Reply
PermalinkRaw Message
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by BOZPost by Anthony MarshPost by BOZPost by Anthony MarshPost by BOZPost by mainframetechPost by BOZCan someone on the conspiracy side tell me how the conspirators planted
the following evidence to frame Oswald?
His rifle on the 6th floor
His grey/off white jacket
The shells on the 6th floor
The rifle was Oswald's and he probably hid it there himself. It was
used by someone else though to shoot out the window at the motorcade.
The shooter left the shells, and Oswald put on the jacket himself.
Chris
Oswald was part of the conspiracy?
It's possible that Oswald's job was to provide the rifle or provide
access to the real shooters and act as the lookout.
How is it that witnesses saw Oswald but did not see the real shooters?
You have no proof that anyone saw Oswald.
Howard Brennan saw Oswald. You can pretend if you want.
Pretend you didn't know Brennan was a self proclaimed conspiracy advocate
BOZ. Pretend he never wrote about the suspicious lone car he saw also. Oh
wait... now his testimony doesn't interest you as much? Hmmm... how
interesting. Pretend the WC didn't have to work around several
inconsistencies in his testimony to make it fit into their final analysis.
Pretend he wasn't an unreliable witness too. And while you're at it,
remind us all what the HSCA did with his testimony...
Pretend Brennan is vital to establishing Oswald's guilt.
Pretend? My dear Bigdog, I certainly don't have to pretend Brennan is
vital to establishing Oswald's guilt.
That's good because he's not.
Agreed.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenThere are much better indications of
Oswald's guilt in other pieces of evidence like when he lied to the police
about the photos Marina took of him. But BOZ certainly seems to think he
is vital?
All he said was that Brennan saw Oswald. We know Brennan saw the shooter
and we know the shooter was Oswald so that seems like a perfectly
reasonable statement.
So let me get this straight. All he said was that Brennan claims to have
seen Oswald but somehow that isn't vital to him in his arguments as a LN
advocate to pinning the blame on Oswald?
No, it isn't vital because there is more than enough evidence to make the
case against Oswald without Brennan's testimony. That testimony is just
one last nail in Oswald's coffin, not that it was needed.
Post by Chosen TenThen why does BOZ always keep
bringing Brennan up as if he is somehow a ground shaking indication of
some proof of Oswald's guilt?
It contributes to the case so why wouldn't he use it? If that piece were
missing, a compelling case could still be made for Oswald's guilt. Why
ignore Brennan's ID of Oswald since it is corroborated by all the forensic
evidence.
Because he brought into question the validity of his claims through the
admissions in his book and the inconsistencies in his testimony .
I put more faith in sworn testimony than claims made in a book.
Oh yes, because no one has ever lied under oath... I guess the names
Clinton and Nixon don't ring any bells. OJ maybe? Did any of them go to
jail for lying under oath during sworn testimony? No. And on the flip side
no one has ever told the truth in a book right?
If all the
Post by bigdogbook did was reiterate what he told the WC, it's doubtful anybody would
have been interested. Not that very many were anyway.
But he didn't reiterate what he told the WC. That's why his book is a big
deal. Are you suggesting that he lied in his book? Are you suggesting he
made up what he wrote for financial gain? Are you questioning his
credibility?
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenIt could only be because he DOES believe
Brennan's claims to have seen Oswald to be valid and vital.
Just because that's the only reason you can think of doesn't make it so.
Notice he hasn't answered yet? It's not like he hasn't had ample
opportunities to tell us exactly why if he wanted to. He dodged me in
another thread as well. I'm not stopping him from answering back to
clarify in case you haven't noticed...
Your claim was that he believed Brennan's testimony to be valid and VITAL.
Where's the evidence he believed it was vital?
In the amount of threads he's made referring to Brennan. In his references
to Brennan as proof Oswald killed JFK. You can't put 2 and 2 together?
