Touring the Tippit Scene

[Bill Chapman]

@CTers:

Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.

Booyah

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Well, yes, as I added to my post: eyewitness accounts CAN be wrong, CAN be (and are) subjective and CAN be unreliable. As in the Rashomon effect.

But all we have is these accounts plus corroborating evidence (if possible). To dismiss everything as being an opinion, as nothing more, renders any discussion of events useless. Where do we take this? Let's empty our libraries of history books. It's all opinion and worthless.

Look at the discussion here: it's an endless rejection of evidence by the Oswald defenders. Every single piece is dismissed. So what's the point? To defend Oswald or to try and muddle through with the evidence and reach some conclusions?

[Martin Weidmann]

Well, yes, as I added to my post: eyewitness accounts CAN be wrong, CAN be (and are) subjective and CAN be unreliable. As in the Rashomon effect.

But all we have is these accounts plus corroborating evidence (if possible). To dismiss everything as being an opinion, as nothing more, renders any discussion of events useless. Where do we take this? Let's empty our libraries of history books. It's all opinion and worthless.

Look at the discussion here: it's an endless rejection of evidence by the Oswald defenders. Every single piece is dismissed. So what's the point? To defend Oswald or to try and muddle through with the evidence and reach some conclusions?

To dismiss everything as being an opinion, as nothing more, renders any discussion of events useless.

Who is dismissing everything as being an opinion?

Let's empty our libraries of history books. It's all opinion and worthless.

Silly dramatics and totally beside the point. History books are there to inform so that people may form their own opinion, in the knowledge that history books are mainly written by the victors and are not always fair and accurate. Whether that opinion is correct or not is another matter, but it is pathetic to call for doing away with source material.

Look at the discussion here: it's an endless rejection of evidence by the Oswald defenders.

A completely dishonest generalization and, speaking for myself, absolutely untrue.
 
What you fail to understand is that another interpretation of the evidence by those who do not blindly accept the official narrative is not the same as "an endless rejection of the evidence". If anybody is rejecting anything, it's the WC defenders who will instantly dismiss everything that does not agree with their opinion. That's why discussion, in most cases, is impossible and very often a waste of time.

Every single piece is dismissed.

I can only speak for myself here, but please show me just one piece of evidence that I have dismissed. Go on then...

[Bill Chapman]

Well, yes, as I added to my post: eyewitness accounts CAN be wrong, CAN be (and are) subjective and CAN be unreliable. As in the Rashomon effect.

But all we have is these accounts plus corroborating evidence (if possible). To dismiss everything as being an opinion, as nothing more, renders any discussion of events useless. Where do we take this? Let's empty our libraries of history books. It's all opinion and worthless.

Look at the discussion here: it's an endless rejection of evidence by the Oswald defenders. Every single piece is dismissed. So what's the point? To defend Oswald or to try and muddle through with the evidence and reach some conclusions?

Excuse me, but Oswald-lovers have every right to choose who to live (and kneel) for.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Excuse me, but Oswald-lovers have every right to choose who to live (and kneel) for.

Of course, they are free to worship leprechauns if they want. And if their goal is to simply defend "poor Lee" then I surrender: they've accomplished it, I'm convinced.

It is interesting hearing from those who supported suppressing the Hunter Biden story because they were unproven allegations then turn around and come here and make endless unproven allegations about all sorts of people involved, they claim, in a conspiracy behind the assassination. But that's another story for another time.

[John Iacoletti]

It is interesting hearing from those who supported suppressing the Hunter Biden story because they were unproven allegations then turn around and come here and make endless unproven allegations about all sorts of people involved, they claim, in a conspiracy behind the assassination. But that's another story for another time.

And who, pray tell, would that be?

[John Iacoletti]

Look at the discussion here: it's an endless rejection of evidence by the Oswald defenders. Every single piece is dismissed. So what's the point? To defend Oswald or to try and muddle through with the evidence and reach some conclusions?

You want some cheese with that whine? Maybe it’s irrational to “reach conclusions” on insufficient or inconclusive evidence.

[Bill Chapman]

Of course, they are free to worship leprechauns if they want. And if their goal is to simply defend "poor Lee" then I surrender: they've accomplished it, I'm convinced.

It is interesting hearing from those who supported suppressing the Hunter Biden story because they were unproven allegations then turn around and come here and make endless unproven allegations about all sorts of people involved, they claim, in a conspiracy behind the assassination. But that's another story for another time.

You missed my sarcasm