Lame LN excuses

[Vincent Baxter]

Are you seriously telling me that if someone you were convinced of fake internet identity offered you $100,000 to prove them wrong, which would involve dragging in solicitors and paying for hours of legal work, you'd have taken him up on his offer? Do me a favour!

Arguments and opposing JFK theories aside; you must agree that you'd take the challenge about as seriously as I did?

And John Iacoletti, I'm assuming by the lack of response to the above question that I asked you, you would indeed have acted in exactly the same way as I did when offered the $100,000 challenge?

So your stupid comment and attempt at an argument was kind of a bit stupid in hindsight, no?

[John Mytton]

L O L

No, you examine each statement in context of what you already believe.

Your evidence being that it conflicts with what your unsubstantiated beliefs are.

There's a difference between belief and evidence, I stick to the evidence whereas you stick to your beliefs.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Well, because he had his revolver and jacket afterwards.

Of course he did. The WC said so. Even if that’s true, how do you know he didn’t already have them?

I know you refuse to accept anything other than high quality CCTV footageof Oswald doing anything as sufficient proof

That’s what people who make claims without sufficient proof always say.

I could quite easily pose dumb questions like:
- How do you know witnesses did actually see puffs of smoke from the grassy knoll and weren't just making it up solely to get on TV?
- How do we know the doctors at Parkland weren't just extremely p*ssed off about the secret services taking JFK's body and so decided to get together and lie about the autopsy to confuse things and get back at them?
And you wouldn't be able to answer them with any conclusive proof either way, because we know there isn't any.

You’re correct — which is why I don’t make any of those claims. What’s your point?

As other people have already stated on this thread, Oswald admitted to going to the boarding house to get his revolver.

Correction: Fritz claimed months later that Oswald “admitted” this.

[Martin Weidmann]

And John Iacoletti, I'm assuming by the lack of response to the above question that I asked you, you would indeed have acted in exactly the same way as I did when offered the $100,000 challenge?

So your stupid comment and attempt at an argument was kind of a bit stupid in hindsight, no?

What the hell is wrong with you? If you truly belief that Otto and I are the same person, there is no way for two people to show up at a meeting, during which you would be given every opportunity to check the authenticity of their ID's.

So, it would be easy money to earn, right? So, what's holding you back, except of course the fact that you are simply not sure and don't want to risk losing face and paying out more money than you will ever earn in your life?

[Vincent Baxter]

Well, because he had his revolver and jacket afterwards.

At the risk of being called the same person as John ( ) how the hell do you know what he had "afterwards", whatever that means?

  Yeah, we've been there several times already, Martin. You can goad us all you like and come up with feeble and obvious attempts to encourage people on this forum to accuse you and John Iacoletti of being the same person as well, but it's clear Iacoletti isn't one of your made up accounts.
No matter how many times you post "Oh, I suppose you think me and John are the same person", "I'm surprised you're not accusing me and John of being the same person too", "Hey, John, they'll be accusing us of being the same person next", etc, etc. It's not going to happen.

I've got an idea though, if you so desperately want someone to accuse you both of being the same person, why don't you create an account under a different name and get that made up person to post the accusation? You obviously know how to do it.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yeah, we've been there several times already, Martin. You can goad us all you like and come up with feeble and obvious attempts to encourage people on this forum to accuse you and John Iacoletti of being the same person as well, but it's clear Iacoletti isn't one of your made up accounts.

No matter how many times you post "Oh, I suppose you think me and John are the same person", "I'm surprised you're not accusing me and John of being the same person too", "Hey, John, they'll be accusing us of being the same person next", etc, etc. It's not going to happen.

I've got an idea though, if you so desperately want someone to accuse you both of being the same person, why don't you create an account under a different name and get that made up person to post the accusation? You obviously know how to do it.

Hilarious. I don't want anybody to accuse me of anything, but since you have accused me of being the same person as the one posting as Otto Beck, why don't you just prove it and earn yourself some cash?

Actually, Johnny, I know why not; because you're a pathetic coward who is only comfortable in his mum's basement, using false names, to make false accusations about people on the internet.

[John Mytton]

Yeah, we've been there several times already, Martin. You can goad us all you like and come up with feeble and obvious attempts to encourage people on this forum to accuse you and John Iacoletti of being the same person as well, but it's clear Iacoletti isn't one of your made up accounts.
No matter how many times you post "Oh, I suppose you think me and John are the same person", "I'm surprised you're not accusing me and John of being the same person too", "Hey, John, they'll be accusing us of being the same person next", etc, etc. It's not going to happen.

I've got an idea though, if you so desperately want someone to accuse you both of being the same person, why don't you create an account under a different name and get that made up person to post the accusation? You obviously know how to do it.

The differing reactions are quite telling, you and me think being accused is funny because we know it's not true whereas Weidmann goes absolutely ballistic and makes absurd 100,000 dollar challenges and starts the usual diversionary tactics of erroneously linking other members to himself like Iacoletti, but we are way too smart to fall for these blatantly obvious deflections.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

The differing reactions are quite telling, you and me think being accused is funny because we know it's not true whereas Weidmann goes absolutely ballistic and makes absurd 100,000 dollar challenges and starts the usual diversionary tactics of erroneously linking other members to himself like Iacoletti, but we are way too smart to fall for these blatantly obvious deflections.

JohnM

but we are way too smart to fall for these blatantly obvious deflections.

If you say so, but you're stupid enough to instantly come to the rescue of your alter ego.....