Does logic not work for you? Why does he keep bringing it up if it isn't
vital to him and his arguments? If it's not vital to him then all he needs
to do is say so to clear up the matter and that would settle it, but if he
keeps bringing up Brennan and referencing him as evidence that Oswald
killed JFK and posting threads about him, how is Brennan not a vital piece
of evidence for BOZ against Oswald in his arguments?
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogBrennan's claim is valid.
The forensic evidence that you point to as "validating" Brennan's claims
doesn't even clarify whether Oswald made the shots or not that day against
the president so you have shown time and time again that you are perfectly
willing to jump to assumptions to support your beliefs. Brennan's
testimony is questionable. Why do you keep claiming things to be certain
that are far from it? I don't have a problem with you claiming and
defending your belief that Oswald was the lone shooter or that Brennan saw
Oswald but both of those things are not certainty. They are
assumptions.
The two pieces of evidence that establish Oswald not only brought the
murder weapon into work but was the one who fired it are the fibers in the
butt plate that matched his shirt and the fingerprints in the sniper's
nest which were oriented exactly as they would be if Oswald was looking
down Elm St.
Literally neither of those confirms that it was Oswald who pulled the
trigger and shot the president. They just confirm that it was his gun and
that he worked there. We already know you like to assume despite your
claims to the contrary.
But of course that isn't enough to convince the
Post by bigdoganybody-but-Oswald crowd. If the forensic evidence alone isn't enough to
convince you Oswald was the assassin, it is hard to imagine what possibly
could. All the evidence is exactly what we would expect it to be if Oswald
were the shooter. Denials of his guilt are preposterous.
Well I hardly think Oswald was a saint. It's not unreasonable to think he
was guilty of shooting the president, but in my mind there is still
reasonable doubt and other things related to this case that must be
addressed which many of the LN advocates argue against. Such as what the
CIA is still withholding related to this case. Not that you care about any
of that.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenIt didn't need to be vital for BOZ to bring it
Post by bigdogup.
Post by Chosen TenSo I'm going
to have to disagree with you here Bigdog. And of course we don't know
Oswald was the shooter silly.
We might not. I do.
There you go again. Claiming things to be certain that are not yet.
Just because you can't figure out an incredibly simple murder case doesn't
mean the rest of us are so challenged.
Post by Chosen TenI'll
tell you one thing I'm absolutely certain about when it comes to you...
Despite your claims of saying you "don't want to assume, you want to
"know", you make a lot of assumptions anyways.
Everything I believe about Oswald's guilt is based on rock solid evidence.
Rock Solid... like Brennan's testimony? Lol sure sure Bigdog. His ID of
Oswald is definitely rock solid. So solid not a single other person could
corroborate his claims. But that doesn't stop you from believing his
claims to be valid. You point to forensic evidence that doesn't even
definitively establish whether he shot at the president or not as proof
that Brennan's claims are validated. That in itself is amusing and
indicative of the assumptions you are forced to make.
Post by bigdogI KNOW Oswald was the assassin. Sorry if you are still stumped 53 and half
years later.
You mean like you KNOW Hosty's destruction of Oswald's letter was more
"cover your ass" than "coverup"? Lol ok Bigdog
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenOtherwise we wouldn't be here.
I'd love to see the logic path that brought you to that conclusion.
Well in hindsight you may just be bored... you probably get a kick out of
these "debates" as much as I do sometimes. But there's no denying the
subject topic matters to both of us.
This is nothing more than a mildly amusing hobby.
Might I suggest a new hobby? Cliff diving perhaps?...
I think it would be fitting given how much you seem to like diving into
assumptions.
Or becoming a part time CIA agent?
I know how much you like to deny things. You would feel right at home...
Or perhaps a Comedian?
You know we all want it ;) ... even SNL would look like amateurs next to
some of your finer pieces of comedic gold.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenYou ASSUME Oswald was the shooter.
