The Sign of a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory

[Martin Weidmann]

Are you still here Mr Evidence?
Mr "Jim Braden" and "it's possible maybe the trajectory came from the Dal-Tex perhaps"
Now you've been outed why don't you run along and play with your tinfoil friends.
Some of us are trying to get to the bottom of what happened, rather than parasite off the work of others.
Has it ever crossed your mind to actually contribute?

Multiple credible witnesses see a white male pointing a rifle from the SN towards the President at the time of the assassination.
More credible witnesses see a white male in the SN just before the assassination.
Multiple witnesses report seeing a rifle at the SN window.
3 clearly audible shots are heard from the vast majority of witnesses.
3  shells are found by the first officers to discover the SN
Multiple witnesses inside the TSBD report that the sound of the shots came from inside the TSBD.

In the official narrative all this applies to Oswald.


You miss out the majority of my post and leave in the bit that might also apply to Oswald.
Aren't you a clever boy.

Believing is something you do in church.

I believe you have nothing to offer yet I don't find myself in a church!

A theory is not proof. It is something that must be "believed in".
It is an interpretation of the available evidence.
Over the posts I've made on this thread I've presented a wealth of evidence that guides my interpretation of events.
You have provided nothing.

Which is more than you usually provide.

Are you still here Mr Evidence?
Mr "Jim Braden" and "it's possible maybe the trajectory came from the Dal-Tex perhaps"
Now you've been outed why don't you run along and play with your tinfoil friends.

Ah... nasty Danny is expressing his frustration

Some of us are trying to get to the bottom of what happened, rather than parasite off the work of others.

Really, I thought you already knew what happened.... That's what your postings suggest.

Has it ever crossed your mind to actually contribute?

To what? A theory that you can not prove?

You miss out the majority of my post and leave in the bit that might also apply to Oswald.
Aren't you a clever boy.

I just went with the summary. But the majority of your post hasn't got a shred of evidence in it that clears Oswald and points to Dougherty. This clever boy can read, you see!

I believe you have nothing to offer yet I don't find myself in a church!

Perhaps your just in the wrong place. Church is everywhere you want it to be, right?

A theory is not proof. It is something that must be "believed in". It is an interpretation of the available evidence.

Ok, you've got me... it is the interpretation that has to be believed in. Happy now?

Over the posts I've made on this thread I've presented a wealth of evidence that guides my interpretation of events.
You have provided nothing.

Which is more than you usually provide.

Whatever makes you feel good about yourself, Dan

There's a six years old in the other room throwing a tantrum because he's not getting what he wants. Is that you?

[Dan O'meara]

Why must the shooter be a white male?  Besides, I believe that Steven Wilson was also unaccounted for.

You know Doris Burns entered the offices of Allyn-Bacon just after the assassination and spoke to Wilson.
Why are you pretending you don't?

Who, besides Brennan?

Euins.
Again, you know this but are just jerking off for some reason.
In reply #57 you wrote:
"Besides, only Brennan and Euins ever claimed to see a man with a rifle in the SE 6th floor window."
Yet here you are, as per usual, talking sh%t.

[Martin Weidmann]

You know Doris Burns entered the offices of Allyn-Bacon just after the assassination and spoke to Wilson.
Why are you pretending you don't?

Euins.
Again, you know this but are just jerking off for some reason.
In reply #57 you wrote:
"Besides, only Brennan and Euins ever claimed to see a man with a rifle in the SE 6th floor window."
Yet here you are, as per usual, talking sh%t.

You really get nasty when you don't get what you want, don't you?

[Dan O'meara]

Are you still here Mr Evidence?
Mr "Jim Braden" and "it's possible maybe the trajectory came from the Dal-Tex perhaps"
Now you've been outed why don't you run along and play with your tinfoil friends.

Ah... nasty Danny is expressing his frustration

Some of us are trying to get to the bottom of what happened, rather than parasite off the work of others.

Really, I thought you already knew what happened.... That's what your postings suggest.

Has it ever crossed your mind to actually contribute?

To what? A theory that you can not prove?

You miss out the majority of my post and leave in the bit that might also apply to Oswald.
Aren't you a clever boy.

I just went with the summary. But the majority of your post hasn't got a shred of evidence in it that clears Oswald and points to Dougherty. This clever boy can read, you see!

I believe you have nothing to offer yet I don't find myself in a church!

Perhaps your just in the wrong place. Church is everywhere you want it to be, right?

A theory is not proof. It is something that must be "believed in". It is an interpretation of the available evidence.

Ok, you've got me... it the interpretation that has to be believed in. Happy now?

Over the posts I've made on this thread I've presented a wealth of evidence that guides my interpretation of events.
You have provided nothing.

Which is more than you usually provide.

Whatever makes you feel good about yourself, Dan

There's a six years old in the other room throwing a tantrum because he's not getting what he wants. Is that you?

Contribute. Don't parasite.
This thread contains a record of my contribution and your lack of contribution.
It's there for anyone to read.

[John Iacoletti]

You know Doris Burns entered the offices of Allyn-Bacon just after the assassination and spoke to Wilson.
Why are you pretending you don't?

So he was unaccounted for during the assassination then, right?

Euins.
Again, you know this but are just jerking off for some reason.

Why is it that whenever your claims are challenged you have a temper tantrum and go straight to the personal attack?

Euins told Underwood that it was a "colored man", his affidavit says that it was a white man, and he told the Warren Commission that he couldn't tell which he was.

[Dan O'meara]

Your "contribution" is a wild "gang of four" theory for which you can not provide any evidence except your opinion. Get real.

If only I had something as solid as your Dal-Tex shooter horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns.

[Martin Weidmann]

If only I had something as solid as your Dal-Tex shooter horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns.

So, this is what it looks like when you show your true colors.

hypothesis:

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

And what was the evidence again that Dougherty was the shooter? Oh, sorry, you haven't got any, mr "I wanna get to the bottom of this"

We're done. I don't waste my time with the fantasies of cry babies. If you want to have an adult discussion you need to grow up.

[Dan O'meara]

So, this is what it looks like when you show your true colors.

hypothesis:

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

And what was the evidence again that Dougherty was the shooter? Oh, sorry, you haven't got any, mr "I wanna get to the bottom of this"

We're done. I don't waste my time with the fantasies of cry babies. If you want to have an adult discussion you need to grow up.

"a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

Of course we're done.
Do you think I'm wasting my time on someone who can't tell the difference between "limited evidence" and no evidence?

You've outed yourself and your crazy Dal-Tex beliefs.
Run along.