Common Ground?

[Rob Caprio]

Great.  You have "evidence" that nobody can see, but we should trust you, there's evidence.  Sounds a lot like your case against Oswald.   

And you run from debating Weidmann.  So what?  Are we interested in studying the facts?

And if you think I've never disagreed with Caprio then you weren't paying much attention on that old forum that Denis praises your participation in.  The difference between me and you is that I disagree by providing evidence for why I disagree.  You disagree by chiding people for discussing a case that you think has been settled and insulting people who dare to have a different conclusion.

We have disagreed on a number of issues so as usual his comments are wrong.

The email communication that I had with Education Forum was with Kathy Beckett and not Paul May. How would a LNer know what was discussed in these emails (and I still have them) when he wasn't included in them? The charge of identity theft is ludicrous since he has no idea what I look like. He decided that I had to look a certain way, and posted that picture, but that doesn't make it so.

For the record, I decided to leave Education Forum because Beckett would only accept a photo of the person May claimed I was. Let that sink in in regards to who is really running that board.

[Martin Weidmann]

And you run from debating Weidmann. 

May, as usual, overestimates his own importance, thinking he is better than others. Like a high school bully he thinks Caprio would be an easy mark, but when I challenged him to a debate he ran, just like any high school bully would do. May's stance is a sign of weakness. The guy is a pathetic loser who once claimed he had been involved in over 200 murder investigation when in fact he was involved in none. He uses and has been using aliases for years and proclaims himself to be a researcher, yet he has never ever revealed any of the results of his "research". It's kinda sad, really?.

Btw the real reason why he ran from debating me is that it would expose his real identity and thus his real background.

My real identity? Ah, the raging paranoia of the kooks. Damn entertaining.  Short story. I?m a member at Jeff Morley?s jfkfacts.org.
Tom Scully was the admin at the time. I frequently engaged Jim DieEugenio, who on multiple occasions accused me of being 3 different posters. Each time a new member joined, per Jim D., it was me.  It got almost comical.  Unfortunately, the brazen paranoia of those such as DiEugenio and ?certain? members of this site is scary. It?s a mental health issue.  Back to the story. I got an email from Jeff Morley asking if we could speak via phone. Having nothing to hide, I said sure. Morley called me and we had a conversation covering multiple subjects. We agreed to have a beer next time I was in D.C. My identity was later confirmed by Tom Scully.

Weidmann is an irritant often ignored and justifiably so. Not only by myself, by many on this site. He wants to debate me to give him the credibility he so desperately seeks. I have stated repeatedly after years in this site, I will no longer engage in discussion of 50 year old evidence long ago put to rest which happens to be the specialty of those such as Weidmann. When he actually comes up with something new or relevant (don?t hold your breath), a new day may brighten. Until such time, his brooding, dark, raging paranoia will be ignored.  Wait for it. An ignorant response is forthcoming.

Weidmann is an irritant often ignored and justifiably so. Not only by myself, by many on this site.

Name the people that are ignoring me. And how are you one of them, when you are responding to my post?

He wants to debate me to give him the credibility he so desperately seeks.

As I said earlier; May overestimates his own importance. And no, the reason for wanting to debate him is to expose him as the loser he is. Which is of course why he is running and offering pathetic excuses for it.

I have stated repeatedly after years in this site, I will no longer engage in discussion of 50 year old evidence long ago put to rest

Yet you want to debate Rob Caprio about exactly that? Go figure

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

I didn't see where Paul May said anything about his posts being hacked, other than that the previous version of this forum was hacked and everybody lost their posts. You are erroneously trying to separate Paul from the same fate that every member suffered.

And since you are certain that Oswald wasn't the assassin, by all means feel free to name your shooter, and show proof that anyone else but your shooter knew that there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.

It seems your work is not done.
 