Horseshit!!! There is overwhelming evidence that leaves no doubt in the
minds of any objective person that Oswald was the shooter.
Hmmmm... kind of like there is no doubt in the mind of any objective
person that the CIA has been lying and misdirecting us for decades
regarding documents related to this case and the Mexico City incident?
Whatever happened in Mexico City doesn't change the fact that Oswald shot
JFK on 11/22/63.
You didn't even know what it was that the CIA was hiding or had admitted
when I first came here silly. And once again you state things as fact that
are still assumptions.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenOh... but all of a sudden NOW you want to be objective... how interesting.
What was it that you said again when it came to me asking if you were
interested in helping push the CIA towards declassifying those documents
so we could clear this case up?
"You have my blessing." -Bigdog 2017
You still have it.
How comforting. Your blessing is all I ever wanted and needed. Not actual
help declassifying the documents. That will definitely help us all find
out what the CIA has been withholding so adamantly and help push this case
into more clarity and certainty. Bravo Bigdog. Bravo.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenHahahahaha! XD You weren't concerned or "interested then about being
objective and trying to clear up the matter. Oh, but now you want to talk
about being objective... how droll.
I'm not interested in joining your snipe hunt. If you ever bag the snipe,
be sure to let us know.
Finding out what one of our government agencies is hiding related to this
case hardly counts as a snipe hunt. You don't have to believe Oswald was
innocent to want to find out what the CIA has been withholding from us
related to this case. It would seem it is something serious seeing how
hard they've fought to keep certain documents witheld from us related to
this case.
But you've already established you don't care what our government agencies
do. You like making excuses for them. Remember the Hosty note? More "cover
your ass" than cover up right Bigdog? Just like Nixon and Watergate. He
wasn't trying to cover anything up either. Just "cover his ass" huh? Haha.
Classic Bigdog logic.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenIn your mind there is no other alternative.
There is no valid alternative that doesn't include Oswald as the shooter.
How many witnesses saw Oswald make his way down again? Oh? What's that?
Zero?
Why do we need witnesses to know Oswald came down the stairs.
Because you can't even positively confirm your assumption that he was on
the 6th floor at the time of the shooting. If Carolyn Arnold indeed saw
him in the lunchroom like she positively claimed, then who saw him go up
Bigdog? No one. I think it's possible the WC recognized this possible
problem and decided not to call Mrs. Arnold to testify. That's speculation
of course. I have no earthly idea why they didn't call her up to testify.
Everything we know now tells us they should have. But they didn't. Is that
more the FBI's fault or the Warren Commission's? Certainly if it's even on
the FBI record that Carolyn Arnold might have seen Oswald directly prior
to the shooting you would think the WC would have jumped all over it to
call her up to testify but they didn't. It's completely baffling to me. So
much for being a "fact finding body".
We know he
Post by bigdogwas in the sniper's nest at 12:30.
No. You assume.
We know he was seen entering the
Post by bigdoglunchroom a short time later. I'm reasonably certain he didn't teleport
his way down to the second floor.
Except this... Carolyn Arnold positively claimed to have seen him in the
lunchroom when she was on her way out the building when other witnesses
had already claimed that they had seen a gunman in the window upstairs.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenOswald made it out of the TSBD too? And you don't think anyone else
could have gone unnoticed and made it out through the other exits? There's
a zero percent chance of that? Do you claim that as certainty too Bigdog?
There is zero evidence anybody else came down. Oswald crossed paths with
Baker and Truly. Why wouldn't someone else coming down those same stairs
have run into them as well?
Because maybe they didn't come down the stairs?
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenBut the case for Oswald being the shooter isn't exactly watertight.
More horseshit!!!
Post by Chosen TenThere's no doubt in my mind that he's guilty of knowing more about the assassination
than he led on. But to say he was the shooter with absolute certainty is
more questionable in my mind.
Then I guess you are destined to remain perpetually confused because that
is the plain and simple truth.
