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

[Ross Lidell]

JFK Assassination Forum members: You're off-topic.

This is about Randle > Mrs Roberts > Ruth Paine & Marina Oswald > Lee Oswald > Mr Truly > Lee Oswald.

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

[Martin Weidmann]

JFK Assassination Forum members: You're off-topic.

This is about Randle > Mrs Roberts > Ruth Paine & Marina Oswald > Lee Oswald > Mr Truly > Lee Oswald.

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

What are you? The forum police?

All you've done so far in this thread is give us your flawed opinion, stuck by it and dismiss everything that didn't agree with it. That's what happens if you have an opinion about everything. It limits your ability to accept and/or understand other points of view. 

Your stubborn unrealistic stance isn't leaving much room for debate anyway and besides, we're still talking about coincidences....

First you tried to tell me how you thought I should respond to your BS and now you want to dictate what we can write in this thread. What are you? A bit of a control freak, perhaps?

[Walt Cakebread]

No he didn't find a bullet next to Connally's stretcher. According to the story, the bullet was lying on a stretcher and Tomlinson had no idea who that stretcher had been used for. He only knew it must have come down the elevator. There was no coincidence in parking the stretcher there either. All stretchers that came down the elevator were parked there.

Too convenient. O.P. Wright used to be a department chief at the DPD before he took a job at Parkland. He knew bullets and he was pretty clear to Josiah Thompson when he gave him a pointed bullet just like the one he had handled on 11/22/63. I think it was no coincidence that the WC took the testimony from Tomlinson before CE399 was entered into evidence, so they could not show him nor was it a coincidence that they did not call O.P. Wright to testify.

Even the WC had doubts about the veracity of CE399, which is why they asked the FBI to go back to all the people in the chain of custody and ask for an identification, which, according to SA Odum, never happened as far as Tomlinson and Wright were concerned.

So you agree that witness identification in a line up is not always reliable?

If you've watched the video of Tink Thompson talking about the stretcher bullet  you wouldn't waste your time arguing about the bullet.   There are so many contradictions in the various stories about the bullet that it's impossible to establish the basic facts about the bullet.   

[Martin Weidmann]

If you've watched the video of Tink Thompson talking about the stretcher bullet  you wouldn't waste your time arguing about the bullet.   There are so many contradictions in the various stories about the bullet that it's impossible to establish the basic facts about the bullet.   

There are so many contradictions in the various stories about the bullet that it's impossible to establish the basic facts about the bullet.   

By the same logic, we might just as well all stop posting because for nearly everything in this case it's impossible to establish basic facts.

But I strongly disagree with that "logic" as the facts are there. You just need to find them. For that one needs to focus on details rather than looking at the big picture and making assumptions.


There are so many contradictions in the various stories about the bullet that it's impossible to establish the basic facts about the bullet. 

Which, in your opinion, leaves us with what conclusion exactly? 

[Walt Cakebread]

There are so many contradictions in the various stories about the bullet that it's impossible to establish the basic facts about the bullet.   

By the same logic, we might just as well all stop posting because for nearly everything in this case it's impossible to establish basic facts.

But I strongly disagree with that "logic" as the facts are there. You just need to find them. For that one needs to focus on details rather than looking at the big picture and making assumptions.


There are so many contradictions in the various stories about the bullet that it's impossible to establish the basic facts about the bullet. 

We can know that CE399 was not fired through JFK and JBC ..... That much is obvious...... So who introduced the pristine bullet into the evidence stream?.....Who ever they were they were pretty stupid to think that a large percentage of the folks who saw the bullet would fall for the idea that  a 6.5 mm bullet could have caused all of the injuries to JFK and JBC and remain in such pristine condition.

Which, in your opinion, leaves us with what conclusion exactly?

[Ross Lidell]

What are you? The forum police?

All you've done so far in this thread is give us your flawed opinion, stuck by it and dismiss everything that didn't agree with it. That's what happens if you have an opinion about everything. It limits your ability to accept and/or understand other points of view. 

Your stubborn unrealistic stance isn't leaving much room for debate anyway and besides, we're still talking about coincidences....

First you tried to tell me how you thought I should respond to your BS and now you want to dictate what we can write in this thread. What are you? A bit of a control freak, perhaps?

Your stubborn unrealistic stance isn't leaving much room for debate anyway and besides, we're still talking about coincidences....

Nothing to do with being stubborn. I have scrutinized the evidence (most of which can be described as the historical record) and come to logical conclusions. There's no reason why I should  change my mind. Occasionally, I present "insights" to demonstrate the absurdity of conspiracy theories which almost always rely on ignoring blatantly obvious realities. This subject is one of those.

First you tried to tell me how you thought I should respond to your BS and now you want to dictate what we can write in this thread. What are you? A bit of a control freak, perhaps?

Dictate? No. Hijacking a Subject is not a legitimate response to a previous comment.

Your "changing the subject" is unjustified. You just do it because you cannot focus on the matter at hand or have exhausted your list of absurd speculations.

This segue to an unrelated topic indicates any "untidy" mind: The same flawed thinking that refuses to see that if you dismiss evidence then it must lead to an alternative explanation of an aspect of the crime. You pretend to be still parsing the evidence (after years) and are not yet ready to come to a conclusion. This leads sensible thinkers to realize that you (and like-minded others) are taking refuge in contrarianism.

