Oswald's lies proves his guilt.

[Vincent Baxter]

And it's Super Weidmann coming to Goth's rescue.

What's with the obnoxious Mytton-esque "Super Weidmann" comments? You seem extremely defensive. Are you always like that when somebody asks you a simply question?

Why do I answer his question with a question? Well, considering he replied to my original query/question with a stupid answer that did not address the question and then in another post went on to ask me the aforementioned question of "when did I say I thought there was a cover up?", again without answering anything related to my previous post, you could just as easily ask him the same thing.

Actually, no I couldn't. He responded to your first post in the thread, in which you were only asking rhetorical questions leading up to a "conclusion", by saying that "you talk like Mytton", which was indeed a factual comment. You then responded with a rant about people who "at least agree a cover up occurred", which fully justifies Peter asking you where he said he thought there was a coverup or even a conspiracy?

Obviously, you could not show where Peter had said anything of the sort, which of course means that you were wrong to make that comment in your post to him!

I think if you were capable of reading between the lines, anyone with any ounce of intelligence can work out that me asking him another question pretty much indicated that I acknowledged he didn't specifically state he thought there was a cover up, otherwise why would I have had the need to ask him what his view actually was?

Another typical Mytton-esque ad hominem reply and filled with "logic" that makes (one's) toes curl. You did not ask him what his view actually was. You asked him was he was telling you, when in fact he had not told you anything!

But if I need to spell it out so as not to confuse you, please amend my previous post to Goth to:

"Well, Goth. You did not specifically say that you did or did not believe there was a cover up. Are you therefore telling me that you don't believe in any conspiracies and that you subscribe to the lone gunman theory?"

Nice bit of backpeddling!

I notice you didn't leap to my defence to ask Goth why he failed to answer my question or why he retorted to asking me a question without answering mine.

Already explained. You also did not leap to my defense to ask Mytton why he failed/refused to answer my question. So what?

I'm sure in time I'll get over that, but then again I'm quite happy to speak for myself and don't really need Super Weidmann to randomly fight my battles.

I truly hope that you do indeed get over it fast, because if our initial exchange got you so worked up that you felt the need to resort to this "Super Weidmann" crap, we are going to have a lot of fun in the future   

Btw, if you don't really need Super Weidmann to fight your battles, why did you just complain that I did not leap to your defense and fight your battle with Peter Goth for you? You are not making a great deal of sense.....

Hmm, yeah nice one Weidmann. As much as we all enjoy a bit of fun banter this whole "you said this which clearly means this" and "by saying this you meant this" is getting a bit tedious and it just comes across as you scraping the barrel looking to win an argument which nobody really gives a spombleprofglidnoctobuns about in the first place.

Pretty much everything on this forum is speculation so I don't see why you had to have such a big wank about me speculating that Goth believed in cover ups. You accuse me of getting "extremely defensive" by someone asking me a simple question, yet its totally acceptable for you to go to the extra effort of butting into a conversation to get "extremely defensive" about your mate.

I'm then criticised for not coming to Mytton's defence. Can I just respond to that point by saying WHO THE FUCK IS THIS MYTTON GUY? And why am I supposed to come to his defence? I have no idea who this geezer is and I had no interest in getting involved with your pointless little argument with him. I'm not arsed about what fucking hard evidence or proof this Mytton guy has about his point and I'm really bothered, so why the hell are you trying to drag me into a conversation that I've showed absolutely no interest in before? The only reason I mentioned this guy was in response to Goth saying I sounded like him and in no way did I give an opinion either way on what he was saying, so I'm just a bit confused as to why you suddenly think me and Mytton are Siamese twins or something.

Now, I know we all come on these forums because it's fun to have a little argument with strangers and hide safely behind our computer screens but the last few posts have not had anything to do with my original post. Its all been about you dissecting my, already off-topic, replies and going "Ah you said this and then you said this" and dragging it further into total irrelevance for a JFK forum. I can have exactly the same type of pointless arguments on a Brexit or Donald Trump forum if I wanted to, and they'd probably be a whole lot more funnier too.

Feel free to start dissecting this post with monotonous crap like "Ah, you said you've only ever mentioned Mytton in response to Peter's post where he likened you to him, but you've also mentioned him in this post so clearly that wasn't the only time you mentioned Mytton" or "If you really don't give a spombleprofglidnoctobuns about this then why are you bothering to reply?", etc, etc. I'm sure they will be as captivating and humorous as your previous posts (sarcasm there if you didn't pick up on it) but how about, and this might be an absolutely ridiculous suggestion considering this is a JFK forum, but how about you actually share your thoughts on my original post which actually fell in line with subject of the forum and we have have some argumentative fun with that rather than just commenting on what Peter and me did or didn't say to each other?

