Lame LN excuses

[John Mytton]

Well, for starters, you've done that before and it turned out to be bogus and secondly we now know, by your own admission, that your name is not Johnny Mytton, so why should we believe that you actually live in Sydney?

Oh yeah, the time you came to Sydney and had your "team" do a "good" search, a search which was never specified, for the registered name of "John Mytton", a name you knew never existed? Hilarious!
Keep em coming.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Because you're the same person?

Except that you are. And you knew we would never be able to provide solid evidence because we were never going to be mug enough to take up your ridiculous challenge in the first place.

Yeah, so did I.

Yeah, but if Otto Beck can't prove who he is then there is no way you can prove that you and him aren't the same person. So despite pointless toing and froing between each others legal representatives you'd still be unable to provide any physical evidence either way and therefore there'd be no possibility of money changing hands.

So in essence the whole notion behind your absurd $100,000 challenge was just so you give it the large and accuse us of being "weasels" and backing out of your foolproof proposal in a desperate attempt to convince others on this forum that your pathetic use of multiple accounts wasn't true?

I'm not sure which is the most sad; the fact you feel the need to use multiple accounts to fight your battles or your thinking behind this so called challenge.

Because you're the same person?

Idiot, if we were the same person I would have never issued any kind of challenge.

Except that you are. And you knew we would never be able to provide solid evidence because we were never going to be mug enough to take up your ridiculous challenge in the first place.

So you are making accusations you can not prove. Got it!

Yeah, but if Otto Beck can't prove who he is then there is no way you can prove that you and him aren't the same person. So despite pointless toing and froing between each others legal representatives you'd still be unable to provide any physical evidence either way and therefore there'd be no possibility of money changing hands.

I don't need to prove that Otto and I are the same person, fool! You need to prove we are. And, yes, your money (which you most likely don't even have, despite your bit coin crap, will change hands.

So in essence the whole notion behind your absurd $100,000 challenge was just so you give it the large and accuse us of being "weasels" and backing out of your foolproof proposal in a desperate attempt to convince others on this forum that your pathetic use of multiple accounts wasn't true?

If you are more comfortable to reduce the amount, we can arrange that. Just let me know how much money you would want to lose.

I'm not sure which is the most sad; the fact you feel the need to use multiple accounts to fight your battles or your thinking behind this so called challenge.

Apart from it not being true, the really sad thing is that somewhere there is a pathetic clown in a basement making false accusations he can not back up and when challenged runs away from like a weasel.

[Vincent Baxter]

Carbon copy "Mytton".. what a surprise.

Yeah, that's not quite how it works,

Yes it is actually. You made the claim and I challenged you. You can either stand by your claim, and provide the contact details of your solicitor, or you can back down from your bogus claim.

Ooo, you seem to be getting a bit of a strop on now, Weidmann.
But you're the one issuing the challenge and with so much internet fraud in the world, surely it's up to you to provide proof that you have the means to fulfil the challenge you openly offered by providing us with sufficient proof of funds and a recognised legal representative before we take your challenge (that again you offered without provocation) seriously.
How are you going to check that we have sufficient funds? Ask us to provide you with our bank account number, sort code and mother's maiden name so you can check?

I don't have to prove anything to a weasel like you.

Well, if I took you up on your challenge then you would have to, Weidmann. I thought that was the whole point of the challenge.

You made the claim that Otto and I are the same person, so when I challenge you, you can either accept the challenge (and the rules that go along with it) or run away as hard as you can, which is what I expect you to do.

Btw, nice try Johnny!

We made the claim, yes, but you made the challenge and then threw in unreasonable rules as you went along.

I tell you what, let's forget about your challenge and allow me to offer a new challenge whereby I will give you and Otto both £50.000 if I can't provide sufficient evidence that you and Otto are the same person within the next 12 months. If I do you have to give me £50,000 each.
To get things rolling you both have to PM me the name of your solicitors along with proof that you can both pay me the £50,000 when I come up with the evidence. If you don't take me up on this challenge then it's abundantly clear that you are the same person and that you're sh*tting bricks at being properly exposed to everyone.

[Martin Weidmann]

Oh yeah, the time you came to Sydney and had your "team" do a "good" search, a search which was never specified, for the registered name of "John Mytton", a name you knew never existed? Hilarious!
Keep em coming.

