The Dale Myers Blog

[John Tonkovich]

Also few responses to my two 'Name Your Shooter' topics

So, you consistently post things that no one is interested in.
Ok. If you say so.

[Joe Elliott]

Also few responses to my two 'Name Your Shooter' topics

So, you consistently post things that no one is interested in.
Ok. If you say so.

Yes. It’s Bill Chapman’s fault that CTers dodge his questions.

[John Tonkovich]

Yes. It’s Bill Chapman’s fault that CTers dodge his questions.

What's a CTer?

His posts were not questions. Just diversions. Like yours. And your multiple threads on Johnny Brewer.

[Bill Chapman]

So, you consistently post things that no one is interested in.
Ok. If you say so.

1) So you're not interested in who shot JFK. Or in that the fact that no one can name a pinch-hitter for Oswald is what the low-response count informs.
2) So, you lot have no interest in the Oswald aliases, S&W pistol, residence on Beckley, and Tippit scene. Or in the Oswald porch goings-on or the TSBD Cuckoo's nest.

Ok. If you say so.

[Bill Chapman]

What's a CTer?

His posts were not questions. Just diversions. Like yours. And your multiple threads on Johnny Brewer.

It's not my fault when you frame the CTer failure to name a pinch-hitter for Oswald as 'diversions'.

[John Tonkovich]

1) So you're not interested in who shot JFK. And that no one can name a pinch-hitter for Oswald is what the low-response count informs me.
2) So, you lot have no interest in the Oswald aliases, S&W pistol, residence on Beckley, and Tippit scene. Or in the Oswald porch goings-on or the TSBD Cuckoo's nest.

Ok. If you say so.

No one is interested..in your , uh, "spoofs".

[John Mytton]

No one is interested..in your , uh, "spoofs".

Yeah, it's safer to be a Skeptic who constantly casts aspersions on virtually every facet of the official assassination investigation but doesn't have the required reasoning logic to know exactly what the heck they are trying to prove.
It's just question after question with a complete rejection of any reasonable answer which by definition in itself must lead somewhere but alas the hapless skeptic sticks to their safe zone, happy in the knowledge that they are achieving absolutely nothing.

JohnM

[Bill Chapman]

Yeah, it's safer to be a Skeptic who constantly casts aspersions on virtually every facet of the official assassination investigation but doesn't have the required reasoning logic to know exactly what the heck they are trying to prove.
It's just question after question with a complete rejection of any reasonable answer which by definition in itself must lead somewhere but alas the hapless skeptic sticks to their safe zone, happy in the knowledge that they are achieving absolutely nothing.

JohnM

Nailed it. Again.

I'm still waiting for even one of these self-appointed 'knowledge-advancers' to point out where I used any information that is not connected to the assassination in some way, be it Oswald aliases, rooming houses, weapons, porches, or the sniper's nest.