Preparing to run from what I wrote, aren`t you?
> Let me repeat what I just said: Looks like I was right... "DVP" is too much of a
>
> coward to admit that his website doesn't have the list of people who left and
>
> weren't at any mythical 'roll-call'.
Why are you replying to what I wrote if you are only going to run from it? Witnesses said there was an informal head count. Are you saying they lied? What is your alternative to workers in the TSBD getting together to determine that Oswald was missing and unaccounted for?
> Now, if you're *NOT* stupid, why not simply cite where DVP has that on his
>
> website... help him out.
Thats not the argument, stupid, it`s an irrelevancy. Whats relevant is that shots came from the TSBD, and Oswald is the only person known to have been inside the building during the shooting that was accounted for shortly afterwards.
> If you need the list, I'll be happy to provide it.
Provide the list of people who were in the building during the shooting that left the area shortly afterwards.
> But every time some Warren Commission believer sputters that LHO was the only
>
> one missing from the TSBD - they're flat lying.
Thats the strawman you want to address.
>
>
>
>
> >>> Nor was he able to refute my proof that he's a liar when he claims that the
>
> >>> Warren Commission didn't "make up" any evidence... they clearly did.
>
> >>> Tell us "DVP" - can you explain why you refuse to list the people who
>
> >>> were *NOT* at the TSBD after the murder?
>
> >>
>
> >> Why don`t you name all the people who were in the TSBD when the
>
> >> shooting occurred that fled the area soon after. That would be a very'
>
> >> short list indeed.
>
>
>
>
>
> Even *ONE* person other than Oswald would turn Warren Commission believers into
>
> liars...
You are running when you should be naming one.
> Have you bothered to *READ* the very citation given in this thread?
More running. Why aren`t you producing the name of a person other than Oswald who was in the building during the shooting that was unaccounted for shortly after?
> >>> Could it be that you'd embarrass quite a few Warren Commission believers?
>
> >>
>
> >> You idiots will never figure this very simple crime out, you are too busy
>
> >> focusing on all the wrong things, like Mark Lane taught you to.
>
>
>
> Mark Lane focused on lies and liars...
He told lies to idiots like yourself who were too stupid to realize they were being lied to.
> I agree with him... lies aren't needed to support the truth, nor are liars.
Then why did Lane use this approach?
> >> Apparently he gave you quite a few pointers in dishonesty, also.
>
>
>
> There are currently 371 possibilities for you to illustrate as "dishonest" - get
>
> busy...
That was accomplished very early on in that series.
>
>
>
>
> > you silly guy, you.... we understand your lone nut anxiety. After all,
>
> > ANOTHER possible suspect? Hell, the script is already written, Oswald is
>
> > the guy, eh Dud?
>
> >
>
> > If Mark Lane would of had the opportunity to defend Oswald, he'd of swept
>
> > the floor with you nutter fools like yourself... Carry on son!
>
>
>
>
>
> And in close to 50 years, his book 'Rush To Judgment' still hasn't been refuted.
Nothing is any different if that book had never been written. Anybody can critique an investigation.