Non problematic evidence?

[Walt Cakebread]

None of that is reflected in anything you have written here. All you?ve done is said that you?re convinced, you?re not interested in discussing the evidence, and that you?ve ?already considered? all the objections to the evidence and you don?t care because your mind is made up.

That?s great for you, but not a particularly compelling defense of the official narrative.

It basically amounts to ?The WC said it, I believe it, and that settles it?. Ok, but lots of us don?t.

That's worth repeating.....?The WC said it, I believe it, and that settles it?. Ok, but lots of us don?t."

[Martin Weidmann]

None of that is reflected in anything you have written here. All you?ve done is said that you?re convinced, you?re not interested in discussing the evidence, and that you?ve ?already considered? all the objections to the evidence and you don?t care because your mind is made up.

That?s great for you, but not a particularly compelling defense of the official narrative.

It basically amounts to ?The WC said it, I believe it, and that settles it?. Ok, but lots of us don?t.

Do you think that I need to hear your personal viewpoint before I say that the evidence is overwhelming convincing? Is your viewpoint THAT important?

I didn?t say the things you wrote. Those are your words. I am not trying to tell you that you have to defend your conclusions to me. I am only suggesting that it is wise to have an open mind.

Which brings us back to the basic question I asked earlier; what in the world are you doing here?

It seems at least a bit strange to me that you join a forum that discusses the case against Oswald and thus also the evidence only to refuse to discuss the evidence or the case.

You keep on telling us that you didn't say things you clearly implicitely did say and you keep telling everybody to have an open mind whilst at the same time displaying time after time that your own mind is clearly closed.

In any event, now the members of this forum have noted that in your opinion the evidence is "overwhelming convincing", is there anything left to be discussed with you?

[Charles Collins]

Which brings us back to the basic question I asked earlier; what in the world are you doing here?

It seems at least a bit strange to me that you join a forum that discusses the case against Oswald and thus also the evidence only to refuse to discuss the evidence or the case.

You keep on telling us that you didn't say things you clearly implicitely did say and you keep telling everybody to have an open mind whilst at the same time displaying time after time that your own mind is clearly closed.

In any event, now the members of this forum have noted your opinion that the evidence is "overwhelming convincing", is there anything left to be discussed with you?

I joined many years ago to learn. I was here long before the forum had to start all over and all of us had to re-register. If I remember correctly my screen name was porterhaus. I have already discussed many aspects with a lot of different members. I don?t have a desire to repeat the arguments that have been discussed countless times before.

You are behaving like I?m some newcomer that is saying things that I never said.

[Martin Weidmann]

I joined many years ago to learn. I was here long before the forum had to start all over and all of us had to re-register. If I remember correctly my screen name was porterhaus. I have already discussed many aspects with a lot of different members. I don?t have a desire to repeat the arguments that have been discussed countless times before.

You are behaving like I?m some newcomer that is saying things that I never said.

I joined many years ago to learn.

Fair enough. So did I, just not so long ago


I was here long before the forum had to start all over and all of us had to re-register.

Which is exactly why I asked the question. Why did you re-register, when you don?t have "a desire to repeat the arguments that have been discussed countless times before."

Seems like a waste of time....

You are behaving like I?m some newcomer that is saying things that I never said.

Newcomer or not, you are very good at not saying things that you are clearly saying. Perhaps talking in riddles is your new hobby?

[Charles Collins]

I joined many years ago to learn.

Fair enough. So did I, just not so long ago


I was here long before the forum had to start all over and all of us had to re-register.

Which is exactly why I asked the question. Why did you re-register, when you don?t have "a desire to repeat the arguments that have been discussed countless times before."

Seems like a waste of time....

You are behaving like I?m some newcomer that is saying things that I never said.

Newcomer or not, you are very good at not saying things that you are clearly saying. Perhaps talking in riddles is your new hobby?

I keep returning from time to time to see if there is any new items that are being discussed. Typically I say what I mean and mean what I say. However, misunderstandings are common here and other similar venues.

[Martin Weidmann]

I keep returning from time to time to see if there is any new items that are being discussed. Typically I say what I mean and mean what I say. However, misunderstandings are common here and other similar venues.

I keep returning from time to time to see if there is any new items that are being discussed.

Despite the fact that you know that is unlikely;

I appreciate your comments Paul. I keep hoping that something new will be uncovered but know that it is unlikely. My first post here involved looking for evidence of the timing of the shot that the WC never defined the timing of. I have explored many avenues and learned a lot. I don?t claim to be an expert, don?t have all the details memorized, but I do believe that I have looked at this with an open mind. And that is the point that I wish to make.

So, what to make of this;

You are right. However, I don?t think that I yet know everything about the assassination that I would like to know. And I really do want to have an open mind. This is a place where both sides of the controversy can be discussed. So here I am.

Except you are not discussing anything. Go figure!


However, misunderstandings are common here and other similar venues.

Misunderstandings can very often be simply avoided by speaking more clearly and explaining something when asked.

[Charles Collins]

I keep returning from time to time to see if there is any new items that are being discussed.

Despite the fact that you know that is unlikely;

So, what to make of this;

Except you are not discussing anything. Go figure!


However, misunderstandings are common here and other similar venues.

Misunderstandings can very often be simply avoided by speaking more clearly and explaining something when asked.

If you have anything new to discuss, let?s hear it!

Another way to avoid misunderstandings is to avoid jumping to conclusions.

[Martin Weidmann]

If you have anything new to discuss, let?s hear it!

Another way to avoid misunderstandings is to avoid jumping to conclusions.

Another way to avoid misunderstandings is to avoid jumping to conclusions.

No, because jumping to conclusions is part of a process to trying to understand. Even if one does not jump to a conclusion the misunderstanding will still be there, albeit unresolved.

When you keep talking in riddles and implicitely saying things that you claim you are not saying, you basically invite people to jump to conclusions.

The conclusion I have now jumped to whilst btw having an open mind, is that you, like some of your LN brothers, have nothing significant to offer and are only wasting my time.