Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )

[Royell Storing]

Must be more of that famous Storing “inside information”. Never mind the 7 or so people who actually knew him describing him as shy.

   Guess I somehow missed your disputing Oswald being on Radio and standing on street corners buttonholing passersby with leaflets.

[Dan O'meara]

   Guess I somehow missed your disputing Oswald being on Radio and standing on street corners buttonholing passersby with leaflets.

And even I know about 'shy' Oswald's TV interview extolling the virtues of his own particular views on Marxism.

[Royell Storing]

And even I know about 'shy' Oswald's TV interview extolling the virtues of his own particular views on Marxism.

   Yeah. Real shy conduct Overtly Displayed to a Wide Audience.

[Bill Chapman]

In Reply #4 you state the following:

"Yes, but I read your "sarcastic" screed as trying to make the case that Oswald couldn't possibly be standing out front ..."

In my response to your inability to understand the simple point I make in my original post I lay it out in a way anyone can understand - the numerous testimonies, plus others I didn't use, documenting Oswald's antisocial behaviour towards his work colleagues makes it unlikely he would join them outside to watch the motorcade pass by. You completely ignore my comprehensive explanation (as usual) and twist my word "unlikelihood" into "it couldn't possibly have happened". When I protest that you have yet again twisted and misrepresented my words and that I didn't say "it couldn't possibly have happened" you then twist and misrepresent your own twisted misrepresentation by saying I used the word "impossible".
In two steps I go from saying 'unlikely' to' impossible'. The rest of your response is the usual twisted garbage but, even by your intensely low standards, the deliberate "misremembrance" that both Shelley and Lovelady witnessed Baker at the TSBD steps is stunning. I know for a fact you are aware of their testimonies.
I don't know why you've singled me out for your campaign of misrepresentation but I've had enough and find I'm spending way too much time responding to your unsavoury attentions. I don't know if there's a protocol for complaining about these issues, instead I will post the following message to future attacks;

  POST IGNORED DUE TO PREVIOUS MISREPRESENTATIONS . SEE REPLY #15 "They Went Outside To Watch The P. Parade" THREAD (Part 2)

I have been wondering about why you are victimising me. As a newcomer to all this I've noticed there are various factions (Lone Assassin/Prayer Man/ Two Oswalds etc) with each defending their own 'turf' because each is utterly convinced they have the answer. I don't know what faction you belong to but, as I fumble along through this maze, I'm assuming I've said something you find threatening to you beliefs (and they are beliefs). I'm still near the start so I've not 'found my faction' yet and it may be the case that the evidence leads me to see things the way you do but I'll let my best interpretation of the evidence guide me there, not your bullying tactics.
Looking through my posts I find your only objection based on anything remotely rational is to my stating as fact that Shelley and Lovelady lied in their testimonies. The following image proves for a fact that Lovelady was lying:



In his HSCA testimony Lovelady is shown this still (or one very similar) and recognises himself. Towards the end he finally admits he didn't go back inside until much later than he'd previously stated.
Don't bother responding, you will only be ignored.

 

But you must admit that Iacoletti's input is always useful

[John Iacoletti]

You completely ignore my comprehensive explanation (as usual)

Nope. I didn’t “ignore” it — I disagree with your conclusion.

and twist my word "unlikelihood" into "it couldn't possibly have happened".

No, I clearly stated that this is how I read it. This was before your “comprehensive explanation”.

When I protest that you have yet again twisted and misrepresented my words and that I didn't say "it couldn't possibly have happened" you then twist and misrepresent your own twisted misrepresentation by saying I used the word "impossible".

Nope. I never said you used the word impossible.

In two steps I go from saying 'unlikely' to' impossible'. The rest of your response is the usual twisted garbage but, even by your intensely low standards, the deliberate "misremembrance" that both Shelley and Lovelady witnessed Baker at the TSBD steps is stunning.

You still haven’t explained how you know this was deliberate. Or even wrong.

If you don’t want to defend your claims, then so be it, but don’t accuse me of “misrepresenting” you just to avoid having to do so.

I have been wondering about why you are victimising me.

Oh please. You come along here and start decreeing what’s “unlikely” and what are absolute “facts”, and then when you are challenged on what you say, you’re being “victimised”?

Looking through my posts I find your only objection based on anything remotely rational is to my stating as fact that Shelley and Lovelady lied in their testimonies. The following image proves for a fact that Lovelady was lying:

How does that photo “prove that Lovelady was lying”? How do you even know when the photo was taken?

[John Iacoletti]

   Guess I somehow missed your disputing Oswald being on Radio and standing on street corners buttonholing passersby with leaflets.

Why should I dispute that? Does that somehow make him not shy?

[Royell Storing]

  (1) Though you have done it previously, "disputing" a Fact is just dumb.  (2) Yeah. Someone that goes out of their way to be on Radio and Confront people on street corners is NOT Shy.

[John Iacoletti]

  (1) Though you have done it previously, "disputing" a Fact is just dumb.

When have I previously disputed a fact?

(2) Yeah. Someone that goes out of their way to be on Radio and Confront people on street corners is NOT Shy.

Thus sayeth Royell and his faulty crystal ball.