Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[John Iacoletti]

I should have put the words "I think" at the beginning of my sentence. Are you happy now?

Frankly, I'm surprised you didn't put in "most likely".

However, the problem with your post is that the "skepticism" was not towards the positive claim.

You were trying to make the case that his doubt over a claim which indicated a state of mind was no different than your positive claim about a state of mind.  That they somehow both constitute "acting like you knew something about his frame of mind".  They don't.

No one has said that it was anything but conjecture.

So what's the big deal then if Martin doubts it?

[Jerry Freeman]

This is a statement of fact, and a positive claim purporting to know somebody's state of mind:

His frame of mind was more like Alfred E. Newman’s (What, me worry)?

Was Oswald allegedly worried or not? In other posts...they have him scared and running away to New Orleans
Make up my mind!

[Charles Collins]

And the definition of a statement came from the dictionary, not from my opinion.

You decided, in your opinion, that it fitted the definition of a statement.

I didn't say that you should have written anything. The point of all the adjectives was to show what an unclear statement might look like. And to point out that your sentence did not contain any of the adjectives that would make it unclear what your opinion was. Are you really so dense that you didn't get that?

Okay, clever dick... enlighten us all. When I said I seriously doubt it.... what exactly was the opinion I was expressing?

I have already stated how the sentence does fit the definition of a statement. I see no point in repeating myself. What exactly do you think disqualifies your sentence as a statement.

[Martin Weidmann]

I have already stated how the sentence does fit the definition of a statement. I see no point in repeating myself. What exactly do you think disqualifies your sentence as a statement.

Yeah, that's what I thought... You can't explain it... at least not in any credible way. So, you do the next best thing, by "answering" with a question in a pathetic attempt to turn the thing around.... Classic LN!

You just lost the argument.

[Charles Collins]

Yeah, that's what I thought... You can't explain it... at least not without exposing that what you have is merely your opinion.

You just lost the argument.

No, you can't answer the question. You lost.

[Zeon Mason]

Ok , glad that’s all cleared up lol
Now back to the bag and why there is only one palm print on the edge and no fingerprints of the four fingers on the reverse side of bag

It’s like the bag or paper the bag was made from was laying on Fritz office table and Oswald while having  hands handcuffed behind was backed up to that table and placed one of his hands, palm side down on edge of desk on top the paper

[Martin Weidmann]

No, you can't answer the question. You lost.

More classic LN... resorting to playing childish games.

[Charles Collins]

Frankly, I'm surprised you didn't put in "most likely".

You were trying to make the case that his doubt over a claim which indicated a state of mind was no different than your positive claim about a state of mind.  That they somehow both constitute "acting like you knew something about his frame of mind".  They don't.

So what's the big deal then if Martin doubts it?

You were trying to make the case that his doubt over a claim which indicated a state of mind was no different than your positive claim about a state of mind.



No I wasn't. Martin tried to imply that I was. But that isn't what I said. Here is the sequence:

Martin stated his opinion and asked for my opinion about his opinion:

But that would be hell of a way to "conceal" a rifle he had just used in an attempted murder, don't you think?

Here is my response (I didn't agree with Martin's opinion and stated some reasons why):

Even in today’s paranoid world with all the security measures, etc., people travel with firearms. As long as they aren’t in their carry-on items they are permissible. And there wasn’t exactly an active dragnet of police activity looking for Walker’s attacker when LHO traveled to New Orleans. So, no..,

Here is Martin's response (He argues that the point is about Oswald's frame of mind. And then Martin explains what his opinion is regarding what Oswald's frame of mind would not have been.):

You are missing the point. Sure, many people travel with firearms, but how many of those have just used that weapon to shoot somebody? It's about Oswald's frame of mind. Having just tried to kill a man with that rifle, would he risk transporting it in a duffelbag with the barrel sticking out? I seriously doubt it....

But it is once again clear that you are using biased speculation to try to shape the narrative towards your own opinion.

Now, if you believe Martin was not "acting like he knew something about Oswald's frame of mind, then please explain how you arrived at that conclusion.




Fast forward to - I said:

No one has said that it was anything but conjecture.

you responded:

So what's the big deal then if Martin doubts it?

There is no big deal about it. And this argument is a prime example of why no one should engage either one of you. Endless nonsense and a waste of time. Ending in ridiculous accusations...