resorts to insults it's certain that he is cornered and cannot respond to the challenge.

I never tried to "prove" anything. I correctly explained that a "conclusion" is what is required with this difference of opinion about CE399.

I provided a list of reasons why I have "concluded" that CE399 is the bullet found at Parkland Hospital. I have not seen a list of reasons to support the alternative proposition: that CE399 was planted at Parkland Hospital but was fired somewhere else other than Dealey Plaza on Friday 22 November 1963 (12:30 pm CST). Alternately that the stretcher bullet was another missile fired in C2766 or some other gun.

You need to offer an opinion as to what you believe is the most logical explanation for a bullet being found by Daryl C. Tomlinson at Parkland Hospital. Either that or accept that you are committed contrarian not willing to follow through on where your question leads.

[Ross Lidell]

And still not even a shred of evidence to show that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was ever at Parkland 

Btw you've been trying to talk about other things from your first post in this thread. I'll be more than happy to discuss any of the stuff you brought up when you start a new thread for that purpose. In this thread I prefer to stay on topic

Oh yeah, before I forget; I already gave an alternative option. If you have read the thread you would have known that!

Is this your alternative option?

I don't have a position, but (and this might confuse you) I don't think any bullet was planted at Parkland Hospital.

You are right: It's confusing. The sentence contains a contradiction.

Accepting you don't think any bullet was planted at Parkland Hospital: Can you explain why?

[Martin Weidmann]

Is this your alternative option?

I don't have a position, but (and this might confuse you) I don't think any bullet was planted at Parkland Hospital.

You are right: It's confusing. The sentence contains a contradiction.

Accepting you don't think any bullet was planted at Parkland Hospital: Can you explain why?

Is this your alternative option?

No. Try to improve your reading skills

You are right: It's confusing. The sentence contains a contradiction.


No it doesn't

Accepting you don't think any bullet was planted at Parkland Hospital: Can you explain why?


Already done