Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[Martin Weidmann]

His statement was prefaced with:

"It's about Oswald's frame of mind."

That implies that the following statement is what he thinks Oswald's frame of mind was. It appears to be based on what he would have done (or not done), not on the actual actions of LHO. At least what I opined was based on reality (LHO's actions).

That implies that the following statement is what he thinks Oswald's frame of mind was.

No it doesn't. You made a claim about what Oswald would or could have done (i.e. take the rifle to New Orleans, wrapped in a blanket and place in a duffelbag, with a part sticking out) and I asked if you had taken Oswald's frame of mind (as in consiousness of guilt) into account. I never claimed or even implied to know what Oswald's frame of mind was, but it seems logical to me that people will act differently when they get paranoid after doing something bad.

At least what I opined was based on reality (LHO's actions).

Nope.. what you opined was based upon what you believed to be reality and even then it was based on one instance. That's a far cry from being actually based on LHO's actions.

[Charles Collins]

But what followed the preface was not a statement of fact, but rather a question.

Consider the following analogy:

"Bernie Sanders' state of mind is that he does not think he can beat Trump"

vs.

"It's all about Bernie Sanders' state of mind.  Does he think he can beat Trump?  I doubt it."

One is a statement of fact, and the other is a statement of opinion.  The second statement does not claim to know what Sanders' state of mind is.

But what followed the preface was not a statement of fact, but rather a question.

No, it was a question followed by an answer to the question. Together they form a statement. In Martin's case it is an opinion.


Consider the following analogy:

"Bernie Sanders' state of mind is that he does not think he can beat Trump"

vs.

"It's all about Bernie Sanders' state of mind.  Does he think he can beat Trump?  I doubt it."

One is a statement of fact, and the other is a statement of opinion.  The second statement does not claim to know what Sanders' state of mind is.

Yes, just what I said above, a statement of opinion. And I said to Martin earlier, I didn't say he claimed to know anything with certainty.

[John Iacoletti]

No, it was a question followed by an answer to the question.

"I doubt it" is not an answer.  Or a claim.

I guess you really don't get the difference then.

[Martin Weidmann]

But what followed the preface was not a statement of fact, but rather a question.

No, it was a question followed by an answer to the question. Together they form a statement. In Martin's case it is an opinion.

Oh boy.... What does it take to get through to you?

Let's try again, shall we? Here's the quote you refer to;

You are missing the point. Sure, many people travel with firearms, but how many of those have just used that weapon to shoot somebody? It's about Oswald's frame of mind. Having just tried to kill a man with that rifle, would he risk transporting it in a duffelbag with the barrel sticking out? I seriously doubt it....

1. I made the comment that it was about Oswald's frame of mind, because you missed the point I had made.
2. I asked a question
3. I stated my opinion that I seriously doubted it.

My opinion is not an answer to the question, nor does it indicate that I know anything about Oswald's frame of mind. It's merely an expression of doubt.

The question and my opinion combined do not constitute a statement of any kind and it most certainly does not, as you claimed about one hour ago, imply that I somehow think I know what Oswald's frame of mind was.

I did not claim that Oswald would never have carried the rifle the way you described. I merely stated that I doubted it!

If you don't understand the difference, than I don't know what else there is I, or anybody else, can tell you to make you understand.

[Charles Collins]

Look at the last edit time... only 6 minutes before you posted

So for you having doubts about somebody's alleged frame of mind (as claimed by others) is the same as crawling into somebody's mind?

With that kind of superficial "logic" it is indeed impossible to have a reasonable conversation!

Besides, what you call a "reasonable conversation" means that you will twist and turn in every which way possible to push your predetermind opinion, just like you did with the whole "rifle wrapped in a blanket and concealed in a duffelbag with a part sticking out" theory, which you later tried to pass of a Ruth Paine's conjecture, when it was clearly your own. Once you've got your mind made up, it seems to become fact to you and nothing anybody can say will convince you otherwise.

Look at the last edit time... only 6 minutes before you posted


No matter, it was still before, and what I was responding to.


So for you having doubts about somebody's alleged frame of mind (as claimed by others) is the same as crawling into somebody's mind?


You were the first to bring up LHO's frame of mind. I responded to your opinion. Therefore your stated "doubt" was about the scenario you included in your own question. And since you answered your own question, you did make a statement about what you thought LHO's frame of mind should have been.


Besides, what you call a "reasonable conversation" means that you will twist and turn in every which way possible to push your predetermind opinion, just like you did with the whole "rifle wrapped in a blanket and concealed in a duffelbag with a part sticking out" theory, which you later tried to pass of a Ruth Paine's conjecture, when it was clearly your own. Once you've got your mind made up, it seems to become fact to you and nothing anybody can say will convince you otherwise.

The rifle in the duffel bag was Ruth Paine's conjecture. I expanded upon it with some conjecture of my own. I have already acknowledged this. What is your problem? No one said you have to agree with any of it.

[Charles Collins]

"I doubt it" is not an answer.  Or a claim.

I guess you really don't get the difference then.

"I doubt it" is not an answer.  Or a claim.

It is a statement of opinion (as a response to the question). Therefore it is an answer. Here is the definition for you: a thing said, written, or done to deal with or as a reaction to a question, statement, or situation.

Got it yet?!

[Charles Collins]

Oh boy.... What does it take to get through to you?

Let's try again, shall we? Here's the quote you refer to;

1. I made the comment that it was about Oswald's frame of mind, because you missed the point I had made.
2. I asked a question
3. I stated my opinion that I seriously doubted it.

My opinion is not an answer to the question, nor does it indicate that I know anything about Oswald's frame of mind. It's merely an expression of doubt.

The question and my opinion combined do not constitute a statement of any kind and it most certainly does not, as you claimed about one hour ago, imply that I somehow think I know what Oswald's frame of mind was.

I did not claim that Oswald would never have carried the rifle the way you described. I merely stated that I doubted it!

If you don't understand the difference, than I don't know what else there is I, or anybody else, can tell you to make you understand.

My opinion is not an answer to the question, nor does it indicate that I know anything about Oswald's frame of mind. It's merely an expression of doubt.

It was in response to your own question. Therefore, according to the definition of answer in the dictionary it is an answer.


The question and my opinion combined do not constitute a statement of any kind and it most certainly does not, as you claimed about one hour ago, imply that I somehow think I know what Oswald's frame of mind was

Statement: a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing. The question followed by: "I seriously doubt it..." appears to be definite and clear expression of your opinion. And you wrote both of them. Therefore it is a statement (by definition).


I did not claim that Oswald would never have carried the rifle the way you described. I merely stated that I doubted it!

Okay, but you also brought Oswald's frame of mind into the conversation. And that is what I responded to.


I really hope you can understand this. Because I am tired of it and we are just going around in circles arguing the same stuff.

[John Iacoletti]

If you don't understand the difference, than I don't know what else there is I, or anybody else, can tell you to make you understand.

This is futile.  He's not going to get it.

This is a statement of fact, and a positive claim purporting to know somebody's state of mind:
"His frame of mind was more like Alfred E. Newman’s (What, me worry)."

This is a statement of opinion, and not a factual claim purporting to know somebody's state of mind:
"Having just tried to kill a man with that rifle, would he risk transporting it in a duffelbag with the barrel sticking out? I seriously doubt it...."

On top of that, is there any evidence that Oswald transported a rifle in a duffel bag with the barrel sticking out?  None whatsoever.