Humor me

[Martin Weidmann]

Totality of circumstantial evidence and Oswald?s consciousness of guilt are two issues conspiracy nuts can not over come. Those are the facts. Your own ignorance in stating a direct evidence case is stronger one more time shows those reading this exchange understand your inability to reason critically and demonstrates once again your total ignorance of the evidence in this case. You seek confirmation bias as the majority of ignorant people do. You cannot even garner support on this thread.  How pathetic are you ?Marty?.

bla bla bla   

More of the same arrogant "I know better and you are ignorant" crap. What isn't there is just one straight forward argument to support your case.

Don't you ever get tired of yourself?

[Paul May]

bla bla bla   

More of the same arrogant "I know better and you are ignorant" crap. What isn't there is just one straight forward argument to support your case.

Don't you ever get tired of yourself?

Last response.  I?ve debated, over 50+ years intelligent, well versed CT?s who actually knew the evidence and disputed said evidence.  They could propose no argument for conspiracy and said so.  You?re to effen stupid to even consider that. You?re a clown who with each posting demonstrates to ALL your desire to waste peoples time. I know longer play that game. I prefer golf.  It?s more challenging.  Good riddance.

[Martin Weidmann]

Last response.  I?ve debated, over 50+ years intelligent, well versed CT?s who actually knew the evidence and disputed said evidence.  They could propose no argument for conspiracy and said so.  You?re to effen stupid to even consider that. You?re a clown who with each posting demonstrates to ALL your desire to waste peoples time. I know longer play that game. I prefer golf.  It?s more challenging.  Good riddance.

I?ve debated, over 50+ years intelligent, well versed CT?s 

Sure you have.. there is just no trace of it anywhere on line

They could propose no argument for conspiracy and said so.

So what? Is it your pathetic argument that - even it was true - that means that "Oswald did it alone" wins by default?

I know longer play that game. I prefer golf.  It?s more challenging.  Good riddance.

And yet you are still here, posting crap on a frequent basis.... very believable? and btw, you don't even know how to play golf.

[Paul May]

I?ve debated, over 50+ years intelligent, well versed CT?s 

Sure you have.. there is just no trace of it anywhere on line

They could propose no argument for conspiracy and said so.

So what? Is it your pathetic argument that - even it was true - that means that "Oswald did it alone" wins by default?

I know longer play that game. I prefer golf.  It?s more challenging.  Good riddance.

And yet you are still here, posting crap on a frequent basis.... very believable? and btw, you don't even know how to play golf.

You and Caprio, two pathological liars.  I?ll prove it once more.  You state above I?m a ?frequent? poster.  You and I joined this forum within two days of one another.  Since,I have posted 194 times. You?ve posted 1,093 times. Once again demonstrates your inability to do even mundane research. You so obviously lack the basics in knowing/understand what constitutes research.  So stop lying already.....Caprio jr.  May...OUT.

[Martin Weidmann]

You and Caprio, two pathological liars.  I?ll prove it once more.  You state above I?m a ?frequent? poster.  You and I joined this forum within two days of one another.  Since,I have posted 194 times. You?ve posted 1,093 times. Once again demonstrates your inability to do even mundane research. You so obviously lack the basics in knowing/understand what constitutes research.  So stop lying already.....Caprio jr.  May...OUT.

The difference between you and I is (and always has been) that I am only active on this board and I have a posting average of less than 3 posts a day. You, on the other hand, have been (and probably still are) obsessed with this case for 50+ years. Remember this;

Last response.  I?ve debated, over 50+ years intelligent, well versed CT?s who actually knew the evidence and disputed said evidence.

The fact that you post less than I is hardly surprising either, since you have hardly anything interesting to say.


You so obviously lack the basics in knowing/understand what constitutes research.

And yet, when I challenged you to a live debate where you could have demostrated your supposed superior knowledge, you made up weak excuses and ran as fast as you could?.

[Walt Cakebread]

The difference between you and I is (and always has been) that I am only active on this board and you have been (and probably still are) all over the place, displaying a 50+ year old obsession. Remember this;


You so obviously lack the basics in knowing/understand what constitutes research.

And yet, when I challenged you to a live debate where you could have demostrated your supposed superior knowledge, you made up excuses and ran as fast as you could

Paul May ( who someday learn to reason) Wrote:  ..."Totality of circumstantial evidence and Oswald?s consciousness of guilt are two issues conspiracy nuts can not over come. Those are the facts."

So, Paul believes that CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE and Lee Oswald's CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT  ( what ever that means?) are two issues that he can stand on in complete faith ....   And Paul calls them FACTS.   This clearly demonstrates that Paul doesn't know FACTS from FIGS..... and he has the audacity to call those who refuse to believe nonsense as... "conspiracy nuts".

Lee Oswald's CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT .....   could Paul believe that Lee clearly telling reporters that he did not shoot anybody an indication that he was guilty?

[John Iacoletti]

Totality of circumstantial evidence and Oswald?s consciousness of guilt are two issues conspiracy nuts can not over come. Those are the facts.

?Consciousness of guilt? isn?t a ?fact?, it?s confirmation bias. Pot, kettle.

Your own ignorance in stating a direct evidence case is stronger one more time shows those reading this exchange understand your inability to reason critically and demonstrates once again your total ignorance of the evidence in this case. You seek confirmation bias as the majority of ignorant people do. You cannot even garner support on this thread. 

Of course a direct evidence case is stronger. Circumstantial evidence is all judgment calls and assumptions.

[John Iacoletti]

You state above I?m a ?frequent? poster.  You and I joined this forum within two days of one another.  Since,I have posted 194 times.

Why have you even posted 194 times if you ?no longer play that game??