[Martin Weidmann]

Hmm, yeah nice one Weidmann. As much as we all enjoy a bit of fun banter this whole "you said this which clearly means this" and "by saying this you meant this" is getting a bit tedious and it just comes across as you scraping the barrel looking to win an argument which nobody really gives a spombleprofglidnoctobuns about in the first place.

You seem to be the only one who is pre-occupied with winning arguments. As far as I am concerned, I just call it as I see it. Deal with it....

Pretty much everything on this forum is speculation so I don't see why you had to have such a big wank about me speculating that Goth believed in cover ups. You accuse me of getting "extremely defensive" by someone asking me a simple question, yet its totally acceptable for you to go to the extra effort of butting into a conversation to get "extremely defensive" about your mate.

Of course this forum is mainly about speculation when it involves the murders of Kennedy and Tippit. That doesn't mean though that members will let you get away with just posting anything without providing at least some proof for it.

But you were not speculating that Goth believed in cover ups. Once again, you were asking him if he was telling you something which he in fact had not told you. That's not speculation, that's putting words in people's mouth.

And as far as me "butting into a conversation" goes, I was taking part in the conversation in the thread long before you joined the forum and decided to but in. I also did not get defensive over anybody. I just don't like newbies who think they know it all and act accordingly whilst in fact displaying not much more than pure ignorance and who provoke a reply with smart-ass comments like "Super Weidmann".

I'm then criticised for not coming to Mytton's defence. Can I just respond to that point by saying WHO THE FUCK IS THIS MYTTON GUY? And why am I supposed to come to his defence? I have no idea who this geezer is and I had no interest in getting involved with your pointless little argument with him. I'm not arsed about what fucking hard evidence or proof this Mytton guy has about his point and I'm really bothered, so why the hell are you trying to drag me into a conversation that I've showed absolutely no interest in before? The only reason I mentioned this guy was in response to Goth saying I sounded like him and in no way did I give an opinion either way on what he was saying, so I'm just a bit confused as to why you suddenly think me and Mytton are Siamese twins or something.

Wow, touchy.... First of all, you seem to have a reading problem, as nobody said anything about you coming to Mytton's defense. You rather pathetically complained that I did not come to your defense when somebody did not reply to a question you never asked. I in turn pointed out that you also did not come to my defense when Mytton did not reply to my simple question. I thought I had explained it quite clearly, but it seems you didn't understand it after all. Sorry, next time I'll lower the bar even further.

I'm not arsed about what fucking hard evidence or proof this Mytton guy has about his point

So, fact-checking and providing proof for a claim isn't your thing? Go it!

so why the hell are you trying to drag me into a conversation that I've showed absolutely no interest in before?

Again, get your facts straight; you were the one who jumped into the conversation. Nobody dragged you in. In fact, I don't think anybody with a sane mind will ever drag you into an conversation, the way you are behaving.

The only reason I mentioned this guy was in response to Goth saying I sounded like him and in no way did I give an opinion either way on what he was saying, so I'm just a bit confused as to why you suddenly think me and Mytton are Siamese twins or something.

Goth was right in saying that, and as the discussion has progressed you've only enforced that notion. Having said that, I can't recall having said that I think you and Mytton "are Siamese twins or something". You wouldn't have just made that up, would you? As far as I am concerned you two sound alike, that's all.

Now, I know we all come on these forums because it's fun to have a little argument with strangers and hide safely behind our computer screens but the last few posts have not had anything to do with my original post. Its all been about you dissecting my, already off-topic, replies and going "Ah you said this and then you said this" and dragging it further into total irrelevance for a JFK forum. I can have exactly the exactly same type of pointless arguments on a Brexit or Donald Trump forum if I wanted to, and they'd probably be a whole lot more funnier too.

If you can't stand the heat........

But if it's only entertainment you seek, you might indeed be better of on a Brexit or Trump forum.

Feel free to start dissecting this post with monotonous crap like "Ah, you said you've only ever mentioned Mytton in response to Peter's post where he likened you to him, but you've also mentioned him in this post so clearly that wasn't the only time you mentioned Mytton" or "If you really don't give a spombleprofglidnoctobuns about this then why are you bothering to reply?", etc, etc, that will no doubt be as captivating and humorous as your previous posts but how about, and this might be an absolutely ridiculous suggestion considering this is a JFK forum, you actually share your thoughts on my original post rather than what Peter and me did or didn't say to each other?