[Martin Weidmann]

Your stubborn unrealistic stance isn't leaving much room for debate anyway and besides, we're still talking about coincidences....

Nothing to do with being stubborn. I have scrutinized the evidence (most of which can be described as the historical record) and come to logical conclusions. There's no reason why I should  change my mind. Occasionally, I present "insights" to demonstrate the absurdity of conspiracy theories which almost always rely on ignoring blatantly obvious realities. This subject is one of those.

Exactly what I said. In your mind your opinion is always the correct one which makes your position a stubborn unrealistic stance!

There's no reason why I should  change my mind.

Which means there is no reason to waste any time talking to you. So, why are you even here? To preach to the already converted?

I present "insights" to demonstrate the absurdity of conspiracy theories which almost always rely on ignoring blatantly obvious realities. This subject is one of those.

Only in your flawed opinion. Three people have already explained to you why your theory is flawed but you are just too stubborn to learn. So be it!

First you tried to tell me how you thought I should respond to your BS and now you want to dictate what we can write in this thread. What are you? A bit of a control freak, perhaps?

Dictate? No. Hijacking a Subject is not a legitimate response to a previous comment.

Your "changing the subject" is unjustified. You just do it because you cannot focus on the matter at hand or have exhausted your list of absurd speculations.

I didn't hijack the thread and I didn't change the subject. I merely responded to comments made by somebody else. And you don't get to decide what is a "legitimate response" or "unjustified". No matter how superior you think you are, you simply do get to decide that.

This segue to an unrelated topic indicates any "untidy" mind: The same flawed thinking that refuses to see that if you dismiss evidence then it must lead to an alternative explanation of an aspect of the crime.

Stop whining...  I did not dismiss evidence (that's you, who does that!), I and others have merely pointed out that your conclusions are flawed.

You pretend to be still parsing the evidence (after years) and are not yet ready to come to a conclusion. This leads sensible thinkers to realize that you (and like-minded others) are taking refuge in contrarianism.

There is the same old crappy "you are a contrarian" BS again... and it's coming from the biggest contrarian of them all. I prefer not to have an opinion on everything, too quickly, like you seem to do, because, as you so clearly show with every post, having opinions means you have already made up your mind and are unwilling to accept anything that does not compute with your opinion. That is the definition of a true contrarian! I prefer to leave the door open for additional information which may help me to ultimately form an opinion.

The most stupid thing anybody can do is believe that his opinion is the right one and stick by it. But it seems you didn't get that memo.

[Ross Lidell]

Exactly what I said. In your mind your opinion is always the correct one which makes your position a stubborn unrealistic stance!

There's no reason why I should  change my mind.

Which means there is no reason to waste any time talking to you. So, why are you here?

I present "insights" to demonstrate the absurdity of conspiracy theories which almost always rely on ignoring blatantly obvious realities. This subject is one of those.

Only in your flawed opinion. Three people have already explained to you why your theory is flawed but you are just too stubborn to learn. So be it!

I didn't hijack the thread and I didn't change the subject. I merely responded to comments made by somebody else. And you don't get to decide what is a "legitimate response" or "unjustified". No matter how superior you think you are, you simply do get to decide that.

This segue to an unrelated topic indicates any "untidy" mind: The same flawed thinking that refuses to see that if you dismiss evidence then it must lead to an alternative explanation of an aspect of the crime.

Stop whining...  I did not dismiss evidence (that's you, who does that!), I and others have merely pointed out that your conclusions are flawed.

You pretend to be still parsing the evidence (after years) and are not yet ready to come to a conclusion. This leads sensible thinkers to realize that you (and like-minded others) are taking refuge in contrarianism.

There is the same old crappy "you are a contrarian" BS again... and it's coming from the biggest contrarian of the all. I prefer not to have an opinion on everything, too quickly, like you seem to do, because, as you so clearly show with every post, having opinions means you have already made up your mind and are unwilling to accept anything that does not compute with your opinion. That is the definition of a true contrarian!

The most stupid thing an intelligent person can do is believe that his opinion is the right one and stick by it. But it seems you didn't get that memo.

More nonsense with no specific rebuttal to the matters raised; just vague criticism with unfounded assertions.

Regarding your indecision as to who assassinated President John F. Kennedy and murdered Officer J.D.Tippit: You remind me of the long serving New Jersey State Police detective (circa 1950) who would not focus on solving current crimes. His excuse; when asked to get to work? No, no; I'm still working on the Lindbergh baby kidnapping!!!

Incidentally, I don't qualify as a contrarian. I present conclusions based on the historical record of the case and then invite others to provide evidence to prove my conclusions are incorrect.

A contrarian is someone who takes an opposing view, especially for the sake of being difficult, contentious or in opposition to the generally held view. This could also be used as an adjective.

Presenting a Subject that aligns with what's in the history books (qualifies as a generally held view by historians) is not contrarian-ism. Explaining the facts of an event (Randle's necessity to have coffee with a neighbor of Paine's for Oswald's to get a TSBD job) is not contrarian-ism. You saying that it is: That's nothing more than "assertion-ism".