Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Parnell Vs Armstrong Bill Brown et al, Can applied tech resolve Who Shot Tippit?  (Read 11267 times)

Offline Gerry Down

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Advertisement
Reburied after the exhumation as far as I know.

Oswalds teeth and Jack Rubys mothers teeth would make a nice collection. The 6th floor museum would probably do a video on it.

JFK Assassination Forum


Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5283
Try it and see what happens. If there is a match I'll be the first to accept it.

Accept what? 

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Accept what?

What part of "If there is a match I'll be the first to accept it." do you not understand?
« Last Edit: May 02, 2021, 12:12:25 AM by Martin Weidmann »

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
I would too, if it was done by a disinterested party in a double-blind fashion.  Same with DNA on the rifle or the shells, etc.  Right now all we have are similar fibers and a partial palmprint on an index card.

Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5283
What part of "If there is a match I'll be the first to accept it." do you not understand?

You are so dishonest and biased it could mean anything.  There is already overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt in the murder of Tippit.  And yet you do not "accept it" but suggest that evidence is the product of fakery and mistaken identity in a wildly improbable series of events that all just happen to point to Oswald's guilt.  Why would DNA evidence be any different?  So why not just state what you you mean by "accept it" in this context?  Why the reluctance if it is so apparent?
« Last Edit: May 02, 2021, 03:16:38 PM by Richard Smith »

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
You are so dishonest and biased it could mean anything.  There is already overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt in the murder of Tippit.  And yet you do not "accept it" but suggest that evidence is the product of fakery and mistaken identity in a wildly improbable series of events that all just happen to point to Oswald's guilt.  Why would DNA evidence be any different?  So why not just state what you you mean by "accept it" in this context?  Why the reluctance if it is so apparent?

Is whining all you can do? It's not my fault that a liar as you needs to be held to a higher standard of evidence than the one you like.

Btw your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2021, 06:59:58 PM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Is whining all you can do? It's not my fault that a liar as you needs to be held to a higher standard of evidence than the one you like.

Btw your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted.
Note: The above Weidmann reply was made to Richard Smith

your [pathetic] obsession with me is duly noted
Try to come up with something original instead of hanging onto my coatails, plagiarist.

A bunch of fkn amateurs, the lot of you.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2021, 09:16:52 PM by Bill Chapman »

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Note: The above Weidmann reply was made to Richard Smith

your [pathetic] obsession with me is duly noted
Try to come up with something original instead of hanging onto my coatails, plagiarist.

A bunch of fkn amateurs, the lot of you.

Your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted

JFK Assassination Forum