Lame LN excuses

[Dan O'meara]

Whew, what a meltdown!

As the saying goes: Don't advertise what you can't deliver.

 

You're the one not delivering.

But, as you say, it's not something you advertise as you know, deep down, how moronic it is.
Pure tinfoil buffoonery.
There was a post recently where some donkey put forward the theory that Jackie took the head-shot - your pet theory, that Oswald didn't live at 1026, is up there with that.
You should be embarrassed and, judging by your avoidance of the matter, it appears you are.

[John Mytton]

Mr. STERN - Was he asked his residence address in Dallas and did he give it?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; he furnished the address of 1026 North Beckley.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him anything about his address or did he volunteer the address?
Mr. FRITZ. He volunteered the address at Beckley?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mr. FRITZ. Well, I will tell you, whether we asked him or told him one, he never did deny it, he never did deny the Beckley Street address at all. The only thing was he didn't know whether it was north or south.

Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.

JohnM

[Vincent Baxter]

I don't know, he would also need to change his VPN from the US to Europe and that adds some time, it would be easier to just have your main computer and a tablet or even a phone. You know like we do! Otto's hit pieces are usually brief which are easily created with a phone.

JohnM

Hah! That was the same conclusion I came to. The Weidmann account is obviously his main desktop one that he uses for his long and detailed posts but he's logged into the forum on his mobile as Otto where he can quickly check updates when he's on the move and deliver his short and sharp 3 liner replies backing up the Weidmann account. 

[Vincent Baxter]

Uh-oh!

ROFLMAO -- If you were, you would have discovered the stupidest method of posting as two users.

  Yeah, it was a tongue in cheek comment. I wasn't actually being serious, I was merely mocking you.
Nice to see that you're on the defensive so much that you genuinely argued back about it though.

[Vincent Baxter]

Why complicate things when I simply "sucked up"?

For a second I was about to write a response to this asking why you were defending yourself against something I accused Weidmann of doing but then I remembered you're the same person

[Vincent Baxter]

No, I’m asking you how you know his got “his revolver and jacket” at the boarding house.

Why do evangelists always make up silly “so are you saying” strawman instead of just answering the question?

Duh. Because there’s no evidence he got a revolver at the boarding house.

Surely you know the difference between a fact and something that could be a fact.

What have evangelists got to do with anything?

So, look at any history book and the official story is that Oswald got a cab from Dealey Plaza to a few blocks away from his boarding house (we have a witness for this as well as Oswald stating that he got the taxi). It also states that he went into his boarding house about 1pm (again we have a witness for this), Oswald himself claimed that he got his revolver and it was indeed found on him when he was taken into custody at the theatre.
 
It's all there in black and white in the history books after extensive investigation from highly skilled and respected professionals in their field.
Now, are the witnesses 100% reliable? Maybe not. Can we 100% guarantee that that is what happened? Maybe not. But you're the one challenging the official historical account, so what do you have as evidence to prove otherwise?

I could just as easily pick any historic event and say; Well, how do you know for definite that King Harold was killed at the Battle of Hastings? How do you know for definite that the Great Fire of London started in a bakery shop? How do you know Hitler committed suicide and he wasn't killed by someone else who made it look like a suicide? You don't have to be Brain of Britain to simply question everything willy nilly without justification.

And before you say it, no I don't believe everything I read but there are things we're never going to know 100% for sure. Acting like you're God Almightly just because you can sit behind your computer and question something, safe in the knowledge that the other person sitting behind his computer screen can't physically prove it, is just pathetic.

Do enlighten us all and tell us what really happened though seeing as you know it all.

[Vincent Baxter]

And then you posted a reply anyway containing a false narrative.

It doesn't contain a false narrative though. I genuinely was going to write a response asking why you were defending yourself against something I accused Weidmann of doing

[Vincent Baxter]

"tongue in cheek" -- Chapman grade BS.

Even Mytton saw the need to "improve" your setup.

I thought we were meant to be the same person?

Nice try, BTW, there was no argument as I simply called out how demented your suggestion was.

And at the same time making a dick of yourself by not realising it was meant as a blatant throwaway comment aimed at mocking you. As if I actually genuinely did all those things and timed myself to the exact second of both posts 

Lighten up, man. I understand you're probably not in the most jovial of moods after being outed as a person who creates multiple identities to back yourself up in petty online debates, but it's not as if Weidmann is your actual real name anyway so nobody is going to be able to point at you in the street and openly laugh in your face about it.