Poll claims Oswald seen as ......

[Martin Weidmann]

So you have concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin?  That's not a trick question.  Why won't you even state YOUR own position instead of deflecting with endless personal commentary?  It is very amusing.  Let us summarize. 

1)  You concluded that "Oswald didn't come down the stairs".

2) You appear to agree that Oswald couldn't have been the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs."

So just confirm that your position is that Oswald was not the assassin.  That is the only apparent implication that can be drawn from YOUR conclusions.  Why not just clarify that?

1)  You concluded that "Oswald didn't come down the stairs".

I concluded that all the available evidence points to him not coming down the stairs as well as that you are unable to substantiate your claim that he did come down the stairs with even a shred of evidence.

2) You appear to agree that Oswald couldn't have been the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs."

It's a reasonable and logical inference. Even more so after you failed completely to provide any persuasive evidence for your claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired.

So just confirm that your position is that Oswald was not the assassin.  That is the only apparent implication that can be drawn from YOUR conclusions.

Does this mean that you  believe my opinions are correct and can't possibly be wrong?

[Richard Smith]

1)  You concluded that "Oswald didn't come down the stairs".

I concluded that all the available evidence points to him not coming down the stairs as well as that you are unable to substantiate your claim that he did come down the stairs with even a shred of evidence.

2) You appear to agree that Oswald couldn't have been the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs."

It's a reasonable and logical inference. Even more so after you failed completely to provide any persuasive evidence for your claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired.

So just confirm that your position is that Oswald was not the assassin.  That is the only apparent implication that can be drawn from YOUR conclusions.

Does this mean that you  believe my opinions are correct and can't possibly be wrong?

This is absolutely amazing.  We are at about a hundred or more attempts, and you still will not state YOUR own position.  Again, based on your conclusions that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and couldn't have been the 6th floor assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" then is it YOUR position/claim/conclusion whatever you want to call it that Oswald wasn't the assassin?  Why can't you just say that if that is your conclusion?  If you won't even confirm your own position on the matter, it is impossible to have a discussion.  And it is amazing that you are apparently such a contrarian that you won't even acknowledge conclusions that you yourself have apparently reached.   

[Martin Weidmann]

This is absolutely amazing.  We are at about a hundred or more attempts, and you still will not state YOUR own position.  Again, based on your conclusions that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and couldn't have been the 6th floor assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" then is it YOUR position/claim/conclusion whatever you want to call it that Oswald wasn't the assassin?  Why can't you just say that if that is your conclusion?  If you won't even confirm your own position on the matter, it is impossible to have a discussion.  And it is amazing that you are apparently such a contrarian that you won't even acknowledge conclusions that you yourself have apparently reached.

This is absolutely amazing.  We are at about a hundred or more attempts, and you still will not state YOUR own position.

There is nothing amazing about me not stating what you want "my position" to be. You can make a hundred or more attempts if you like. You're only looking for something you can attack and ridicule.

Again, based on your conclusions that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and couldn't have been the 6th floor assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" then is it YOUR position/claim/conclusion whatever you want to call it that Oswald wasn't the assassin?


Stop telling me what my position or conclusion [there is no claim] is. The mistake you are constantly making is that you place everything in the context of the assumption that the official WC narrative is somehow is correct, despite the fact that it consists of dubious interpretations of pieces of evidence, assumptions and speculative conclusions that are not supported by the evidence.

The "Oswald didn't come down the stairs" opinion [based on all the known available evidence] could indicate that the official narrative is nothing more than a fabricated story to wrap the case around an already dead Oswald regardless of his guilt or innocence. So, how can that opinion tell me anything about him being the lone assassin or not?

Why can't you just say that if that is your conclusion? 

Because it isn't. I know this is a foreign concept to you, but I don't jump to conclusions without knowing all the evidence. If you want me to make a conclusion, you somehow must believe that I have seen all the evidence. Is that the case?

If you won't even confirm your own position on the matter, it is impossible to have a discussion. 

Hilarious. In general, it's always impossible to have a discussion with you, because you don't understand that in a discussion one listens to what the other has to say and one answers questions. You never do. All anybody gets from your is idiotic rants in which you only repeat yourself over and over again and never ever reply to anything somebody else has said, unless you can do so with pathetic ridicule.

In this case I have been asking you since August to substantiate your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he did manage to come down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot. Cowardly, you have tried to hide behind the WC report in a desperate and pitiful appeal to authority which ignored the obvious fact that the WC report did not offer any persuasive and conclusive evidence for Oswald's alledged presence on the 6th floor and completely ignored the "coming down the stairs" part.