JohnM

You've got it the wrong way around, "Johnny".... We didn't know until we found out there was no John Mytton registered in the greater Sydney area. That's when you alias was blown.

[John Mytton]

Give me the contact details of your solicitor and I will provide him with the confirmation. No problem whatsoever. However, I will require that he provide me with a similar confirmation about you.

Yawn! You, not me, made a $100,000 challenge and in order to even start, it's up to you to prove to us that you have enough disposable money to even warrant a challenge.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Ooo, you seem to be getting a bit of a strop on now, Weidmann.
But you're the one issuing the challenge and with so much internet fraud in the world, surely it's up to you to provide proof that you have the means to fulfil the challenge you openly offered by providing us with sufficient proof of funds and a recognised legal representative before we take your challenge (that again you offered without provocation) seriously.
How are you going to check that we have sufficient funds? Ask us to provide you with our bank account number, sort code and mother's maiden name so you can check?

by providing us with sufficient proof of funds

Who is "us"? You and "John Mytton"

surely it's up to you to provide proof that you have the means to fulfil the challenge

No problem. Who do I provide the proof to?

a recognised legal representative before we take your challenge

Again, who is "we". And you can accept the challenge under the proviso that with the proof of fund it is null and void. I am not going to provide any information before you accept the challenge in a legally binding manner.

How are you going to check that we have sufficient funds?

Again, who is "we". A certificate from your bank will do.

Well, if I took you up on your challenge then you would have to, Weidmann. I thought that was the whole point of the challenge.

No. When you claim Otto and I are the same person, it's you who need to prove that. I don't have to do anything, except take your money of course

We made the claim, yes, but you made the challenge and then threw in unreasonable rules as you went along.

There is nothing unreasonabe about the challenge, You either prove it or your don't.

I tell you what, let's forget about your challenge and allow me to offer a new challenge whereby I will give you and Otto both £50.000 if I can't provide sufficient evidence that you and Otto are the same person within the next 12 months. If I do you have to give me £50,000 each.

I don't know about Otto, but as far as I am concerned, I accept your challenge.

To get things rolling you both have to PM me the name of your solicitors along with proof that you can both pay me the £50,000 when I come up with the evidence. If you don't take me up on this challenge then it's abundantly clear that you are the same person and that you're both spombleprofglidnoctobunsting bricks at being properly exposed to everyone.

I can't speak for Otto, but give me the contact details of your solicitor, and I'll have my lawyers contact him/them within the next few days. Btw, I will still need proof from your bank that you have the funds to pay Otto and me.

[John Iacoletti]

Yeah, great. But that's not really relevant to what I was saying.

Well, you asked.

Anybody? So I can suddenly just go and make up my own "official story" of what happened in the JFK assassination and get all the history books changed can I?

You think the people who write history books have any more evidence that the things in this story are true than you do?

Okay, correction, the revolver was taken out of Oswald's possession seconds before he was actually taken into custody at the theatre. Is that better?

That is indeed better. But it’s also something you’re going to have to demonstrate is actually true.

Where as your entire claim that none of the above happened rests on what exactly?

Nice try shifting the burden. But the burden of proof rests on the people making up the fanciful story.

Indeed. I can't for the life of me think why these so called evangelists would take the word of these highly skilled and respected professionals in their field

Not only is that an appeal to authority, but it’s also a load of  . No “highly skilled professionals in their field” could determine that Oswald got a revolver at the rooming house unless their field is time travel.

And the fact that the world accepted this account and printed it in all the history books around the world suggests that they did a satisfactory job of doing so.

First of all, the majority of the world does not accept your claptrap, and even if they did, this is yet another logical fallacy. Anybody can print any old garbage in a book. That doesn’t make it true. Case in point: Reclaiming History.

You're saying the official verdict isn't the case so why not show us what you know and tell us what actually did happen.

There’s no official verdict — there was never a trial. And I’m saying that the official narrative is unproven. Can you prove it or just appeal to “history” (whatever that means)?

They're hardly just making up fantasy stories are they. They're clearly basing their conclusion on factual occurrences and testimonies.

No, they’re basing their conclusion on speculation and conjecture.

[John Iacoletti]

There's already been enough evidence to convince me

All it takes to convince you of something is “history book”.

It's clearly stated on my profile, you plum. Or is that too difficult for you look at?

No, I mean your actual name.