A straight line

[Wesley Johnson]

Stop rambling and start making sense, please.

Thanks, I'll take that as confirmation that all you ever do is assume. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Thanks, I'll take that as confirmation that all you ever do is assume. 

Do as you please. It seems you do that anyway, regardless of what anybody tells you.

[Wesley Johnson]

Do as you please. It seems you do that anyway, regardless of what anybody tells you.

At least I say what I believe.

[Martin Weidmann]

At least I say what I believe.

The problem could be that what you believe could well be wrong.

[Bill Brown]

I'm not going to search the DPD files to check your claim!


Why not? I've researched the conspiracy buffs crap. I use to believe there was a conspiracy Martin, until more and more theories came out that conflicted. I stopped believing there was a conspiracy when I read Lifton's farce. How do you know if I can't support what I claim if you don't research it? Who is being closed minded Martin?

This has nothing to do with being closed minded. You made a claim and when I asked you to back it up, you didn't. Instead you told me to look it up for myself. I know what's in the DPD files. I have done my research, but I'll be damned if I start looking for something that you are supposed to provide but don't!

How do you know if I can't support what I claim if you don't research it?

This is the world upside down. I don't need to find out if you can support a claim or not. You need to support your claim. So, why don't you?

You made a claim and when I asked you to back it up, you didn't.

Back up your (mistaken) claim that Tom Robinson worked on Kennedy's head for several hours.

[Martin Weidmann]

Why do you have NO problem with LNers making unsupported claims when you always demand that CTers back up their claims?

That's just Bill Brown desperate for a conversation that's not going to happen. He knows it, but keeps trying nevertheless.

[Bill Brown]

That's just Bill Brown desperate for a conversation that's not going to happen. He knows it, but keeps trying nevertheless.

So, it's okay to use your own falsehood in an attempt to prove a point which you were trying to make?  Don't you think that makes your entire point 100% invalid?

You ask Wesley Johnson to back up a claim he is making but you are above reproach?

In a miserable attempt to argue the wounds, you stated that Tom Robinson, from the funeral home, worked on Kennedy's head for several hours.  In reality, Robinson was never close enough to even touch the body.

You haven't even acknowledged your mistake and therefore, it appears you still stand by your error.

I wouldn't want to talk to me either, if I were you.

[Joe Elliott]

LBJ was amazing all right. He once tied a stick of dynamite to the leg of a dog and blew it up. I can see how that could have gone horribly wrong. "No boy, no...run away, GO AWAY, NOOOOO...BOOM!

That's literally defining a psycho with that. Wow, I can't believe he put dynamite on an innocent dog.

I get the impression that some CTers will believe anything. And that some do believe this story.

At what point do stories start to be unbelievable?


Stories:

Johnson was so mean he once tied a stick of dynamite to a dog. It was only by luck that the dog ran away from him and not toward him.

Johnson was so mean he once locked himself and a kid into a small room, produced a grenade and pulled the pin. It was only by luck that the grenade malfunctioned and failed to explode.



For some people, I don?t think that point is ever reached. The more lurid the story the more believable it is.