Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[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.

[Bill Brown]

Where exactly did I say that?

This is what I actually said;

Substitude 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.

You make a mistake and now want to substitute 1:18 for 1:19 as if it means nothing?  You think 1:18 is the same as 1:19?  This tells me all I need to know.

The ambulance was dispatched at 1:18.  You mistakenly said that I have Callaway on the police radio at the same time the ambulance was dispatched and you used this false premise to claim that my scenario could not be true.  But your claim is flat out wrong.  The ambulance was dispatched at 1:18.  Callaway is on the police radio at 1:19-1:20 (as I have stated all along).  There is a big difference between 1:18 and 1:19 and I'm not sure how you don't see that.

Instead of simply admitting that you screwed up so we can move on, you lash out at me.

You misquote me.  I correct you.  Then you lash out.

You're a troll, nothing more.

[Bill Brown]

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.

So to have a "normal discussion", one must post in the exact manner in which you would prefer. 

Too bad, dude.

I am responding to your points.  I will respond to all of them as soon as one at a time gets put to bed one way or another.  That's perfectly fair.

[Martin Weidmann]

So to have a "normal discussion", one must post in the exact manner in which you would prefer. 

Too bad, dude.

I am responding to your points.  I will respond to all of them as soon as one at a time gets put to bed one way or another.  That's perfectly fair.

Sorry, no longer interested in anything you have to say.

[Bill Brown]

Sorry, no longer interested in anything you have to say.

That's because you've already began making mistakes and don't wish to acknowledge them.

[John Iacoletti]

The ambulance was dispatched at 1:18. 

Evidence please.

[Martin Weidmann]

Evidence please.

You're not going to get it. It's a hollow claim.

There is no way that you will ever get a reasonable answer from Bill Brown. He is a propagandist who fears the actual truth and he will never discuss the case honestly. The guy is a joke!