Poll claims Oswald seen as ......

[Richard Smith]

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?

So you leave open the possibility that Oswald DID come down the stairs unnoticed when you make statements like Oswald "DIDN'T come down the stairs"?  That is truly Alice-in-Wonderland stuff.   When you make an affirmative statement like Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" that is a conclusion not an opinion as you stupidly suggest in your desire to avoid defending your own conclusions.  A conclusion can be wrong but that doesn't make it a subjective opinion.  You are just going round and round in contrarian circles.  You make affirmative statements based on your analysis of the evidence then dance like a circus monkey to avoid confirming that you accept the implications of your own conclusions. 

[Martin Weidmann]

So you leave open the possibility that Oswald DID come down the stairs unnoticed when you make statements like Oswald "DIDN'T come down the stairs"?  That is truly Alice-in-Wonderland stuff.   When you make an affirmative statement like Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" that is a conclusion not an opinion as you stupidly suggest in your desire to avoid defending your own conclusions.  A conclusion can be wrong but that doesn't make it a subjective opinion.  You are just going round and round in contrarian circles.  You make affirmative statements based on your analysis of the evidence then dance like a circus monkey to avoid confirming that you accept the implications of your own conclusions.

So you leave open the possibility that Oswald DID come down the stairs unnoticed when you make statements like Oswald "DIDN'T come down the stairs"?  That is truly Alice-in-Wonderland stuff.

Yes it is and it all comes from your confused mind. I never said anything of the kind. You really need to stop misrepresenting my words. Why are you struggling so much to understand this straight forward stuff?

Could it be you have a reading comprehension problem? This is an extract of my previous post;

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?

It seems you're all over the place... 

When you make an affirmative statement like Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" that is a conclusion not an opinion as you stupidly suggest in your desire to avoid defending your own conclusions.

Semantics and utter nonsense.

You make affirmative statements based on your analysis of the evidence then dance like a circus monkey to avoid confirming that you accept the implications of your own conclusions.

Looking in the mirror again?

Will we ever get the evidence from you that substantiates your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed after that. You've been doing a song and dance act for more than two months now.

And please try at some point to get out of your alternate reality and back into the real word. Or alternatively, feel free to write another stupid post.

[John Iacoletti]

A conclusion can be wrong but that doesn't make it a subjective opinion.

Of course a conclusion is a subjective opinion.  No wonder your arguments are so nonsensical.

[Richard Smith]

So you leave open the possibility that Oswald DID come down the stairs unnoticed when you make statements like Oswald "DIDN'T come down the stairs"?  That is truly Alice-in-Wonderland stuff.

Yes it is and it all comes from your confused mind. I never said anything of the kind. You really need to stop misrepresenting my words. Why are you struggling so much to understand this straight forward stuff?

"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor.
She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere in between these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."


Above are your exact words.  You stated an affirmative conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  You didn't say that one possible reason Garner didn't see him was that he didn't come down the stairs or even that this is the most likely reason.  You said without any qualification that the reason Garner did not see him is because "he didn't come down the stairs. " That is a textbook definition of a conclusion.  You have made a decision about the matter rather than merely expressing a belief.  But if you want us to accept your dishonest and incorrect revisionist interpretation of this statement as merely your own opinion leaving open the possibility that Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed, that is fine with me since that is exactly what happened.  An added bonus here is that the contrarian brothers apparently don't entertain the possibility of anyone, including themselves, of ever reaching a conclusion.  Everything is merely an assumption or opinion.  No fact can ever be proven in their contrarian fantasy world. 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Why even have an investigation? Of any event? If the possibility is that the conclusion is wrong - since the evidence for that conclusion may be false - then why investigate...well, anything?

They say they are here to discuss the evidence. But they also say the evidence may be corrupt (in fact, they sometimes actually say it is corrupt or tainted either explicitly or in so many words). So what's the use of discussing this event? Or any event? The information/evidence can be inauthentic or false. So it's useless to do so.

Might as well empty our libraries since those history books might be wrong (they say this about Caro's works on LBJ; he might be wrong and LBJ may have been the mastermind behind the assassination). Why even read history? Why read...well anything? It could all be false after all.

This is a form of nihilism, of anti-intellectualism. All in the service of Lee Oswald? Because none of this nihilism, this absurd standard, is used against the conspiracists and their claims.

[Martin Weidmann]

"If Oswald had come down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots, he would have been seen by Dorothy Garner, who was standing next to the stairs on the 4th floor.
She heard Adams and Styles going down on the stairs and saw Baker and Truly come up. Somewhere in between these two events Oswald would have be passing the 4th floor. The reason Garner did not see him is simple; he didn't come down the stairs."