This is indeed a JFK forum and as soon as you say anything remotely interesting I may well reply.

And yes, it's an absolute ridiculous suggestion that you think you can tell me what I should do.

Now, do you have anything of significance to say, or not?

[John Iacoletti]

Fair point, sir! Im not going to lie and pretend I'm the equivalent of the Britannia Encyclopaedia on the E.Howard Hunt confession, but I've read stuff both for & against it and, by my own reckoning, haven't found anything worthy to be classed as conclusive evidence.

I would say the same thing about the Warren Commission Report.

[Vincent Baxter]

Oh, here we go. The good old classic and predictable "How do you know that?" argument.

What's wrong with asking somebody how he knows something he presents as a fact?

Clearly, I wasn't stating that as FACT! I think it's pretty clear from the tone of the entire post that I'm putting forward a question based on my own speculation. 

Yes, clearly you were stating it as fact. But this has now been cleared up nicely. Thank you. See what asking a simple question can achieve?

Of course I don't have inside evidence and proof that one of them WOULD have cracked, in the exact same way you don't have proof that none of them wouldn't.

Irrelevant. I did not make any claim and asking for proof "that none of them wouldn't" is asking for proof of a negative.

It's mere speculation. My personal opinion that I was putting out there.

Great, it's always good to have clarity

Agree with it or don't agree with it but I was just seeing if anyone had any similar feelings

Sure, of course you were...

In fact, and this may confuse you, I do think that in the past 50 years people would have talked. In fact, I believe they did or at least tried to.

and was hopeful that someone might add something insightful rather that the tiresome counter-argument of "Prove it!" 

Since when is asking for proof a "tiresome counter-argument"? If somebody makes a claim he/she should be able to provide proof for that claim, right? Or do you perhaps disagree with that?

Thanks again for another stimulating reply though, Weidmann. May I suggest next time you just go and stand in the corner and spombleprofglidnoctobuns your pants as that will add about as much relevant input to this discussion as your previous two posts have.

Wow.. aggressive. Did I get under you skin or are you by nature just a nasty piece of work who starts behaving badly like another six year old from down under I know?

Btw, what exactly was the discussion and with whom were you having that discussion?

 

Of course, there is nothing wrong with asking somebody if they have facts, but as I stated previously, I was not presenting something as a fact.

If you look way back to when I started my first post on this subject, you'll see I began with the line "Ultimately, you have to ask the question why, after over 50 years when the majority of the people involved in any alleged cover up are either dead or on their last legs, nobody involved has actually gone public and exposed a cover up?"

And concluded it with "To me, that strongly suggests that nobody has come forward with any evidence because there wasn't any cover up!"

Now even as someone who likes to dissect every little bit of text written, I'm sure you'd even struggle to pinpoint exactly where I claimed anything of what I was saying to be fact or where I was saying "THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED". Or did you think I was claiming to have completely solved the entire JFK assassination conspiracy with one post? I've single handedly done, in one simple post, what millions of people haven't been able to do in over 50 years?

And obviously I don't have any hard proof. My personal belief is that there was no cover up, but if there was one then surely someone would have come forward with evidence about this. So, if I'm suggesting there was no cover up, thus being nobody to come forward and expose a cover up, how could I possibly have evidence to back this up? It seems a stupid thing to ask for in the first place as surely you knew nobody could prove such a statement. It was clearly an opinion!
Thus, that is why I said asking for proof was a tiresome counter-argument. Someone else on the forum replied and said that it was because people were scared or threatened and mentioned the suspicious deaths of many other witnesses, which is great. A valid point that they actually gave to explain why someone wouldn't have come forward and that I take on board. Or am I supposed to reply to that guy and say "Well, what proof do you have that these non-existent people are scared and have been threatened?"

And yeah, me asking proof that "none of them wouldn't" was just bad English. The point I was basically trying to make was that I don't have evidence to support or not support what I was saying. As I said, it was something I was just putting out there. You said yourself you that you believed people had or had tried to talk so wouldn't it have just been a bit more interesting to say that and maybe say why rather than going through my messages and trying to point out niggling arguments rather than just saying so?

[Vincent Baxter]

You seem to be the only one who is pre-occupied with winning arguments. As far as I am concerned, I just call it as I see it. Deal with it....

I'm the only one pre-occupied with winning argument, yet you have to reply to everything I post to try to put your point across and attempt to have the last word?
Well, you can dress it up however you like and say you're just calling it as you see it but from where I'm standing it looks like you're trying to win an argument to me.

Of course this forum is mainly about speculation when it involves the murders of Kennedy and Tippit. That doesn't mean though that members will let you get away with just posting anything without providing at least some proof for it.

