Is the amount of effort to link Oswald to Hidell believable?

[Martin Weidmann]

So by disagreeing with most if not all of the evidence in my OP, then your alternate theory is there was a conspiracy which by definition makes you a Conspiracy Theorist! Thanks for playing!

JohnM

Again, in your humble opinion, right?

And, of course no surprise, as I have known your pathetic (if you're not with me, you are against me and thus a CT) load of BS for a long time by now, I was expecting it. It's easy to predict what a one trick poney will do next....

Also, as usual you are trying to put words in my mouth, which I never said, just like you did with John Iacoletti in the "Tippit" thread earlier today.

Thanks for playing!

You just keep playing... it's about the only thing you do here.   

You will never understand that your opinion isn't the default that needs to be proven wrong. That's how stupid you are.

[John Mytton]

Again, in your humble opinion, right?

And, of course no surprise, as I have known your pathetic (if you're not with me, you are against me and thus a CT) load of BS for a long time by now, I was expecting it. It's easy to predict what a one trick poney will do next....

Also, as usual you are trying to put words in my mouth, which I never said, just like you did with John Iacoletti in the "Tippit" thread earlier today.

Thanks for playing!

You just keep playing... it's about the only thing you do here.   

You will never understand that your opinion isn't the default that needs to be proven wrong. That's how stupid you are.

Again, in your humble opinion, right?

No, there's a clear distinction between fact and opinion.

And, of course no surprise, as I have known your pathetic (if you're not with me, you are against me and thus a CT) load of BS for a long time by now, I was expecting it. It's easy to predict what a one trick poney will do next....

Again No, your alternate theory is that most if not all of the evidence in the OP is BS and thus a conspiracy, therefore you are a Conspiracy Theorist. Live with it!

it's about the only thing you do here.   

An exaggeration fallacy.

You will never understand that your opinion isn't the default that needs to be proven wrong.

Yet you respond to a lot of my posts attempting to do just that.

That's how stupid you are.

Ad hominem fallacy.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

No, there's a clear distinction between fact and opinion.

Again No, your alternate theory is that most if not all of the evidence in the OP is BS and thus a conspiracy, therefore you are a Conspiracy Theorist. Live with it!

An exaggeration fallacy.

Yet you respond to a lot of my posts attempting to do just that.

Ad hominem fallacy.

JohnM

No, there's a clear distinction between fact and opinion.

Yes, there is. And that means that your opinions are not facts   

Again No, your alternate theory is that most if not all of the evidence in the OP is BS and thus a conspiracy, therefore you are a Conspiracy Theorist.

If you say so.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA 

Your opinions are not the default that needs to be proven wrong. I can disagree with them without having a conspiracy theory. But thank you for exposing your ignorance so clearly.

An exaggeration fallacy.

Not really. All you do is trying to provoke discussions about anything but the case.

Yet you respond to a lot of my posts attempting to do just that.

Ah, there is the delusion of grandeur again....

Ad hominem fallacy.

Are fallacies your new hobby? You are throwing them around left, right and center.... very often applied completely wrong, but that's something you may still need to learn.

I've wasted enough time on this BS for now. You can have the last word, as per usual, and make some idiotic remarks to stroke that fragile ego of yours. (btw this is not a fallacy!)

[John Mytton]

I've wasted enough time on this BS for now.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

How or why all the evidence is suspect is left unaddressed.  They won't say.

Wrong again, “Richard”. The provenance issues with the evidence are discussed all the time. Your response to them is to ignore them and just parrot the same claims again and again.

[John Iacoletti]

No, there's a clear distinction between fact and opinion.

Then why do you state your opinions as facts?

Again No, your alternate theory is that most if not all of the evidence in the OP is BS and thus a conspiracy, therefore you are a Conspiracy Theorist. Live with it!

No this is your false dichotomy, and the usual impotent attempt to shift the burden to try to salvage a failed argument.

[John Mytton]

and the usual impotent attempt to shift the burden to try to salvage a failed argument.

No, the thread in which you have decided to participate is asking a clear concise question "Is the amount of effort to link Oswald to Hidell believable?" and instead of answering my innocent question it is you who is "shifting the burden" away from any reasonable reply. But keep running and thus positively reinforce my basic premise that linking Oswald's usage of the Hidell ID required an unrealistic mountain of forgery, planting evidence in obscure places and a stack of lies.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

No, the thread in which you have decided to participate is asking a clear concise question "Is the amount of effort to link Oswald to Hidell believable?" and instead of answering my innocent question it is you who is "shifting the burden" away from any reasonable reply.

It’s one of your usual loaded questions. As I pointed out ages ago, you have failed to show that Oswald ever used Hidell as an alias for himself. You just assumed that he did, and then invented a massive conspiracy as the only alternative. The only “effort” required is for somebody like you to write up a paragraph containing a fallacious argument.