A hole in Bledsoe's story?

[John Mytton]

And here you people in this very thread are still discussing the lowest of low hanging fruit in a wasted effort to find your "truth" it's all a bit sad, don't you think!

And here you are, day after day, trying to defend the WC findings and argue about so-called "low hanging fruit"!

It begs the question why you are actually here, when you constantly claim the case against Oswald is rock solid. I thought you once claimed you had a life, so is this it?

This for me, is now more of a study into the psychology of the twisted misguided Conspiracy Theorist, who without a shred of proof and on a stack of lies have created an entire industry. It is absolutely fascinating that you all pray to your Gods(The Conspiracy authors who profit off and take advantage of your misery) and the way that you are all led around like mindless sheep quoting the misinformation and lies in your ever increasing list Biblical literature.

JohnM

[Dan O'meara]

Dan repost the post where I specifically said the quote you attributed to me 'all colours turn white in daylight', and if you don't then I demand a public apology!

JohnM

If I was attributing a quote to you I would have put it in quotation marks.
But I didn't.

For anyone unfamiliar with John's 'all colours turn white in daylight' theory just go to "The Man On The 6th Floor" thread where you will see it treated with the contempt it deserves.
In short, four of the five eyewitnesses who described the man on the 6th floor have him wearing an open-necked sports shirt that is so light coloured it almost appears white. Almost but not quite. This is a massive problem for those, like John, who believe it was Oswald who took the shots because Oswald wasn't wearing such a shirt that day.
The assassin was wearing clothes that Oswald wasn't.
It's just one piece of evidence among many supporting the view that it wasn't Oswald who actually took the shots.
So, how does John deal with this inconvenient piece of evidence?
His method is to take an overexposed photograph of Oswald that has the sun shining on some parts of his shirt. The part of the shirt that has the sun shining on it makes the colour of the shirt look almost white because the picture is overexposed.
He then argues that this is why the shirt the eyewitnesses saw the man on the 6th floor wearing looked almost white - because the sun was shining on it. He tries to argue that the effect of sunlight on colour in an overexposed photograph is the same effect seen in normal sunlight. He is, in effect, arguing that daylight turns all colours white.

You might think I'm joking but I'm not.
Anyone interested in this nonsense can find it at "The Man On The 6th Floor" thread.

[Martin Weidmann]

Of course, we are the very definition of superior because we solved this decades ago and this FACT will, and always will be what is recorded in the History Books, whereas you are reduced in your confusion to slinging your own faeces at anyone who questions your stupidity.And here you people in this very thread are still discussing the lowest of low hanging fruit in a wasted effort to find your "truth" it's all a bit sad, don't you think!

JohnM

we solved this decades ago

Who is "we"? Are you actually one of the investigators in your wet dreams?

You solved nothing at all. You just was easily fooled like every fool who considers himself to be superior always will be.

this FACT will, and always will be what is recorded in the History Books

And there is the old crappy History books nonsense again. You fail to understand that those same History books also mention that the majority of the people did not and still do not believe the official story.
Maybe you could get away with your BS when the printing press was just invented and most people were not educated, but in this day and age, with the internet in play, that's not how it works anymore.

whereas you are reduced in your confusion to slinging your own faeces at anyone who questions your stupidity

Do you question my stupidity?

And here you people in this very thread are still discussing the lowest of low hanging fruit in a wasted effort to find your "truth" it's all a bit sad, don't you think!

Not as sad as some keyboard junkie who feels the need to try (and fail) to discredit a simple discussion about a 60 year old event and gets all worked up when his BS doesn't work.

I've known you long enough by now to understand that whenever you run out of credible arguments you automatically go ad hominem. This is just one more example....

[Martin Weidmann]

This for me, is now more of a study into the psychology of the twisted misguided Conspiracy Theorist, who without a shred of proof and on a stack of lies have created an entire industry. It is absolutely fascinating that you all pray to your Gods(The Conspiracy authors who profit off and take advantage of your misery) and the way that you are all led around like mindless sheep quoting the misinformation and lies in your ever increasing list Biblical literature.

JohnM

This for me, is now more of a study into the psychology of the twisted misguided Conspiracy Theorist, who without a shred of proof and on a stack of lies have created an entire industry.

Yet you failed to understand that the Bledsoe matter is 100% evidence based and that it's actually about how the evidence should be interpreted.

It is absolutely fascinating that you all pray to your God

I'm an atheist and don't pray to any God. As far as I am concerned Darwin was correct.

the way that you are all led around like mindless sheep quoting the misinformation and lies in your ever increasing list Biblical literature.

Like you are blindly accepting the BS that the WC and your hero Bugs are telling you?

Mr "Superior" is blindly accepting whatever the official story is..... is that what it is, Johnny?

[John Mytton]

[quohttps://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Themes/FadedCurve/images/bbc/img.gifte author=Dan O'meara link=topic=4212.msg161930#msg161930 date=1742434482]
If I was attributing a quote to you I would have put it in quotation marks.
But I didn't.

