The Bus Stop Farce

[Martin Weidmann]

What a nutty rant.  It reads like an exercise in self-loathing.  Very entertaining.  But back to the discussion.  Prove to me that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address using the same standard that you apply to Oswald's guilt in the JFK and Tippit murders.  Keep in mind that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.  So anyone who claims to have been there might be mistaken.  Accounts could also be faked.  As could any evidence.  I don't have to explain why anyone would do so.  Just that it was possible and, therefore, there is doubt.  How can it be proven?  Have at it.  Make the case.

What a nutty rant.  It reads like an exercise in self-loathing.  Very entertaining.

Says the contrarian in chief

But back to the discussion. 

What discussion would that be? With you there is no discussion.... it's impossible.

Make the case.

Make what case? You seem to be under the delusion that I am here to make a case. I'm not.

But I am absolutely sure that you don't understand that in any way, shape or form....

[Bill Chapman]

I did so for two reasons;

1. Smaller posts don't take up as much time to reply to
2. Smaller posts are much more easy for simpletons, like you, to follow and digest

What I digest from your posts is that you insult everybody who disagrees with you, laced with the usual schoolyard taunts.

That is how you (think you can) avoid challenges: Just call the challenger stupid in order to avoid having to engage any further.

[Bill Chapman]

What a nutty rant.  It reads like an exercise in self-loathing.  Very entertaining.  But back to the discussion.  Prove to me that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address using the same standard that you apply to Oswald's guilt in the JFK and Tippit murders.  Keep in mind that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.  So anyone who claims to have been there might be mistaken.  Accounts could also be faked.  As could any evidence.  I don't have to explain why anyone would do so.  Just that it was possible and, therefore, there is doubt.  How can it be proven?  Have at it.  Make the case.

Martin is more obstinate than anything else

[Martin Weidmann]

What I digest from your posts is that you insult everybody who disagrees with you, laced with the usual schoolyard taunts.

That is how you (think you can) avoid challenges: Just call the challenger stupid in order to avoid having to engage any further.

What I digest from your posts is that you insult everybody who disagrees with you

Which only proves my point that you are having problems digesting information accurately. Oh sorry, did I just insult you again? 

That is how you (think you can) avoid challenges

What challenges? You haven't challenged anything in months....

Just call the challenger stupid

When did I call you stupid? I can't remember.... A troll, as pompous ass, a liar, an idiot, a simpleton, a contrarian perhaps even a failed human being and the grandson of the man who probably killed Kennedy and Tippit... I do remember all that, but stupid... Really?   

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin is more obstinate than anything else

Ah, I see you've finally bought a dictionary, so you can throw some words around that you clearly don't understand.

Well done!    Good for you... at least you're trying.

[John Iacoletti]

Not even close. Bowles derived the time. It was not based on his individual preference or convenience.

He said he picked it for practical purposes. That’s convenience. Your opinion of what a word means is no more factual than your opinion about the accuracy of the dispatcher clocks.

[John Iacoletti]

What a world these contrarians live in where no fact can ever proven if they don't want it to be true.  Absent a time machine, there would be no way to prove a single fact in human history using their methods.  For example, prove that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address.  There is only one fuzzy picture and you arguably can't identify him.  I bet you could find a witness who quibbled with what time it began and ended or the color of Lincoln's coat.  No one likely had their watch calibrated by some unspecified precise mechanism to Greenwich Mean Time.  Letters and accounts COULD be the product of fakery.  Eyewitnesses are unreliable etc.  It is hilarious.  I can't believe they are for real, but view this as a hobby to see how long they can prolong a discussion without having to concede the obvious.  Round and round it goes down the rabbit hole.

Translation from “Richard-rant-speak”: you should accept something as factual if “Richard” says so.

[John Iacoletti]

However, it is typical of the “debunking” process we see from you two. It appears that you believe that you have debunked the entire WC effort and have proven that every single thing that they came up with is false.

Nice strawman. It seems that you are getting more and more desperate to send a substantive discussion off into the weeds.