X Marks The Spot

[John Iacoletti]

The historical marker will forever document the responsibility of LHO for this crime.

Yeah, because if it's carved on a plaque then it must be true.   

[Martin Weidmann]

It is good to see that there are at least some LNs who pay attention to the details and try to get them right.

Now let's hope the day will come that they will also be willing (or perhaps able) to discuss those details rather than either making them up or running away from them.

[Martin Weidmann]

The historical marker will forever document the responsibility of LHO for this crime.

Yeah, because if it's carved on a plaque then it must be true.   

That seems to be Richard's opinion. I wonder how he deals with the similar plaque at the TSBD that says Oswald allegedly killed Kennedy.

[Richard Smith]

That seems to be Richard's opinion. I wonder how he deals with the similar plaque at the TSBD that says Oswald allegedly killed Kennedy.

You still don't understand the difference between an opinion and a conclusion.  HA HA HA.  The statement that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit is a conclusion.  A conclusion shared by the DPD and witnesses to the event.  Another example of a conclusion is someone stating that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  Conclusions are a final decision about a matter.  An opinion is a belief that leaves open other possibilities.  Both conclusions and opinions can be wrong - as evidenced by your stupid conclusion about Oswald not coming down the stairs, but there is clear distinction that appears to have eluded your contrarian brain. 

[Martin Weidmann]

You still don't understand the difference between an opinion and a conclusion.  HA HA HA.  The statement that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit is a conclusion.  A conclusion shared by the DPD and witnesses to the event.  Another example of a conclusion is someone stating that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  Conclusions are a final decision about a matter.  An opinion is a belief that leaves open other possibilities.  Both conclusions and opinions can be wrong - as evidenced by your stupid conclusion about Oswald not coming down the stairs, but there is clear distinction that appears to have eluded your contrarian brain.

Hilarious. Keep on displaying your total ignorance

The statement that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit is a conclusion. 

And thus an opinion. Or do you foolishly believe you can reach a conclusion without forming an opinion?     

Conclusions are a final decision about a matter.  An opinion is a belief that leaves open other possibilities.

I have just concluded that you are a complete delusional fool and guess what, it's also my opinion.

Both conclusions and opinions can be wrong - as evidenced by your stupid conclusion about Oswald not coming down the stairs,

Says the idiot who has claimed that Oswald did come down the stairs unnoticed based on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. Now there's an conclusion for you..... 

Btw, if the Tippit marker is a conclusion and thus a "final decision about a matter", then who came to that conclusion and based on what exactly?
 
And if the TSBD marker saying Oswald allegedly killed Kennedy is also a conclusion, doesn't the word "allegedly" mean that it leaves open the possibility that he wasn't the shooter?

[Richard Smith]

Hilarious. Keep on displaying your total ignorance

The statement that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit is a conclusion. 

And thus an opinion.

Conclusions are a final decision about a matter.  An opinion is a belief that leaves open other possibilities.

I have just concluded that you are a complete delusional fool and guess what, it's also my opinion.

Both conclusions and opinions can be wrong - as evidenced by your stupid conclusion about Oswald not coming down the stairs,

Says the idiot who has claimed that Oswald did come down the stairs unnoticed based on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. Now there's an conclusion for you..... 

Btw, if the Tippit marker is a conclusion and thus a "final decision about a matter", then who came to that conclusion and based on what exactly?
 
And if the TSBD marker saying Oswald allegedly killed Kennedy is also a conclusion, doesn't the word "allegedly" mean that it leaves open the possibility that he wasn't the shooter?

So amusing.  The marker makes an affirmative statement that J.D. Tippit was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald.  That is obviously a conclusion.  Conclusions can be wrong as exemplified by your idiotic conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  What is so amusing is your desperate effort to distance yourself from your own conclusion by claiming it is an opinion. The height of stupidity reflecting a complete lack of understanding of the terms conclusion and opinion.  You still don't understand the difference wrongly thinking that a conclusion must be true.  You are a complete fool.  You reached a conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."   That was a false conclusion but a conclusion nevertheless.  The word you are looking for is "fact." 

[Martin Weidmann]

So amusing.  The marker makes an affirmative statement that J.D. Tippit was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald.  That is obviously a conclusion.  Conclusions can be wrong as exemplified by your idiotic conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  What is so amusing is your desperate effort to distance yourself from your own conclusion by claiming it is an opinion. The height of stupidity reflecting a complete lack of understanding of the terms conclusion and opinion.  You still don't understand the difference wrongly thinking that a conclusion must be true.  You are a complete fool.  You reached a conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."   That was a false conclusion but a conclusion nevertheless.  The word you are looking for is "fact."

The marker makes an affirmative statement that J.D. Tippit was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald.  That is obviously a conclusion.  Conclusions can be wrong

Really? Didn't you just say;

Conclusions are a final decision about a matter.

Go figure...

your desperate effort to distance yourself from your own conclusion by claiming it is an opinion.

Fool. It's an opinion as well as a conclusion. No need to distance myself from either.

You still don't understand the difference wrongly thinking that a conclusion must be true.

Never thought that, but you did. Anyway, now we're getting somewhere. So, when you said this;

It's great that the historical marker at the scene doesn't hedge on what happened:

"On November 22, 1963, at this intersection, Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald..."

The historical marker will forever document the responsibility of LHO for this crime.

it was total BS, right?

The word you are looking for is "fact."

You mean like in; It's a fact that you are a complete idiot for claiming that Oswald did come down the stairs unnoticed without being able to present a shred of evidence for it?

[Richard Smith]

The marker makes an affirmative statement that J.D. Tippit was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald.  That is obviously a conclusion.  Conclusions can be wrong

Really? Didn't you just say;

Go figure...

your desperate effort to distance yourself from your own conclusion by claiming it is an opinion.

Fool. It's an opinion as well as a conclusion. No need to distance myself from either.

You still don't understand the difference wrongly thinking that a conclusion must be true.

Never thought that, but you did. Anyway, now we're getting somewhere. So, when you said this;

it was total BS, right?

The word you are looking for is "fact."

You mean like in; It's a fact that you are a complete idiot for claiming that Oswald did come down the stairs unnoticed without being able to present a shred of evidence for it?

Whew.  When you stated that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" that was a conclusion.  Just because it was a conclusion doesn't make it true.  In fact, it isn't.  The point all along is that this is your conclusion.  You stated this as your decision on the matter (i.e. Oswald "didn't come down the stairs").  I simply pointed out that if is this is your conclusion, then you must have also concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin since if he didn't come down the stairs (again as you concluded) then he couldn't have been the assassin.  Why you struggled so mightily against your own conclusion is something that only a psychiatrist could shed light on but it is very amusing.   And the bizarre attempt to change your conclusion to an opinion based on a complete misunderstanding of those concepts is a cherry on top of your humiliation.