Did Captain Fritz show Mr Oswald a Mauser?

[Bill Chapman]

You needed a video to explain this to you? Wow!

So, on the one hand you agree that police officers can't be trusted by those they arrest, yet on the other hand, when it comes to reports like the one Fritz wrote, a week after talking to Oswald, you believe it all as gospel. Go figure!

You learn from the video that witnesses are hardly ever 100% accurate in their statements yet you still quote Scoggins as if you were there when he (allegedly) said it.   

You needed a video to explain this to you? Wow!
Wow! The video was made for the express intent of enlightening those not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law, especially with the police prior to and after being arrested. Seems many others need such a video otherwise it wouldn't have been made.

I've never been arrested. And bringing up Scroggins and Fritz has nothing to do with how I should comport myself if ever do get arrested. The video has supplied me with invaluable information regarding that.

You, on the other hand, supply absolutely nothing of any import to me.

[Martin Weidmann]

You needed a video to explain this to you? Wow!
Wow! The video was made for the express intent of enlightening those not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law, especially with the police prior to and after being arrested. Seems many others need such a video otherwise it wouldn't have been made.

I've never been arrested. And bringing up Scroggins and Fritz has nothing to do with how I should comport myself if ever do get arrested. The video has supplied me with invaluable information regarding that.

You, on the other hand, supply absolutely nothing of any import to me.

The video has supplied me with invaluable information regarding that.

When you need a video to explain something as basic as this, and when you admit that you are "not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law", you probably, for lack of sufficient knowledge and understanding, shouldn't voice so many "opinions" about the JFK murder.

And bringing up Scroggins and Fritz has nothing to do with how I should comport myself if ever do get arrested.

I don't give a damn what you do when you get arrested. The main themes of the entire video are: (1) don't trust the police, as they are not your friend and (2) no matter how well intented their statements are, witnesses are highly unreliable. With that in mind, my comments about Fritz's report and Scoggings' claim and how you accept both blindly, were spot on.

You, on the other hand, supply absolutely nothing of any import to me.

Oh, I'm sorry, is that the purpose now of this forum?

Unlike you, it seems, it is my opinion that every person has the potential to teach me something I don't know. Only narrowminded individuals with a high insecurity level dismiss everything somebody else says out of hand. It's an emotional response, not a practical or logical one.

[Bill Chapman]

The video has supplied me with invaluable information regarding that.

When you need a video to explain something as basic as this, and when you admit that you are "not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law", you probably, for lack of sufficient knowledge and understanding, shouldn't voice so many "opinions" about the JFK murder.

And bringing up Scroggins and Fritz has nothing to do with how I should comport myself if ever do get arrested.

I don't give a damn what you do when you get arrested. The main themes of the entire video are: (1) don't trust the police, as they are not your friend and (2) no matter how well intented their statements are, witnesses are highly unreliable. With that in mind, my comments about Fritz's report and Scoggings' claim and how you accept both blindly, were spot on.

You, on the other hand, supply absolutely nothing of any import to me.

Oh, I'm sorry, is that the purpose now of this forum?

Unlike you, it seems, it is my opinion that every person has the potential to teach me something I don't know. Only narrowminded individuals with a high insecurity level dismiss everything somebody else says out of hand. It's an emotional response, not a practical or logical one.

'When you need a video to explain something as basic as this, and when you admit that you are "not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law", you probably, for lack of sufficient knowledge and understanding, shouldn't voice so many "opinions" about the JFK murder.'

1) JFK 'murder' lol. Tell us just how important one has to be before one's 'murder' gets bumped up to 'assassination' status. Just sayin'.
2) Where did I 'admit' that I was not familiar with dealing with the nuances of the law' you fkn liar? I clearly said those not familiar
3) You dismiss that which does not follow Oswald-Cultism
4) Opinions are usually welcome on discussion platforms

[Bill Chapman]

Under the theory that if you make the same claim over and over again that it will somehow become true.

Repeating wishes can sometimes make things come true.

The Little Prick That Could
(Inspired by The Little Engine That Could)

CLICK-CLICK

--------------------
The Oswald Porch
--------------------
Click-Click
'I think I can, I think I can'
Click-Click
'I think I can, I think I can'
Click-Click
'I think I can, I think I can'

--------------------
The Cuckoo's Nest
--------------------
BOOM>Click-Click
'I thought I could, I thought I could'
BOOM>Click-Click
'I thought I could, I thought I could'
BOOM>Click-Click
'I thought I could, I thought I could'

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Repeating wishes can sometimes make things come true.

