Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Martin Weidmann]

No.  Where are you getting this from?  Please explain.

First, I do not have Callaway being on the police radio at 1:18.  I'm not sure where you get this from.

What I've clearly said, many times over, is that Callaway was on the police radio reporting the shooting to the dispatcher at 1:19-1:20.

Also, the ambulance was not already there when Callaway arrived.  The ambulance was dispatched at 1:18.  Callaway is on the police radio at 1:19-1:20.  The ambulance was on it's way to the scene as Callaway was on the radio (it's sirens can be heard in the background of Callaway's radio report).

I am not going to discuss just the details of my posts that you want to discuss. Address the entire post or not at all. Up to you.

[Bill Brown]

I am not going to discuss just the details of my posts that you want to discuss. Address the entire post or not at all. Up to you.

I like to break down large posts into smaller segments.  Easier to follow that way.  You don't have to like it.  But, for you to have the gall to even think that you can tell me how to post is comical.  Stop behaving like a child.  I am responding to your "points" and instead of replying to that, you want to tell me how to post properly.

[Bill Brown]

Mr. CALLAWAY:  "I saw a squad car, and by that time there was four or five people that had gathered, a couple of cars had stopped. Then I saw--I went on up to the squad car and saw the police officer lying in the street. I see he had been shot in the head. So the first thing I did, I ran over to the squad car. I didn't know whether anybody reported it or not. So I got on the police radio and called them, and told them a man had been shot, told them the location, I thought the officer was dead. They said we know about it, stay off the air, so I went back. By this time an ambulance was coming."

[Martin Weidmann]

No.  Where are you getting this from?  Please explain.

First, I do not have Callaway being on the police radio at 1:18.  I'm not sure where you get this from.

What I've clearly said, many times over, is that Callaway was on the police radio reporting the shooting to the dispatcher at 1:19-1:20.

Also, the ambulance was not already there when Callaway arrived.  The ambulance was dispatched at 1:18.  Callaway is on the police radio at 1:19-1:20.  The ambulance was on it's way to the scene as Callaway was on the radio (it's sirens can be heard in the background of Callaway's radio report).


The points you raised?  Like the "points" you raised regarding Callaway that I just addressed a minute ago in my above post?  Your errors are so egregious that it's a waste of my time.

The points you raised?  Like the "points" you raised regarding Callaway that I just addressed a minute ago in my above post?  Your errors are so egregious that it's a waste of my time.

That's what all those say who have nothing of substance to counter the arguments presented. Your "holier than thou" posture is once again getting the better of you. No wonder you ran away for a live face to face debate. You haven't got the guts!

[Bill Brown]

The points you raised?  Like the "points" you raised regarding Callaway that I just addressed a minute ago in my above post?  Your errors are so egregious that it's a waste of my time.

That's what all those say who have nothing of substance to counter the arguments presented. Your "holier than thou" posture is once again getting the better of you. No wonder you ran away for a live face to face debate. You haven't got the guts!

You're acting like a troll.

I addressed a few of your "points" (though we should call them errors instead of points).

Once we knock this out, then I'll move on to other portions of your long post.

[Bill Brown]

Callaway testified that as he was working the radio "an ambulance was coming", which is another impossibility if the official narrative you promote is to be believed, because you have Callaway being on the radio at 1:18...

You said I have Callaway on the police radio at 1:18.  This is one of your errors.  Where did you get that from?

[Martin Weidmann]

You said the ambulance was already there when Callaway arrived.  This is another error.  Where did you get that from?

Where exactly did I say that?

This is what I actually said;

When Callaway arrived he said that he wasn't sure if anybody had called the DPD dispatcher, which means that Bowley must have been away from the radio when Callaway arrived. Callaway testified that as he was working the radio "an ambulance was coming", which is another impossibility if the official narrative you promote is to be believed, because you have Callaway being on the radio at 1:18 which is exactly the moment that your narrative says the ambulance was called. In reality the ambulance was already there and Callaway and Bowley both helped to put Tippit in the ambulance.

Substitute 1:18 for 1:19 and the same observation is valid. There is no error, but you would love for one to be there,right?

You're playing your usual word games again and I am not having it. It is pathetic. It's not the way a researcher works, but it is the way a propagandist works. And I have no interest in talking to a agenda driven propagandist.

[Martin Weidmann]

I like to break down large posts into smaller segments.  Easier to follow that way.  You don't have to like it.  But, for you to have the gall to even think that you can tell me how to post is comical.  Stop behaving like a child.  I am responding to your "points" and instead of replying to that, you want to tell me how to post properly.

I like to break down large posts into smaller segments.

Sure you do, because that way you can attack only parts of the information without having to deal with the totality of the information. It's about scoring points for you and not what really happened. "Truth be told" says it all.

One of the principal complaints of LNs is that CTs (who ever they are) attack individual pieces of evidence because that can't attack the total narrative as a whole. You're doing exactly the same here, so what's up?

If you really had any interest in an open and honest discussion you wouldn't be playing these pathetic games. All you are doing is trying to create as much confusion as you can, which basically tells me that you know that the narrative to are trying to promote is bogus. If you were defending a narrative that was even remotely conclusive you would have to confidence to engage me in a normal discussion. The fact that you are not doing that tells me all I need to know.