And then you complain about the impossibility of having a conversation? Really?

And it is amazing that you are apparently such a contrarian that you won't even acknowledge conclusions that you yourself have apparently reached.

Says the real contrarian who, for months now, has tried to avoid backing up his claims with evidence and/or conclusions of his own, based on that evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

If you won't even confirm your own position on the matter, it is impossible to have a discussion. 

Only for somebody who is doing everything he can to deflect any discussion of his own claims in a desperate attempt to attribute some claims to somebody else so you can shift the burden.

[Richard Smith]

Again, based on your conclusions that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and couldn't have been the 6th floor assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" then is it YOUR position/claim/conclusion whatever you want to call it that Oswald wasn't the assassin?


Stop telling me what my position or conclusion [there is no claim] is. The mistake you are constantly making is that you place everything in the context of the assumption that the official WC narrative is somehow is correct, despite the fact that it consists of dubious interpretations of pieces of evidence, assumptions and speculative conclusions that are not supported by the evidence.

The "Oswald didn't come down the stairs" opinion [based on all the known available evidence] could indicate that the official narrative is nothing more than a fabricated story to wrap the case around an already dead Oswald regardless of his guilt or innocence. So, how can that opinion tell me anything about him being the lone assassin or not?

Why can't you just say that if that is your conclusion? 

Because it isn't. I know this is a foreign concept to you, but I don't jump to conclusions without knowing all the evidence. If you want me to make a conclusion, you somehow must believe that I have seen all the evidence. Is that the case?

If you won't even confirm your own position on the matter, it is impossible to have a discussion. 

Hilarious. In general, it's always impossible to have a discussion with you, because you don't understand that in a discussion one listens to what the other has to say and one answers questions. You never do. All anybody gets from your is idiotic rants in which you only repeat yourself over and over again and never ever reply to anything somebody else has said, unless you can do so with pathetic ridicule.

Truly amazing.  So many words but again no answer to the simple question posed.  What is YOUR position as to whether Oswald was the assassin?  I'm not telling you what your position or conclusion is in this case.  I'm simply asked you to confirm it based on what you have stated here as facts.  Again, you indicated that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  This is not an opinion.  You said it didn't happen.  Are you now changing this view and conceding that Oswald might have come down the stairs unnoticed?  You also acknowledged that if Oswald didn't come the stairs (again as you concluded) that he couldn't have been the assassin.  So again, if this is what YOU believe, why not just accept the only possible implication of YOUR position?  That Oswald wasn't the assassin.   

[Martin Weidmann]

Truly amazing.  So many words but again no answer to the simple question posed.  What is YOUR position as to whether Oswald was the assassin?  I'm not telling you what your position or conclusion is in this case.  I simply asked you to confirm it based on what you have stated here as facts.  Again, you indicated that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  This is not an opinion.  You said it didn't happen.  Are you now changing this view and conceding that Oswald might have come down the stairs unnoticed?  You also acknowledged that if Oswald didn't come the stairs (again as you concluded) that he couldn't have been the assassin.  So again, if this is what YOU believe, why not just accept the only possible implication of YOUR position?  That Oswald wasn't the assassin.

First of all, don't edit my answer to your previous post in your quote. It's a violation of this forum's rules.

What is YOUR position as to whether Oswald was the assassin?

Don't have one, yet. All I can tell you is that I do not find the official narrative convincing.

what you have stated here as facts.

Stop misrepresenting what I have stated. I have never claimed that any of my opinions are "facts".  I'm not like you!

Again, you indicated that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  This is not an opinion.

Of course it is. It can be changed if and when evidence is presented to show that my opinion is incorrect, which is exactly why I have been asking you for more than two months for the evidence to support your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.

There wouldn't be much point in asking you for this evidence if my mind was firmly made up.

Are you now changing this view and conceding that Oswald might have come down the stairs unnoticed?

Why would I do that? I have no reason to change my opinion as long as you haven't provided the evidence I asked for.

Btw why are you asking me if I have changed my opinion, when you earlier claimed that my point of view wasn't an opinion? Will you ever start making sense?

But seriously, how in the world can anybody conclude that Oswald did come down the stairs, and thus must have been on the 6th floor when the shots were fired, when there is not a shred of evidence to support such a claim and all the available evidence points to him not coming down the stairs?