Actually you need to come up with the shooter or shooters. You forget something the WC never proved. Answer  shooter(s) - that means singular or plural

[John Iacoletti]

You hesitate to admit that Gloria Calvery is standing on a lower step in Couch-Darnell because you seem to be afraid that to do so would be tantamount to declaring Oswald the assassin.

No, I "hesitate to admit" that Gloria Calvery is standing on a lower step in Couch-Darnell, because your "I think I see two faint bars on her lower half" argument is not at all compelling.

Ironically, the only thing you "accomplish" by being so irrational and stubborn regarding the correct identification in the photographic images of Stella Mae Jacob and her two colleagues, and Gloria Calvery and her three colleagues, as well as outliers John Templeton and Ernest Brandt, is the holding back of clear-headed, correct-track research and progress on this case.

Translation:  "you have a lot of nerve not accepting my 'identifications', which are correct, because I say so, dammit!"

Let it go, Captain Obsession.

[John Iacoletti]

And 'may' I add, no one has yet proven that anyone but the shooter knew there was going to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.

No one has proven much of anything about this case.  Hence this attempt to find common ground.

[John Iacoletti]

I have stated repeatedly after years in this site, I will no longer engage in discussion of 50 year old evidence long ago put to rest

Yet you want to debate Rob Caprio about exactly that? Go figure

Yup.  Or does he want to debate Caprio about the weather?

[Paul May]

We have disagreed on a number of issues so as usual his comments are wrong.

The email communication that I had with Education Forum was with Kathy Beckett and not Paul May. How would a LNer know what was discussed in these emails (and I still have them) when he wasn't included in them? The charge of identity theft is ludicrous since he has no idea what I look like. He decided that I had to look a certain way, and posted that picture, but that doesn't make it so.

For the record, I decided to leave Education Forum because Beckett would only accept a photo of the person May claimed I was. Let that sink in in regards to who is really running that board.

Wow.  Caprio is lying on so many levels here, one has to think about how to respond.  First I was not privy to emails between Beckett and Caprio.  My conversation with Kathy Beckett regarded the ED Forum, the Photo Caprio stole from Facebook and the phony name he used to register. What Caprio fails to comprehend is one fact: on his own FB site, he had some 20 photos he claimed was himself, POSING in front of his mirror as he claims to be a body builder. I have copies of those photos. If, as he claims those photos are not of himself, then he also stole those photos for his FB Page. When he heard I had the photos, he blocked me.
Next lie, Caprio was DISMISSED, he did NOT decide to leave the ED Forum.  He violated, as usual TOS. He has this history. He was found useless at DPF and poof, gone from there also. The fact Caprio believes I have any input into the policies of the ED Forum when not even a member once again defines his paranoia. On a personal note, if you looked like Caprio, you too would avoid live debate on line.

[Paul May]

Great.  You have "evidence" that nobody can see, but we should trust you, there's evidence.  Sounds a lot like your case against Oswald.   

And you run from debating Weidmann.  So what?  Are we interested in studying the facts?

And if you think I've never disagreed with Caprio then you weren't paying much attention on that old forum that Denis praises your participation in.  The difference between me and you is that I disagree by providing evidence for why I disagree.  You disagree by chiding people for discussing a case that you think has been settled and insulting people who dare to have a different conclusion.

I don?t run from debating Weidmann.  He?s not interesting enough to debate.  He?s boring, nor do I read many of his comments. I provided enough evidence in this case when I first joined 10-12 years ago.  Unfortunately, you kooks are still debating the same old crap long ago discarded by serious researchers. No fun there. Advance the case. You cannot even do that. Iacoletti, you?re such a cliche?. I insult nobody. Kooks insult EVERYBODY by continuing to discuss the very same garbage year after year, decade after decade.  What?s it get you?  THINK before you answer.  Be introspective. At this point for me, understanding the mentality and  psychology of why you believe your crap with NOTHING new in decades is more interesting in a case solved long ago. That?s the point, you have NO hard nor credible evidence for your positions. It?s frustrating you people to death.