No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD

[Ross Lidell]

Again!!!!

Stop shifting the burden of proof and explain what evidence justifies your chosen conclusion.

Stop shifting the burden of proof and explain what evidence justifies your chosen conclusion.

That "escape" clause you trot out routinely is not fooling me, John. The burden of proof is with you.

I've provided eyewitness testimony (video/audio from CBS 1964/1967) that supports the WC's and HSCA's conclusions that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Office J.D. Tippit.

You don't believe that Lee Oswald killed Officer Tippit: You must believe someone else shot him. Who was it John?

[Martin Weidmann]

Stop shifting the burden of proof and explain what evidence justifies your chosen conclusion.

That "escape" clause you trot out routinely is not fooling me, John. The burden of proof is with you.

I've provided eyewitness testimony (video/audio from CBS 1964/1967) that supports the WC's and HSCA's conclusions that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Office J.D. Tippit.

You don't believe that Lee Oswald killed Officer Tippit: You must believe someone else shot him. Who was it John?

You don't believe that Lee Oswald killed Officer Tippit

When and where did John ever say that he doesn't believe Oswald killed Tippit?

Why can't he just have reasonable doubt?

You must believe someone else shot him. Who was it John?

Since the first part of your statement is false, the second part is of no relevance..

[Bill Chapman]

Stop shifting the burden of proof and explain what evidence justifies your chosen conclusion.

That "escape" clause you trot out routinely is not fooling me, John. The burden of proof is with you.

I've provided eyewitness testimony (video/audio from CBS 1964/1967) that supports the WC's and HSCA's conclusions that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Office J.D. Tippit.

You don't believe that Lee Oswald killed Officer Tippit: You must believe someone else shot him. Who was it John?

'The burden of proof is with you'

Not in court. The defendant(s) (AKA Oswald-arse kissers around these parts) doesn't/don't have to prove anything.
You are riding your biases like some sort of cowboy.

[Ross Lidell]

'The burden of proof is with you'

Not in court. The defendant doesn't have to prove anything.
You are riding your biases like some sort of cowboy.

This is not a court of law, it's a debating forum.

Occasionally "legal terms" are used.

John's "burden of proof" mantra might make sense if there was a forum-panel that decided who is right or wrong... or closest to the truth.

By the way: Weren't you critical of these "contrarians" in the past?

[Ross Lidell]

You are a one trick pony.

Just because you have made it easy on yourself and have jumped to the "most likely" scenario just so you can have a highly speculative opinion, doesn't mean others have to do the same.

So you say: You who are too afraid to get on the horse.

You never have an opinion on anything to do with the JFK Assassination.

What do you do for a living? Your stonewalling nonsense would make you unemployable in any job that required decision-making skills.

-- Boss: Marty, we gotta come up with a solution to this important problem that could send the company broke. Should we do "a", "b" or "c"... whadda ya think?

-- Marty: I'll get back to you by next Shrove Tuesday... maybe?

-- Boss: Marty you're fired.

[Bill Chapman]

This is not a court of law, it's a debating forum.

Occasionally "legal terms" are used.

John's "burden of proof" mantra might make sense if there was a forum-panel that decided who is right or wrong... or closest to the truth.

By the way: Weren't you critical of these "contrarians" in the past?

'This is not a court of law'
> Then why do you harping on 'burden of proof'

By the way: Weren't you critical of these "contrarians" in the past?
> Still am

[Martin Weidmann]

So you say: You who are too afraid to get on the horse.

You never have an opinion on anything to do with the JFK Assassination.

What do you do for a living? Your stonewalling nonsense would make you unemployable in any job that required decision-making skills.

-- Boss: Marty, we gotta come up with a solution to this important problem that could send the company broke. Should we do "a", "b" or "c"... whadda ya think?

-- Marty: I'll get back to you by next Shrove Tuesday... maybe?

-- Boss: Marty you're fired.

You never have an opinion on anything to do with the JFK Assassination.

And where is it written that I can't just examine the evidence and that I have to have an opinion?

What do you do for a living? Your stonewalling nonsense would make you unemployable in any job that required decision-making skills.


I actually employ people and make well considered decisions every day. How about you?

[Ross Lidell]

You never have an opinion on anything to do with the JFK Assassination.

And where is it written that I can't just examine the evidence and that I have to have an opinion?

What do you do for a living? Your stonewalling nonsense would make you unemployable in any job that required decision-making skills.


I actually employ people and make well considered decisions every day. How about you?

And where is it written that I can't just examine the evidence and that I have to have an opinion?

People who don't have an opinion tend to be vacillators.

I find it hard to believe that you employ people and make "decisions" well considered or otherwise. What industry?

So what are you doing wasting your time here with "contrarian" nonsense? Get back to work.