So again, if this is what YOU believe, why not just accept the only possible implication of YOUR position?  That Oswald wasn't the assassin.

Just how stupid must you be to ask the same, already answered, question over and over again?

Again, that's not the only possible implication of my position. You seem to misunderstand my position completely, no matter how often I have already explained it.

Here's another clue; if Oswald didn't come down the stairs (and there is no evidence that he did). it raises justifiable doubt about the veracity of the office narrative, so what else in that narrative is wrong?

[Walt Cakebread]

This is absolutely amazing.  We are at about a hundred or more attempts, and you still will not state YOUR own position.

There is nothing amazing about me not stating what you want "my position" to be. You can make a hundred or more attempts if you like. You're only looking for something you can attack and ridicule.

Again, based on your conclusions that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and couldn't have been the 6th floor assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" then is it YOUR position/claim/conclusion whatever you want to call it that Oswald wasn't the assassin?


Stop telling me what my position or conclusion [there is no claim] is. The mistake you are constantly making is that you place everything in the context of the assumption that the official WC narrative is somehow is correct, despite the fact that it consists of dubious interpretations of pieces of evidence, assumptions and speculative conclusions that are not supported by the evidence.

The "Oswald didn't come down the stairs" opinion [based on all the known available evidence] could indicate that the official narrative is nothing more than a fabricated story to wrap the case around an already dead Oswald regardless of his guilt or innocence. So, how can that opinion tell me anything about him being the lone assassin or not?

Why can't you just say that if that is your conclusion? 

Because it isn't. I know this is a foreign concept to you, but I don't jump to conclusions without knowing all the evidence. If you want me to make a conclusion, you somehow must believe that I have seen all the evidence. Is that the case?

If you won't even confirm your own position on the matter, it is impossible to have a discussion. 

Hilarious. In general, it's always impossible to have a discussion with you, because you don't understand that in a discussion one listens to what the other has to say and one answers questions. You never do. All anybody gets from your is idiotic rants in which you only repeat yourself over and over again and never ever reply to anything somebody else has said, unless you can do so with pathetic ridicule.

In this case I have been asking you since August to substantiate your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he did manage to come down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot. Cowardly, you have tried to hide behind the WC report in a desperate and pitiful appeal to authority which ignored the obvious fact that the WC report did not offer any persuasive and conclusive evidence for Oswald's alledged presence on the 6th floor and completely ignored the "coming down the stairs" part.

And then you complain about the impossibility of having a conversation? Really?

And it is amazing that you are apparently such a contrarian that you won't even acknowledge conclusions that you yourself have apparently reached.

Says the real contrarian who, for months now, has tried to avoid backing up his claims with evidence and/or conclusions of his own, based on that evidence.

It's very obvious that Mr "Smith" wants to label anybody who challenges the declaration of LBJ' s "Special Committee" a  "Conspiracy Theorist"....and in his warped mind he believes that  a CT is akin to a raving lunatic....   This has always been the goal of the government....."Smith" wants anybody who rejects the official US government proclamation to be ridiculed and labeled a "nut".

Agent "Smith" has desperately been trying to label Mr Weidman a CT, so he can ridicule and attempt to discredit Mr Weidman.     It's clear the Mr Weidman does not want to be labeled a "CT" and associated with some of he loons that have utterly crazy ideas about  who murdered President Kennedy. 

[Richard Smith]

It's very obvious that Mr "Smith" wants to label anybody who challenges the declaration of LBJ' s "Special Committee" a  "Conspiracy Theorist"....and in his warped mind he believes that  a CT is akin to a raving lunatic....   This has always been the goal of the government....."Smith" wants anybody who rejects the official US government proclamation to be ridiculed and labeled a "nut".

Agent "Smith" has desperately been trying to label Mr Weidman a CT, so he can ridicule and attempt to discredit Mr Weidman.     It's clear the Mr Weidman does not want to be labeled a "CT" and associated with some of he loons that have utterly crazy ideas about  who murdered President Kennedy.

I wonder where I get the impression that JFK CTers are raving lunatics?  Anyone come to mind (think "red rings")?  As I've said to you many times before, I have no issue accepting the concept of a conspiracy.  There was a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln, for example.  I agree that the evidence supports that conclusion.  That makes me a CTer in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.  There is no such evidence in the JFK case.  Certainly nothing you or Martin have ever provided.  And your issue is with Martin - not me.  He is the one who is apparently ashamed to admit that he shares your CTer conclusions.  I can't blame him for that, but that means only that he is a coward instead of an admitted kook.