But you were not speculating that Goth believed in cover ups. Once again, you were asking him if he was telling you something which he in fact had not told you. That's not speculation, that's putting words in people's mouth.

I was asking him a simple question, I really don't see the big problem here. Whether I asked him "Are you saying you don't believe in a cover up?", "Are you saying you do believe in a cover up?" or "Do you believe there was a cover up" it all pretty much equates to the same question that a simple "yes" or "no" answer will solve. I'm not exactly convicting him of anything by phrasing a question in a certain way as any of the above questions are totally irrelevant and invalid until he actually replies. It's at that point when his opinion comes out. I really don't see why anyone would get so upset and make such a point about it. Its a question that is asking for an answer, its not a statement or accusation!

And as far as me "butting into a conversation" goes, I was taking part in the conversation in the thread long before you joined the forum and decided to but in. I also did not get defensive over anybody. I just don't like newbies who think they know it all and act accordingly whilst in fact displaying not much more than pure ignorance and who provoke a reply with smart-ass comments like "Super Weidmann".

OK, fair point but within this huge long thread many posts have strayed away from the original point of Oswald's lies. Maybe I should have started a new thread rather than post within this thread? But clearly you did butt into an exchange between me and Goth and accused me of putting words in his mouth.
It's pretty small minded and egotistical to be so hostile to someone just because they're "a newbie". Just because someone only just joined a JFK forum it doesn't mean they know less than you. I'm sure some of most prolific JFK researchers aren't members of this forum so if they were to join tomorrow would you automatically accuse them of being newbies who think they know it all, just because you've been a member of this forum for longer?.
As it stands, and this probably won't surprise you one little bit, I'm by no means an expert on this case. I'm from the UK and the JFK assassination is not even something we're taught in school. I randomly got interested in the case a few years ago and have read numerous books both for, against and neutral to any conspiracy theories. I joined this forum as I don't know anyone else who is interested in this subject and there are several things that I'm curious about that, so far, I have never seen addressed in the books I've read. Hence, I thought that joining something like this would offer some fun discussion and useful insight in to what other people think about certain topics. Sadly, all I've seem to have gotten so far is aggressive replies, demands of "proof" or being told I live in a fairy land and that I just believe anything the government tells me, rather than any actual discussion and the majority of my discussions so far have been completely irrelevant to the JFK assassination and mainly about how I phrase questions to Peter Goth.
As such, I hope you can see why I resorted to such comments as "Super Weidmann". I read your comment and just thought to myself "oh here we go, another nobber who is just going to rant about spombleprofglidnoctobuns without actually addressing the issue.

Wow, touchy.... First of all, you seem to have a reading problem, as nobody said anything about you coming to Mytton's defense. You rather pathetically complained that I did not come to your defense when somebody did not reply to a question you never asked. I in turn pointed out that you also did not come to my defense when Mytton did not reply to my simple question. I thought I had explained it quite clearly, but it seems you didn't understand it after all. Sorry, next time I'll lower the bar even further.

I'm not arsed about what fucking hard evidence or proof this Mytton guy has about his point

So, fact-checking and providing proof for a claim isn't your thing? Go it!

so why the hell are you trying to drag me into a conversation that I've showed absolutely no interest in before?

Again, get your facts straight; you were the one who jumped into the conversation. Nobody dragged you in. In fact, I don't think anybody with a sane mind will ever drag you into an conversation, the way you are behaving.

Again, I refer back to my error of not starting a new thread. I have to admit I was not really following the interactions between you, Goth & Mytton until I was likened to him

The only reason I mentioned this guy was in response to Goth saying I sounded like him and in no way did I give an opinion either way on what he was saying, so I'm just a bit confused as to why you suddenly think me and Mytton are Siamese twins or something.

Goth was right in saying that, and as the discussion has progressed you've only enforced that notion. Having said that, I can't recall having said that I think you and Mytton "are Siamese twins or something". You wouldn't have just made that up, would you? As far as I am concerned you two sound alike, that's all.

Yeah, you didn't say we were Siamese twins. Do you really have to take everything so literally? It was an OTT exaggeration on how you seemed to be assuming me and Mytton were best buddies or something. I thought anyone with an ounce of common sense would get that. I was just watching an old episode of a 1970s British sit-com called George & Mildred when one of the characters said the line "Blimey! Look at him. Once dance lesson and already he thinks he's John Travolta". This was obviously meant as a joke, but no doubt you would have got angry and written to the show's writers stating "At no point did that guy who took the dance lesson ever say he was John Travolta. You just made that up!"

