Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?

[Martin Weidmann]

Your question: "What makes you think I was angry?"

The answer:  Beginning responses by calling someone a "fool."  Something you do frequently to myself and just about anyone who points out the absurdity of your approach to this case.  Which is most anyone who bothers to respond to you.

The guy who does nothing else but try to ridicule people in every way he can, and clearly considers himself to be superior enough to "point out the absurdity of their approach" to others (what an ego!), has his feelings hurt by being called a fool, while acting like one. HA HA HA HA, that's comedy gold

Btw, this thread's subject is a discussion between Bill Brown and myself about when exactly Callaway helped to load Tippit into the ambulance. In all your posts in this thread you haven't mentioned or said anything about the topic. Not a single word. That really tells us all we need to know about your presence on this board.

[Richard Smith]

The guy who does nothing else but try to ridicule people in every way he can, and clearly considers himself to be superior enough to "point out the absurdity of their approach" to others (what an ego!), has his feelings hurt by being called a fool, while acting like one. HA HA HA HA, that's comedy gold

Btw, this thread's subject is a discussion between Bill Brown and myself about when exactly Callaway helped to load Tippit into the ambulance. In all your posts in this thread you haven't mentioned or said anything about the topic. Not a single word. That really tells us all we need to know about your presence on this board.

I spent considerable time discussing that topic which was the basis of your tantrum.  The timeline of events does not, as you erroneously imply, have any relevance as to Oswald's guilt in the murder of J.D. Tippit.  The totality of evidence proves beyond any doubt that Oswald was present at the scene at the moment of the crime.  Whatever time that occurred. The only relevance this discussion has is to when Oswald murdered Tippit.  As a result, the resolution of the order of every event isn't of much importance except as a matter of historical curiosity even if it were somehow possible to resolve nearly six decades later.   Which it isn't to any degree of certainty.  I suppose the color of Oswald's socks that day is deemed important to some because everything he did that day, as the assassin of the president, has some historical significance.  But pontificating like it matters is absurd and humorous. 

[John Iacoletti]

Here is something to ponder.  If the totality of evidence places Oswald at the crime scene, do you believe that the timeline analysis is still relevant as to whether he could have been there?

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

[John Iacoletti]

The totality of evidence proves beyond any doubt that Oswald was present at the scene at the moment of the crime.

 

As a result, the resolution of the order of every event isn't of much importance except as a matter of historical curiosity even if it were somehow possible to resolve nearly six decades later.   

That’s a laugh. Just because you have formed an ignorant conclusion doesn’t mean that there’s nothing left to discuss. Again, why are you here?

[Martin Weidmann]

I spent considerable time discussing that topic which was the basis of your tantrum.  The timeline of events does not, as you erroneously imply, have any relevance as to Oswald's guilt in the murder of J.D. Tippit.  The totality of evidence proves beyond any doubt that Oswald was present at the scene at the moment of the crime.  Whatever time that occurred. The only relevance this discussion has is to when Oswald murdered Tippit.  As a result, the resolution of the order of every event isn't of much importance except as a matter of historical curiosity even if it were somehow possible to resolve nearly six decades later.   Which it isn't to any degree of certainty.  I suppose the color of Oswald's socks that day is deemed important to some because everything he did that day, as the assassin of the president, has some historical significance.  The totality of evidence proves beyond any doubt that Oswald was present at the scene at the moment of the crime. But pontificating like it matters is absurd and humorous.

I spent considerable time discussing that topic which was the basis of your tantrum.

You do understand that people can read back your messages and easily find out that you haven't said a word about when Callaway helped to load Tippit into the ambulance.

All you have been doing is pontificating that the timeline being discussed by Bill Brown and I is not relevant to Oswald's perceived guilt, when nobody has even claimed it is.


The totality of evidence proves beyond any doubt that Oswald was present at the scene at the moment of the crime.

No it doesn't, except of course in your delusional mind. But pontificating like it is somehow true is absurd and humorous.

[Richard Smith]

I spent considerable time discussing that topic which was the basis of your tantrum.

You do understand that people can read back your messages and easily find out that you haven't said a word about when Callaway helped to load Tippit into the ambulance.

All you have been doing is pontificating that the timeline being discussed by Bill Brown and I is not relevant to Oswald's perceived guilt, when nobody has even claimed it is.


The totality of evidence proves beyond any doubt that Oswald was present at the scene at the moment of the crime.

No it doesn't, except of course in your delusional mind. But pontificating like it is somehow true is absurd and humorous.

As I just explained, I placed the topic in proper context.  The timeline including your pedantic analysis of a minor event down to the nanosecond can't be used to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt.  At best, your analysis of this minor event can be used to determine the time that Oswald killed Tippit.  Not whether he did so.  The totality of evidence conclusively proves Oswald was at the scene and murdered Tippit.  This crime happened in broad daylight on a public street in front of numerous witnesses who identified LHO as the person at the scene with a gun.   He was arrested a short distance away with the gun and same two different brands of ammo used to kill Tippit.  This is an obvious point of logic.  If the evidence places Oswald at the scene, then we know with certainty that he had time to get there even if we don't know the exact time this occurred.  His presence at the scene is the best possible evidence of this and not your tortured attempt to piece together every event down to the second.  An impossible task.  And - for the record - you have included yet another personal insult in this post. 

[Martin Weidmann]

As I just explained, I placed the topic in proper context.  The timeline including your pedantic analysis of a minor event down to the nanosecond can't be used to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt.  At best, your analysis of this minor event can be used to determine the time that Oswald killed Tippit.  Not whether he did so.  The totality of evidence conclusively proves Oswald was at the scene and murdered Tippit.  This crime happened in broad daylight on a public street in front of numerous witnesses who identified LHO as the person at the scene with a gun.   He was arrested a short distance away with the gun and same two different brands of ammo used to kill Tippit.  This is an obvious point of logic.  If the evidence places Oswald at the scene, then we know with certainty that he had time to get there even if we don't know the exact time this occurred.  His presence at the scene is the best possible evidence of this and not your tortured attempt to piece together every event down to the second.  An impossible task.  And - for the record - you have included yet another personal insult in this post.

I placed the topic in proper context.

No, you didn't. Are you really so arrogant to actually believe that you can tell Bill Brown and me what the correct context is of what we are discussing? Wow.... Who died and left you in charge of determining what the context of a conversation between two other people should be?

In fact, the only thing that your so-called "placing the topic in proper context" shows is your obsession with Oswald's perceived guilt and anything that might cast doubt about it. 

Go and take your circular logic crap somewhere else. I am not wasting any more time on your BS on this topic.

As it was Bill Brown who wanted to debate this particular issue with me, I'll let him know that "Richard Smith" considers our discussion a "pedantic analysis of a minor event".

[John Iacoletti]

As I just explained, I placed the topic in proper context.  The timeline including your pedantic analysis of a minor event down to the nanosecond can't be used to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt.

And who said the purpose of the discussion about Callaway and the ambulance was to “cast doubt on Oswald’s guilt”? There would be no need to to “cast doubt on Oswald’s guilt” because doubt is already there. In spades.

The totality of evidence conclusively proves Oswald was at the scene and murdered Tippit.

 

If the evidence places Oswald at the scene, then we know with certainty that he had time to get there even if we don't know the exact time this occurred. 

But it doesn’t. False premises lead to false conclusions.

And - for the record - you have included yet another personal insult in this post.

Pot, kettle.