Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Bill Brown]

Why are you already trying to confuse the issue by talking about something I did not mention in my previous post?

So, no, let's not start with that. Let's start with your reply to the comments I've just made, in which I have already started to demonstrate that a time line based on the DPD recordings/transcripts can not be correct.

We'll get to the times each individual witness (must have) arrived at the scene as we progress.

You stated something BEFORE your "previous post" and I want it addressed before we move on to that "previous post".  Why not simply address it real quick?

You said:

"The point is that Callaway did not get to the Tippit scene until 1:18 or 1:19 and you can't a shred of even credible evidence that he did."

Are you under the mistaken impression that I have stated that Callaway was at the scene BEFORE 1:18?

[Martin Weidmann]

I used Ted Callaway's own words.

Try to reply to the entire post rather than pick something and give meaningless reply to that.

I used Callaway's words as well, and those of several others.

There are two ways of doing this;

1. we have a discussion
2. we take turns in making speeches without really addressing anything of substance in the other guy's post.

This is an example of # 2

Why not try for # 1 for once?

[Bill Brown]

Try to reply to the entire post rather than pick something and give meaningless reply to that.

I used Callaway's words as well, and those of several others.

There are two ways of doing this;

1. we have a discussion
2. we take turns in making speeches without really addressing anything of substance in the other guy's post.

This is an example of # 2

Why not try for # 1 for once?

I need this addressed first...

You stated something BEFORE your "previous post" and I want it addressed before we move on to that "previous post".  Why not simply address it real quick?

You said:

"The point is that Callaway did not get to the Tippit scene until 1:18 or 1:19 and you can't a shred of even credible evidence that he did."

Are you under the mistaken impression that I have stated that Callaway was at the scene BEFORE 1:18?

[Martin Weidmann]

You stated something BEFORE your "previous post" and I want it addressed before we move on to that "previous post".  Why not simply address it real quick?

You said:

"The point is that Callaway did not get to the Tippit scene until 1:18 or 1:19 and you can't a shred of even credible evidence that he did."

Are you under the mistaken impression that I have stated that Callaway was at the scene BEFORE 1:18?

No, I am not under that impression. You have misunderstood what I was trying to say, but that was my fault. It was written inbetween things and clearly not done very well because the word "present" between "can't" and "a shred" is also missing. I should have said

Callaway did not get to the Tippit scene as late as 1:18 or 1:19 and you can't present a shred of even credible evidence that he did.

Can we move on now?

[Bill Brown]

No, I am not under that impression. You have misunderstood what I was trying to say, but that was my fault. It was written inbetween things and clearly not done very well because the word "present" between "can't" and "a shred" is also missing. I should have said

Callaway did not get to the Tippit scene as late as 1:18 or 1:19 and you can't present a shred of even credible evidence that he did.

Can we move on now?

But, I'm curious.  Why did you feel the need to say this to me?  I didn't say that Callaway was at the scene before 1:18 and in fact, I have stated that Callaway was there at the scene right at 1:18 to 1:19.  It doesn't make sense for you to say this to me.

Big straw man argument on your part and I'm just trying to understand.

Instead of saying you were mistaken about something you think I might have said recently, you switch it to say that I "misunderstood" what it was that you were trying to say.

If you are not under the impression (as you just said so yourself) that I stated that Callaway arrived at the scene before 1:18, then what on earth was your point?

[Martin Weidmann]

But, I'm curious.  Why did you feel the need to say this to me?  I didn't say that Callaway was at the scene before 1:18 and in fact, I have stated that Callaway was there at the scene right at 1:18 to 1:19.  It doesn't make sense for you to say this to me.

Big straw man argument on your part and I'm just trying to understand.

Instead of saying you were mistaken about something you think I might have said recently, you switch it to say that I "misunderstood" what it was that you were trying to say.

If you are not under the impression (as you just said so yourself) that I stated that Callaway arrived at the scene before 1:18, then what on earth was your point?

No you are not trying to understand anything. You are trying to pivot away from the points I have raised.

You have no interest in having a discussion about the main subject. Thanks for demonstrating that so clearly. End of conversation. Feel free to play your games with somebody else.

[Bill Brown]

No you are not trying to understand anything. You are trying to pivot away from the points I have raised.

You have no interest in having a discussion about the main subject. Thanks for demonstrating that so clearly. End of conversation.

So I must address your questions/points but you don't have to address mine?  If you wanna do this, then we go in order.  Before you raised your "points", you said something that I am asking you to clear up.  You haven't cleared it up, yet.  Do so and then we can move on to your points.

Up to you.

But at the same time, don't fool yourself into thinking that any of this is a must for me.  Hell, I don't even recall having a conversation with you in the past about Callaway and any of this.  To you, since I don't recall, it means I'm playing games.  But in reality, I simply don't have you very high on my radar.

[Martin Weidmann]

So I must address your questions/points but you don't have to address mine?  If you wanna do this, then we go in order.  Before you raised your "points", you said something that I am asking you to clear up.  You haven't cleared it up, yet.  Do so and then we can move on to your points.

Up to you.

But at the same time, don't fool yourself into thinking that any of this is a must for me.  Hell, I don't even recall having a conversation with you in the past about Callaway and any of this.  To you, I'm playing games.  But in reality, I simply don't have you very high on my radar.

I have cleared it up. I caused the misunderstanding by writing that line too quickly inbetween things. It was a reponse to your pathetic claim that if Tippit was shot prior to 1:10 [as I claimed based on a preponderance of evidence] it would have taken Callaway nine minutes to get to the crime scene.

So it took over nine minutes for Callaway make his way over to the sidewalk on Patton after hearing the shots, watch the killer run down Patton to Jefferson, then make his (Callaway's) "good hard run" less than a block up to the corner of Tenth and Patton, make his way to the patrol car and grab the mic to report the shooting.

No way did that take him nine minutes.

Your mistaken "preponderance of evidence" has Tippit's body lying in the street for over six minutes before anyone reports it.

That's what I was replying to. Calculate 1:10 + 9 minutes and you get 1:19 and there is not a shred of credible evidence that you can show that Callaway arrived at the scene at 1:19.

Had we continued our discussion I would have demonstrated that Callaway did in fact not even need 3 minutes after the shots to arrive at the crime scene.

Hell, I don't even recall having a conversation with you in the past about Callaway and any of this.

Really, short term memory failing?

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2759.msg103253.html#msg103253

But in reality, I simply don't have you very high on my radar.

Then don't engage me and go back to your propaganda loving friends at your facebook site.

I am convinced that you will never ever be able to have an open and honest discussion about this case. You're in it for a win against lesser opponents and as soon as you encounter one that you can not intimidate with your knowledge of the case you run and start playing games. I've seen it several times now and it is ugly. You must own a truck to just transport your ego.

But it's really too bad because I am convinced that you coming from your perspective and I from mine would be a perfect opportunity (at least for me) to learn something I did not previously know. That's what normally happens as a result of discussions, when they are not agenda driven, fair and honest. But maybe you think you know it all already. Which is fine by me also, but then there is no reason for me to discuss anything with you as it would be a pointless exercise.