Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: A straight line  (Read 111741 times)

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: A straight line
« Reply #208 on: March 02, 2018, 03:36:21 AM »
Advertisement
Sigh.  No, Bill.  It's a lame excuse because it's completely contrived with no evidence whatsoever that Oswald wanted to "look like a sniper" while shooting the president.  If that was the case, and he had actually done it, why would he deny doing it?

You mean the same Marina who said there was no scope on this rifle at the time?

Oswald denied everything
Marina wasn't in the sniper nest at the time

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #208 on: March 02, 2018, 03:36:21 AM »


Offline Jack Trojan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
Re: A straight line
« Reply #209 on: March 02, 2018, 03:44:47 AM »
You state that as if you know it from experience.  Are you a forensic crime analyst as well? That's quite a resume you've got there.

Spank you very much. But you don't have to be an expert to use some common sense, logic and maybe a little research. You should try it sometime.

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: A straight line
« Reply #210 on: March 02, 2018, 03:49:52 AM »
It sure is easy to make an argument when you just assume that the thing you're trying to prove is true.

Show us where I claim the BY scene is proof of murder
Show us where I have claimed that any single factor on its own is proof of murder

My earlier post:
"However, brandishing a rifle, with pistol on his hip, decked out in all-black getup, clutching commie literature* and posing for the camera might suggest that which you dismiss so easily may be not so far off the mark after all"

Show us where I have ever claimed that I could prove Oswald was the killer

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #210 on: March 02, 2018, 03:49:52 AM »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: A straight line
« Reply #211 on: March 02, 2018, 04:22:39 AM »
The fact that you called it a 'lame excuse' suggests you must know Oswald would not want to 'look like a sniper'

No.

Try to follow along, please, if you can...

The person making the claim could not possibly know what Oswald was thinking, so any claim based on that alone would automatically be a lame excuse.

Get it now?

Are you sure the original poster claimed that he knew what Oswald was thinking?
Are you suggesting that I claimed to know what Oswald was thinking?
Are you sure that I require your help in this matter?

A person can study Oswald's backstory including the BY scene, the 'killer of facsists' note, George DeM joking around about the Walker attempt, Oswald often calling himself important (according to Marina, and which she also found funny).

I contend that adding the scope to the mix could arguably align with Oswald's known arrogant behaviour.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2018, 04:34:05 AM by Bill Chapman »

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7394
Re: A straight line
« Reply #212 on: March 02, 2018, 10:24:22 AM »

Iacoletti = 787 posts in less than two months.

Pretty damn busy, John


A classic BS argument, frequently used by LNs as if it matters.

Whenever Mytton gets stuck he often uses the same crap. Did you get the idea from him, perhaps?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #212 on: March 02, 2018, 10:24:22 AM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7394
Re: A straight line
« Reply #213 on: March 02, 2018, 10:31:23 AM »
Show us where I claim the BY scene is proof of murder
Show us where I have claimed that any single factor on its own is proof of murder

My earlier post:
"However, brandishing a rifle, with pistol on his hip, decked out in all-black getup, clutching commie literature* and posing for the camera might suggest that which you dismiss so easily may be not so far off the mark after all"

Show us where I have ever claimed that I could prove Oswald was the killer

What's the point of a lame "I don't know for sure but he possibly could have" argument?

It means nothing and does not contribute to the discussion, does it now?



Are you sure the original poster claimed that he knew what Oswald was thinking?
Are you suggesting that I claimed to know what Oswald was thinking?
Are you sure that I require your help in this matter?

A person can study Oswald's backstory including the BY scene, the 'killer of facsists' note, George DeM joking around about the Walker attempt, Oswald often calling himself important (according to Marina, and which she also found funny).

I contend that adding the scope to the mix could arguably align with Oswald's known arrogant behaviour.


Who cares about what somebody speculates Oswald was thinking? No matter how you twist and turn it, any argument (or even suggestion) based on such speculation will always be a lame excuse.

Are you sure that I require your help in this matter?

Well, you sure as hell need help from somebody..... but I would prefer it if it wasn't me as I don't really like to waste my time.


Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Re: A straight line
« Reply #214 on: March 02, 2018, 10:41:50 AM »
Stop yelling, and take your meds

Emboldening words is not shouting. Putting words in "upper case" is shouting. Please try to keep up, Chappers.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #214 on: March 02, 2018, 10:41:50 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A straight line
« Reply #215 on: March 02, 2018, 10:34:57 PM »
I am assuming or inferring that. The actual registration documents for that box were destroyed..

Not before the FBI saw them apparently.




Quote
A Hidell was likely registered to receive mail at that box because mail addressed to that name was received at that box.

What mail?  And don't say the rifle, because that would be a circular argument!  However, see the above.