If you can't stand the heat........

But if it's only entertainment you seek, you might indeed be better of on a Brexit or Trump forum.

This is indeed a JFK forum and as soon as you say anything remotely interesting I may well reply.

And yes, it's an absolute ridiculous suggestion that you think you can tell me what I should do.

Now, do you have anything of significance to say, or not?

Well clearly not as far as you're concerned. I'm clearly just "a newbie" who's not worthy of your expertise or time so I won't be offended if you don't bother replying to this with another one of your long winded accusations of how I'm putting words in people's mouths or not backing any of my notions up with hard evidence.

[Peter Goth]

"...But clearly you did butt into an exchange between me and Goth and accused me of putting words in his mouth...."

um,
yea, you did.

[Martin Weidmann]

Of course, there is nothing wrong with asking somebody if they have facts, but as I stated previously, I was not presenting something as a fact.

If you look way back to when I started my first post on this subject, you'll see I began with the line "Ultimately, you have to ask the question why, after over 50 years when the majority of the people involved in any alleged cover up are either dead or on their last legs, nobody involved has actually gone public and exposed a cover up?"

And concluded it with "To me, that strongly suggests that nobody has come forward with any evidence because there wasn't any cover up!"

You just can't help yourself, can you now? Your desperate need to "win the argument" seems to have gotten the better of you, hasn't it?

So, why are you now, rather dishonestly, trying to shift the goalposts? We never discussed your first post on the subject, so you now quoting from it doesn't do you much good. We were actually talking about a remark you made in a reply to Jack Trojan where, talking about people not having come forward in 50 years, you stated unequivocally, and thus presented as fact, that;

"One of them would have cracked and exposed some meaningful evidence."

Now even as someone who likes to dissect every little bit of text written, I'm sure you'd even struggle to pinpoint exactly where I claimed anything of what I was saying to be fact or where I was saying "THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED". Or did you think I was claiming to have completely solved the entire JFK assassination conspiracy with one post? I've single handedly done, in one simple post, what millions of people haven't been able to do in over 50 years?

I'm sure you'd even struggle to pinpoint exactly where I claimed anything of what I was saying to be fact or where I was saying "THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED".

Ah, more twisting and turning. I never claimed that you said any of that, so there's hardly any requirement for me to "pinpoint" anything.

I simply asked you how you knew that and you replied by saying that you were not "stating that as fact". Obviously I disagreed with you, that was all. But nice try......

And obviously I don't have any hard proof. My personal belief is that there was no cover up, but if there was one then surely someone would have come forward with evidence about this. So, if I'm suggesting there was no cover up, thus being nobody to come forward and expose a cover up, how could I possibly have evidence to back this up? It seems a stupid thing to ask for in the first place as surely you knew nobody could prove such a statement. It was clearly an opinion! Thus, that is why I said asking for proof was a tiresome counter-argument.

Yes I know, you keep telling us now that it was only an opinion, but you only said that after I asked you how you knew that "One of them would have cracked and exposed some meaningful evidence" and getting you to confirm that it was nothing more than an opinion was the entire point to my question. 

Btw, nobody asked you for evidence to back up anything. I merely asked how you knew.... You do understand the difference, don't you?

Someone else on the forum replied and said that it was because people were scared or threatened and mentioned the suspicious deaths of many other witnesses, which is great. A valid point that they actually gave to explain why someone wouldn't have come forward and that I take on board. Or am I supposed to reply to that guy and say "Well, what proof do you have that these non-existent people are scared and have been threatened?"

I saw that exchange and I am not going to tell you what you are supposed to do or how.

And yeah, me asking proof that "none of them wouldn't" was just bad English. The point I was basically trying to make was that I don't have evidence to support or not support what I was saying. As I said, it was something I was just putting out there.

Yes we know that now.

You said yourself you that you believed people had or had tried to talk so wouldn't it have just been a bit more interesting to say that and maybe say why rather than going through my messages and trying to point out niggling arguments rather than just saying so?

If you wanted to have a conversation with me about the remark I made, I can only wonder why you felt the need to continue our present conversation instead.

[Vincent Baxter]

You just can't help yourself, can you now? Your desperate need to "win the argument" seems to have gotten the better of you, hasn't it?

Of course that quote only applies to me. You in no way can "help yourself" can you?

Nothing else of relevance was really said in your full reply so I really don't think its worth addressing. The fact that you're still going on about a quote that I've already explained was only an opinion is just getting tiresome and we're just going to be here all year going round and round in circles.

I shall sit back and await your next pointless reply as clearly "you can't help yourself" either