The Bus Stop Farce

[Martin Weidmann]

Are you sure you didn't warn me with a threat of getting me banned?

General Discussion & Debate / Re: Freemason recalls where he was, what he was doing, the day he shot JFK
« on: September 04, 2020, 08:18:34 PM »
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on September 04, 2020, 07:12:38 PM
'Perhaps we should have a word with Duncan before you complete your mission to destroy this forum by making normal discussion about the subject matter completely impossible with your BS. Tommy Graves was banned for a lot less...'

I might just call you Pinocchio from now on..

That's weird. My posting history (on page 45) shows only one post on September 4th 2020 and it wasn't this and I also see no reply to it on page 28 of your posting history, which covers posts between September 3rd and 7th.

So, I am going to give you one opportunity to link to the actual quote.

[Bill Chapman]

That's weird. My posting history (on page 45) shows only one post on September 4th 2020 and it wasn't this and I also see no reply to it on page 28 of your posting history, which covers posts between September 3rd and 7th.

So, I am going to give you one opportunity to link to the actual quote.

I couldn't find that quote in my search of that period either. I have that in my show posts. I think Duncan removed it. I suggest that we keep this short, since when Duncan deletes something it is not meant to be brought up again. But I think this post should remain alive since it proves that I did not lie, as charged in your rush to judgement.

I don't lie about anything.

[Martin Weidmann]

I couldn't find that quote in my search of that period either. I have that in my show posts. I think Duncan removed it. I suggest we drop this immediately, since when Duncan deletes something it is not meant to be brought up again.

I don't lie about anything.

I suggest we drop this immediately, since when Duncan deletes something it is not meant to be brought up again.

If that's what really happened, why did to bring it up again nevertheless?


I don't lie about anything.

Yeah right... Duncan did it and you just posted something that wasn't there. Wow!

[Bill Chapman]

I suggest we drop this immediately, since when Duncan deletes something it is not meant to be brought up again.

If that's what really happened, why did to bring it up again nevertheless?


I don't lie about anything.

Yeah right... Duncan did it and you just posted something that wasn't there. Wow!

The above image confirms the presence of your threat on Sept 04.
I save all my 'Show Posts' offline, therefore they are impervious to online changes.
Otherwise I would lose evidence that I wasn't lying.

[Martin Weidmann]

The above image confirms the presence of your threat on Sept 04.
I save all my 'Show Posts' offline, therefore they are impervious to online changes.

The above image confirms the presence of your threat on Sept 04.

No it doesn't, it just shows you can be creative.

I save all my 'Show Posts' offline, therefore they are impervious to online changes.

How paranoid... I don't even know how to do that nor do I care.

And not being impervious to online changes is one thing, but vulnerable to manipulation off line is another.

Otherwise I would lose evidence that I wasn't lying.

And your "evidence" that you are not lying is presenting a "post" that can not be found on the board. Wow!

Are you certain you want to continue this conversation and dig an even deeper hole for yourself?

You have accused me of threatening you, when the content of the "post" you present here isn't even a threat and you are unable to provide any credible evidence that there ever was a threat. Think carefully before you continue with this farce.

[Richard Smith]

Which only shows that you lack the comprehension skills to have a somewhat meaningful conversation with me.

Keep running, Rudy

But let me tell you what I think could have happened. They had no physical evidence whatsoever to place Oswald on the 6th floor with a rifle in his hand at 12.30 on 11/22/63. The FBI couldn't find any prints on the rifle and no gunshot residue was found on Oswald's face. Fingerprints on boxes were no good either as the guy worked at the TSBD and part of his job was moving boxes.

The shirt Oswald was wearing when he was arrested was sent to the FBI in Washington on Friday evening and low and behold they suddenly found fibers on the rifle that were similar to the arrest shirt. This is btw how IMO the hole in the sleeve came to be, because none of the photos taken of Oswald after his arrest show a hole in the sleeve!. But that aside, with potentially "matching" fibers all they needed to do is prove that the arrest shirt was the shirt that Oswald was wearing on Friday morning (which of course it wasn't), so how do you do that? By that time Oswald was dead of course and it was obvious there was not going to be a trial. And then somebody said something like; remember that lady who said she saw Oswald on the bus? Why don't we send some guys to her house with the shirt (which now has a hole in the sleeve) and see if she can "remember" it....

It's painful but humorous when Martin/Roger tries to think.  Imagine living in a world where such a scenario could even be entertained.  And then, of course, the kicker after all this fakery is that Martin/Roger still doesn't believe it links Oswald to the rifle!  The entire purpose of his fantasy. The fibers are only similar.  Thereby proving nothing in his opinion.  HA HA HA.  You can't make that up.  And keep in mind he is not a CTer!  Please stick to being a contrarian.  It doesn't require any intelligence.

[Martin Weidmann]

It's painful but humorous when Martin/Roger tries to think.  Imagine living in a world where such a scenario could even be entertained.  And then, of course, the kicker after all this fakery is that Martin/Roger still doesn't believe it links Oswald to the rifle!  The entire purpose of his fantasy. The fibers are only similar.  Thereby proving nothing in his opinion.  HA HA HA.  You can't make that up.  And keep in mind he is not a CTer!  Please stick to being a contrarian.  It doesn't require any intelligence.

Imagine living in a world where such a scenario could even be entertained.

There is your biggest problem by far. You can't imagine anything like that because you don't have brain capacity to the extend that you don't even know the difference between day and night.

The fibers are only similar.  Thereby proving nothing in his opinion.

If you don't want to continue making a fool of yourself, you'd better check with some experts about the probative value of fiber evidence, like, for example this guy;

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.
We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."

Oops!

You can't make that up. '

Well, I can't, but you can make stuff up every day. I just quote the experts.

[Bill Chapman]

The above image confirms the presence of your threat on Sept 04.

No it doesn't, it just shows you can be creative.

I save all my 'Show Posts' offline, therefore they are impervious to online changes.

How paranoid... I don't even know how to do that nor do I care.

And not being impervious to online changes is one thing, but vulnerable to manipulation off line is another.

And your "evidence" that you are not lying is presenting a "post" that can not be found on the board. Wow!

Are you certain you want to continue this conversation and dig an even deeper hole for yourself?

You have accused me of threatening you, when the content of the "post" you present here isn't even a threat and you are unable to provide any credible evidence that there ever was a threat. Think carefully before you continue with this farce.

‘No it doesn't, it just shows you can be creative’
>>> So now I’m creative, huh?

‘How paranoid... I don't even know how to do that nor do I care’
>>> No paranoia required. Just a paper trail record.

And not being impervious to online changes is one thing, but vulnerable to manipulation off line is another.
>>> Are you accusing me of fakery? I only mess with stuff when writing spoofs

‘And your "evidence" that you are not lying is presenting a "post" that can not be found on the board. Wow!’
>>> Wow! A bit slow on the uptake, aren’t you… and here I thought you had a ‘superior education’.

‘Are you certain you want to continue this conversation and dig an even deeper hole for yourself?’
>>> No holes required on my part. But it’s fun watching you dig yours.

‘You have accused me of threatening you, when the content of the "post" you present here isn't even a threat and you are unable to provide any credible evidence that there ever was a threat. Think carefully before you continue with this farce.’
>>> Your saying that you might talk to Duncan about me and then adding that Graves was booted for much less indeed qualifies as a threat.

Keep dodging.