Post by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenAnd weren't you also just defending his testimony?
Yes I was but that doesn't mean it was vital to establishing Oswald's
guilt.
The way many LN advocates I've talked to in the past keep bringing Brennan
up, you could've fooled me... BOZ is no exception.
You've presented nothing which indicates to me that BOZ or anyone else
considers Brennan vital to the case against Oswald.
"I have exclusive news for you CHOSEN. Read Howard Brennan's Eye Witness
to History." -BOZ 2017
At least BOZ has a sense of humor *chuckle*...
Where does he say Brennan's testimony was vital to the case against
Oswald? That is the bone of contention.
He doesn't have to say it for it to be implied. If he keeps posting
threads on Brennan, believes his ID of Oswald to be valid, and brings up
Brennan to me as the first piece of evidence that Oswald was the shooter,
then it's implied that it is vital to him in his arguments. If it isn't
then why does he keep bringing it up? He certainly hasn't come out and
said otherwise yet has he?
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenWhy would he even refer and reference to Brennan unless he thought
Brennan's claims were valid?
Nobody is disputing that BOZ thinks Brennan's claims were valid. I believe
Brennan's claims were valid. Now tell us why they were vital.
Already explained why his claims seem vital to BOZ's arguments above and
before.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenYou and I both know he does and, not
surprisingly, you do as well. If he believes Brennan's claims are valid
then how could his ID of Oswald NOT be vital in his arguments and case
against LHO?
Because the case can be made against Oswald without Brennan's testimony.
Brennan just makes it a little stronger. Eyewitnesses aren't necessary to
solve any crime.
Now you're downplaying the role eyewitnesses can have in determining a
case. Especially if they are corroborated.
Post by bigdogThey can be helpful but they are not vital.
They CAN be vital. I'm going to have to disagree with that statement.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenOf course it would be vital testimony if it was valid as the
WC believed it to be.
Vital would mean the case couldn't stand up without Brennan's testimony.
That simply isn't the case. It is valid but not vital.
In hindsight I probably should have used the term "significant". That
would have been closer to what I was getting at. Either way you seem to
think i am arguing that the case against Oswald depends solely on
Brennan's ID of Oswald as the shooter which is not the case. But I do
think that it seems to be vital to BOZ's arguments since he has brought
Brennan up repeatedly and has done nothing to show us otherwise. Brennan's
ID of Oswald would have pushed this case into more of an area of certainty
were it corroborated by other witnesses and if we had no reason to
question his claims. Unfortunately, for all of us, this is not the case.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenBut you seem to think it was "hardly" vital to the
WC. I mean really... now you're just digging your hole deeper. Obviously
I'm still waiting for BOZ to answer because he never has, but I think it's
safe to say he thinks Brennan is a key piece of evidence against LHO..
Have you seen all the threads BOZ has posted with Brennan in it? No? Are
you blind to that too or just in denial? You prefer to think he just posts
all these threads on Brennan because he was irrelevant and had no impact?
You seem to have a hard time with simple adjectives. Valid is not
synonymous with vital. Valid is not synonymous with irrelevant. Brennan's
testimony was valid.
Here is where your assumptions come back in.
Post by bigdogIt was neither vital nor irrelevant.
Holy cow Bigdog. I never said it was irrelevant. I asked "You prefer to
think he just posts all these threads on Brennan because he was irrelevant
and had no impact?" I guess you missed the question mark at the end of
that sentence. Weren't you just chastising me for English comprehension
skills? Do you not understand the difference punctuation creates in
sentence meaning?
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenThat case could have
Post by bigdogeasily been made if Brennan had never showed up in Dealey Plaza.
Post by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenIt is clear
that in the minds of many LN advocates like our dear friend BOZ that
Brennan is vital to pinning the blame on Oswald.
It doesn't seem that way to me.