For anyone unfamiliar with John's 'all colours turn white in daylight' theory just go to "The Man On The 6th Floor" thread where you will see it treated with the contempt it deserves.
In short, four of the five eyewitnesses who described the man on the 6th floor have him wearing an open-necked sports shirt that is so light coloured it almost appears white. Almost but not quite. This is a massive problem for those, like John, who believe it was Oswald who took the shots because Oswald wasn't wearing such a shirt that day.
The assassin was wearing clothes that Oswald wasn't.
It's just one piece of evidence among many supporting the view that it wasn't Oswald who actually took the shots.
So, how does John deal with this inconvenient piece of evidence?
His method is to take an overexposed photograph of Oswald that has the sun shining on some parts of his shirt. The part of the shirt that has the sun shining on it makes the colour of the shirt look almost white because the picture is overexposed.
He then argues that this is why the shirt the eyewitnesses saw the man on the 6th floor wearing looked almost white - because the sun was shining on it. He tries to argue that the effect of sunlight on colour in an overexposed photograph is the same effect seen in normal sunlight. He is, in effect, arguing that daylight turns all colours white.

You might think I'm joking but I'm not.
Anyone interested in this nonsense can find it at "The Man On The 6th Floor" thread.
[/quote]

...sports shirt that is so light coloured it almost appears white. Almost but not quite.

Interesting so you admit your quote of what I supposedly said 'all colours turn white in daylight' was a lie! Despicable!

Brennan who got the best look for a length of time describes Khaki coloured.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what kind of clothes he was wearing?
Mr. BRENNAN. Light colored clothes, more of a khaki color.

And for the nth time Oswald's shirt appeared a light Khaki when exposed to the sun.





JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

If I was attributing a quote to you I would have put it in quotation marks.
But I didn't.

For anyone unfamiliar with John's 'all colours turn white in daylight' theory just go to "The Man On The 6th Floor" thread where you will see it treated with the contempt it deserves.
In short, four of the five eyewitnesses who described the man on the 6th floor have him wearing an open-necked sports shirt that is so light coloured it almost appears white. Almost but not quite. This is a massive problem for those, like John, who believe it was Oswald who took the shots because Oswald wasn't wearing such a shirt that day.
The assassin was wearing clothes that Oswald wasn't.
It's just one piece of evidence among many supporting the view that it wasn't Oswald who actually took the shots.
So, how does John deal with this inconvenient piece of evidence?
His method is to take an overexposed photograph of Oswald that has the sun shining on some parts of his shirt. The part of the shirt that has the sun shining on it makes the colour of the shirt look almost white because the picture is overexposed.
He then argues that this is why the shirt the eyewitnesses saw the man on the 6th floor wearing looked almost white - because the sun was shining on it. He tries to argue that the effect of sunlight on colour in an overexposed photograph is the same effect seen in normal sunlight. He is, in effect, arguing that daylight turns all colours white.

You might think I'm joking but I'm not.
Anyone interested in this nonsense can find it at "The Man On The 6th Floor" thread.

Mr. John "Superior" Mytton once claimed that Oswald in the sniper's nest on the 6th floor of the TSBD was not only able to see Norman and Jarman directly beneath them (which in reality was physically impossible) but also see them walk on Houston to the back of the building and then conclude they would enter the back of the building.

This guy will claim anything, no matter how pathetic or impossible, to defend the official story. He's not to be taken seriously!

[John Mytton]

Mr. John "Superior" Mytton once claimed that Oswald in the sniper's nest on the 6th floor of the TSBD was not only able to see Norman and Jarman directly beneath them (which in reality was physically impossible) but also see them walk on Houston to the back of the building and then conclude they would enter the back of the building.

This guy will claim anything, no matter how pathetic or impossible, to defend the official story. He's not to be taken seriously!

Sorry Martin, your claim comes from not being able to see through a closed window when you allegedly visited the 6th floor museum, but not only was the window open on the 22nd but Oswald was sitting sideways on the window, did you try sitting sideways on the sniper's nest window when you visited the 6th floor museum? Or as usual are you making self serving assumptions?! Try again.

Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Sorry Martin, your claim comes from not being able to see through a closed window when you allegedly visited the 6th floor museum, but not only was the window open on the 22nd but Oswald was sitting sideways on the window, did you try sitting sideways on the sniper's nest window when you visited the 6th floor museum? Or as usual are you making self serving assumptions?! Try again.

Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.

JohnM

Sorry Martin, your claim comes from not being able to see through a closed window when you allegedly visited the 6th floor museum, but not only was the window open on the 22nd but Oswald was sitting sideways on the window, did you try sitting sideways on the sniper's nest window when you visited the 6th floor museum? Or as usual are you making self serving assumptions?! Try again.

There is no need for me to try again. You've already made a fool of yourself. Anybody who claims that a person on the 6th floor not only can see people standing below him at street level but also walking next to the building in Houston is just either delusional or a liar. Which one are you?