Above are your exact words.  You stated an affirmative conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  You didn't say that one possible reason Garner didn't see him was that he didn't come down the stairs or even that this is the most likely reason.  You said without any qualification that the reason Garner did not see him is because "he didn't come down the stairs. " That is a textbook definition of a conclusion.  You have made a decision about the matter rather than merely expressing a belief.  But if you want us to accept your dishonest and incorrect revisionist interpretation of this statement as merely your own opinion leaving open the possibility that Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed, that is fine with me since that is exactly what happened.  An added bonus here is that the contrarian brothers apparently don't entertain the possibility of anyone, including themselves, of ever reaching a conclusion.  Everything is merely an assumption or opinion.  No fact can ever be proven in their contrarian fantasy world.

Above are your exact words.  You stated an affirmative conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."

Yes that's my opinion after looking at all the available evidence, known to me, which clearly points towards only one possible conclusion, which is that Oswald could not and thus did not come down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.

Did I miss something? It's always possible, but I seriously doubt it, because although you claim that Oswald did come down the stairs unnoticed, you have been fighting tooth and nail for more than two months now to present the evidence for that claim.

leaving open the possibility that Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed, that is fine with me since that is exactly what happened.

And there is the claim again that I have been asking you for months now to provide evidence for. Are we going to get the evidence this time that shows that Oswald did come down the stairs unnoticed?

An added bonus here is that the contrarian brothers apparently don't entertain the possibility of anyone, including themselves, of ever reaching a conclusion.  Everything is merely an assumption or opinion.

That's just another stupid comment. Looking at the available evidence and concluding that Oswald didn't come down the stairs is a opinion or conclusion. Claiming that Oswald did come down the stairs based on no evidence at all is an assumption. Why am I not surprised that you don't understand the difference between the two?

No fact can ever be proven in their contrarian fantasy world

To prove a fact you need to present conclusive evidence. So, where is it? Why don't you just show it and be done with it. Here's your chance to show that John and I have the wrong opinion. Go on then.....

[Martin Weidmann]

Why even have an investigation? Of any event? If the possibility is that the conclusion is wrong - the evidence for that conclusion may be false - then why investigate...well, anything?

They say they are here to discuss the evidence. But they also say the evidence may be corrupt (in fact, they actually do in so many words). So what's the use of discussing this event? Or any event? The information/evidence can be inauthentic or false. So it's useless to do so.

Might as well empty our libraries since those history books might be wrong (they say this about Caro's works on LBJ; he might be wrong and LBJ was the mastermind behind the assassination). Why even read history? Why read...well anything? It could all be false after all.

This is a form of nihilism, of anti-intellectualism. All in the service of Lee Oswald?

If the possibility is that the conclusion is wrong - the evidence for that conclusion may be false -

History shows us time after time that conclusions were wrong and that evidence can be and was tampered with.

One example is the Dreyfus affair in France. Another is the Nazi myth of the Reichstag fire. And while you are at it, have a look at how wrong the history books were for hundreds of years about the Donation of Constantine. Closer to home, just look at the number of unsafe and wrongful convictions that are overturned many years after the fact.

Perhaps you should consider the saying; "History is written by the victors". Rings a bell, perhaps?

then why investigate...well, anything?

So, just because investigations don't always get it right, we should do away with all investigations? Really? Are you really this naive?

They say they are here to discuss the evidence. But they also say the evidence may be corrupt (in fact, they actually do in so many words). So what's the use of discussing this event?

To find out if the evidence was indeed corrupt or not, perhaps? But since you raised the point, I don't recall having seen you ever discussing the evidence or the case itself, so what exactly are you here for? Just to complain, time after time, about all those nasty people who don't share your die hard belief in a massive fairytale, perhaps?

Might as well empty our libraries since those history books might be wrong (they say this about Caro's works on LBJ; he might be wrong and LBJ was the mastermind behind the assassination). Why even read history? Why read...well anything? It could all be false after all.

Oh the dramatics.....

This is a form of nihilism, of anti-intellectualism.

So, let see if I understand this correctly; it's anti-intellectualism to read a history book that might be wrong? Really?

Were you born this stupid and narrowminded or did it come to you as you grew up?

[John Iacoletti]

But if you want us to accept your dishonest and incorrect revisionist interpretation of this statement as merely your own opinion leaving open the possibility that Oswald could have come down the stairs unnoticed, that is fine with me since that is exactly what happened.

LOL.

An added bonus here is that the contrarian brothers apparently don't entertain the possibility of anyone, including themselves, of ever reaching a conclusion.  Everything is merely an assumption or opinion.  No fact can ever be proven in their contrarian fantasy world.

Bull, Strawman "Smith".  There's nothing magical about a "conclusion" that makes it any more likely to be true than any other opinion.  You're making a distinction that doesn't exist.