Lame LN excuses

[Martin Weidmann]

Hahaha! So you're using long lost quotes that Mytton dug out from 2019 and openly posted on this forum for all to see as your argument that we're the same person?
I suspect that if that was the case and these quotes were indeed such incriminating evidence then Mytton would have probably just kept them lurking in the forum archive somewhere hoping that they wouldn't be discovered.

More importantly though, what made you log into the Peter Goth account after nearly two years? And what's the reasoning behind the Otto Beck profile picture change?

Ok Johnny, have it your way. Keep 'm coming... Watching you self destruct is getting more fun with each post you write.

[Vincent Baxter]

Since it's "abundantly clear" why don't you pick up the challenge where Mytton left and score $100,000?

Oooo, a switch of accounts. Nice touch. That'll fool everyone 

Which $100,000 challenge would that be? The one I already stated as being "pathetic and childish challenges of $100,000 that you know nobody in their right mind is going to seriously contemplate"? Good one, challenge me to something that I've already stated no sane person would take up.

Come on, two accounts created within days of each other both immediately leaping in and defending Weidmann and creating some sort of forum tag team by ganging up on people? One (Goth) disappears and is inactive for two years yet within 24 hours of being accused of being one of Weidmann's false accounts suddenly logs in reactivating the account again? Do me a favour.
The aforementioned long winded, off-topic and if I'm honest, totally boring and irrelevant discussion that me and the Weidmann account was having a month or so ago was of absolutely no interest to anyone else other than me and Wiedmann and yet a certain Otto Beck eagerly followed the subject topic that beared no relevance to him whatsoever, blatantly read everything posted and commented on stupid aspects trying to back up the Weidmann account? Hmmmmm?

Not to mention again the slip up that first got alarm bells ringing where I accused one of the accounts of insinuated something and the other account responded claiming they had said no such thing. 

It's pretty obvious. Am I going to bother going to all the hassle of getting lawyers involved in order to get an imaginary $100,000 that some oddball on the internet, who from what I've learnt this weekend probably isn't even called Martin Weidmann anyway, though?
The answer is no. I can just imagine my solicitor's response if I went to him and explained I needed his help in proving that two people on a JFK Internet forum are the same person and $100,000 is up for grabs when we win. He'd think it was me who was the fruitcake, not the idiot who making up imaginary characters to help enhance his arguments on a forum. 

No, you keep your money. Sitting here laughing to myself whenever I see the Weidmann/Beck combo posting stuff from now on is reward enough for me.

[Dan O'meara]

Your best witness wasn't there when Oswald allegedly went back.

So this evidently brings nothing to the table.

I suggest you improve your tactical skills before posting again.

 

There was only one witness who was there when Oswald went back to his rooming house - Earlene Roberts.

So when you said "why don't you name your best witness and we'll see what that brings?", you were expecting me to choose from a group of one person!!

Not even you're that stupid.
I think what's happening here is that your tinfoil  about Oswald not living at 1026 North Beckley is going to be torn apart so you're heading for the hills. You ask me to pick a witness and as soon as I do you run.

Mrs Gladys Johnson's WC testimony makes a mockery of your nonsense so keep on running. 

[John Iacoletti]

The Weidmann and Otto accounts have both stated to me on separate occasions that they are not CTers and in fact don't care who killed JFK its only the facts of the case that they are interested in.

Why would you consider that unusual?  LNers want everyone else to be a CT so they can shift the burden of proof away from their own lousy arguments.

[John Iacoletti]

Come on, two accounts created within days of each other both immediately leaping in and defending Weidmann and creating some sort of forum tag team by ganging up on people?

So what? People with generic names like “Vincent Baxter” pop up here all the time spouting all the same “Oswald did it” rhetoric and propaganda.

It's pretty obvious. Am I going to bother going to all the hassle of getting lawyers involved in order to get an imaginary $100,000 that some oddball on the internet, who from what I've learnt this weekend probably isn't even called Martin Weidmann anyway, though?
The answer is no.

Of course it is. It’s much easier to hide behind a keyboard and an anonymous identity and sling accusations than to put your money where your mouth is.

[John Iacoletti]

There was only one witness who was there when Oswald went back to his rooming house - Earlene Roberts.

What??? You can’t name one other witness who corroborates her account? Say it isn’t so!

[Dan O'meara]

What??? You can’t name one other witness who corroborates her account? Say it isn’t so!

Read the relevant posts before you dive in John.

[Vincent Baxter]

Poor Danny, you're not really equipped for this game.

Pro-tip: Don't ask questions you don't know the answer to.

Pro-tip: Create multiple accounts so if you ever start losing your way in an argument you can always log in as another user to back you up and join in saying that the other person "doesn't know what he's talking about"

Of course I knew all along the best you had was the housekeeper, preoccupied with her TV, blind in one eye, and nobody to cooperate her. 

So how did he get his revolver and jacket if he didn't go back to the boarding house then?