When we challenge the conspiracy claims we often see that these same "skeptics" - who say they are just challenging allegations against Oswald - fight us not the conspiracists. Their skepticism suddenly disappears.

When we say, "If Marina was coached then why didn't she say she saw Oswald leave with the rifle that morning?" or when we say, "If Oswald was framed why not have 4-6 people in Dealey Plaza say they saw him shoot JFK?" or "If Oswald was setup then how did the conspirators know he was in the building at the time?" or "If the WC report was a deliberate lie then why did distinguised men like Redlich or Ball do this"?...

We get angry replies. Their skepticism stops when those questions are asked.

Raising questions about Oswald's guilt is okay for them; raising them about conspiracy claims is not.

[Alan Ford]

When we challenge the conspiracy claims we often see that these same "skeptics" - who say they are just challenging allegations against Oswald - fight us not the conspiracists. Their skepticism suddenly disappears.

When we say, "If Marina was coached then why didn't she say she saw Oswald leave with the rifle that morning?" or when we say, "If Oswald was framed why not have 4-6 people in Dealey Plaza say they saw him shoot JFK?" or "If Oswald was setup then how did the conspirators know he was in the building at the time?" or "If the WC report was a deliberate lie then why did distinguised men like Redlich or Ball do this"?...

We get angry replies. Their skepticism stops when those questions are asked.

Raising questions about Oswald's guilt is okay for them; raising them about conspiracy claims is not.

When we say, "Can you explain the dates on this form?", Mr Galbraith runs away!

[Martin Weidmann]

'When you need a video to explain something as basic as this, and when you admit that you are "not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law", you probably, for lack of sufficient knowledge and understanding, shouldn't voice so many "opinions" about the JFK murder.'

1) JFK 'murder' lol. Tell us just how important one has to be before one's 'murder' gets bumped up to 'assassination' status. Just sayin'.
2) Where did I 'admit' that I was not familiar with dealing with the nuances of the law' you fkn liar? I clearly said those not familiar
3) You dismiss that which does not follow Oswald-Cultism
4) Opinions are usually welcome on discussion platforms

1) JFK 'murder' lol. Tell us just how important one has to be before one's 'murder' gets bumped up to 'assassination' status. Just sayin'.

Pathetic. No matter what you call it, Kennedy was murdered, was he not?

2) Where did I 'admit' that I was not familiar with dealing with the nuances of the law' you fkn liar? I clearly said those not familiar

You admitted it implicitly in your previous post, as you clearly wrote that as being one of "those not familiar". But I can understand why you now want to backpeddle.

3) You dismiss that which does not follow Oswald-Cultism

BS, but I'll play along.... Tell me, how do you explain that I accept the BY photos as authentic and that it is very will possible that Oswald did indeed write the order form from Klein's for the purchase of the rifle?

4) Opinions are usually welcome on discussion platforms

When they are not falsely presented as statements of fact, I agree.

[Martin Weidmann]

When we challenge the conspiracy claims we often see that these same "skeptics" - who say they are just challenging allegations against Oswald - fight us not the conspiracists. Their skepticism suddenly disappears.

When we say, "If Marina was coached then why didn't she say she saw Oswald leave with the rifle that morning?" or when we say, "If Oswald was framed why not have 4-6 people in Dealey Plaza say they saw him shoot JFK?" or "If Oswald was setup then how did the conspirators know he was in the building at the time?" or "If the WC report was a deliberate lie then why did distinguised men like Redlich or Ball do this"?...

We get angry replies. Their skepticism stops when those questions are asked.

Raising questions about Oswald's guilt is okay for them; raising them about conspiracy claims is not.

When you ask a question like the ones you asked you are asking for speculation. You are not challenging, or raising questions about, conspiracy claims. Instead you are merely defending the official narrative with questions nobody can answer without speculation.

When you say: "If Marina was coached then why didn't she say she saw Oswald leave with the rifle that morning?", you are really saying that Marina wasn't coached, unless somebody can prove to you that she was, which btw would be proof you would likely never accept.

The answer to a question can only be just as good as the quality of the question itself. "What if" questions have no value either way. The fact that they are not answered doesn't mean that question is a valid one or that the opposite of the premise of the question is true.