Hahaha oh Bigdog! Why does that not surprise me? XD Have you been paying
attention to his posts lately? 3 posts, all about Brennan alone that he
posted just yesterday. Perhaps you missed them? And this is hardly the
first time he has pointed to Brennan for reassurance and reference that
Oswald is guilty. He stayed quiet last time I challenged his references to
Brennan in another post. If he doesn't believe Brennan's ID of Oswald is
vital why does he keep bringing it up? BOZ? Feel free to defend yourself
here. Don't let Bigdog have to do ALL the talking.
Brennan is just one more piece of evidence of Oswald's guilt. It is not
the most compelling piece nor is it vital to the case but it is a valid
piece of evidence because his identification is corroborated by a wealth
of forensic evidence. Why would we ignore a witness who is so
corroborated?
If he was so corroborated why do you say he is hardly the most vital piece
of evidence against Oswald?
I'm sorry. I'm not here to explain remedial English to you.
Wow. Not THAT'S funny. Way to dodge the question btw.
If you can't
Post by bigdogunderstand the difference between valid and vital, I can't help you.
Post by Chosen TenIf more witnesses had been able to corroborate
Brennan's claim that it was indeed Oswald in the window do you not think
that would have pushed the case even further into near certainty on
pinning Oswald as the shooter when coupled with the forensic evidence you
claim corroborated Brennan's sighting? But remind me... how many witnesses
corroborated his claims that Oswald was the shooter?... I'll wait...
We don't need other witnesses to corroborate Brennan. The forensic
evidence does that.
I can't believe you keep pushing this silly train of thought. Or maybe I
can... it is you after all... the forensic evidence doesn't show if Oswald
was the one who pulled the trigger that day and shot the president so how
can you even point to that and think that somehow validates Brennan's ID
of Oswald in the window? The forensic evidence PROVES it was his rifle.
The forensic evidence PROVES he worked there. But it does NOT PROVE that
he pulled the trigger and was the shooter. We have to assume for that.
Without Brennan's testimony, it is a 99.99999%
Post by bigdogcertainty Oswald was the assassin. With Brennan's testimony, it would
become 99.999998%. More witnesses would make it 99.999999% certain.
Oh. I see. And where did you pull these figures out from Bigdog? Oh.
That's right... Your @$$. So basically this is just more of you trying to
downplay Brennan even though you claim to believe him.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenThe reality is not one witness could claim to confirm it was Oswald apart
from him.
We don't need them any more than we need Brennan.
Lol you sound absolutely silly when you say things like this.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenIt was also seemingly
vital in the minds of the WC.
Hardly.
Ooooooo Bigdog. Careful now. You put yourself most certainly on a slippery
slope with that comment. Denial isn't a good trait to have when it comes
to the coveted "star witness" of the WC. Perhaps you and David Belin would
have had an interesting conversation about Brennan's "significance" to the
WC as a witness were he still alive.
I has already been explained to you that while Brennan's ID of Oswald is
important, it is hardly necessary to establishing Oswald's guilt. To
illustrate that, in the mock trial in which Bugliosi prosecuted Oswald, he
was easily able to obtain a guilty verdict even though Brennan did not
testify.
And Brennan was the "star witness" of the WC once upon a time... do you
think that title would still be appropriate today?...
Brennan was never the star witness. He was a witness.
Name one other witness that could positively ID Oswald as the shooter. Do
you realize that the WC believed his claims to be valid? If they believed
he was the only witness to have seen Oswald as the shooter how does that
not make him the star witness given the conclusions they reached and
presented? Even Belin said he was the most important witness to the
commission. Did you need him to say Brennan was the "star witness" for him
to have been just that?
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenYou know who else wasn't called up to testify in that mock trial? Arnold
Rowland and Carolyn Arnold. Come to think of it... a lot of people weren't
called up to testify.
Why would Arnold's fuzzy recollection about seeing Oswald at some vague
time in some vague place have any relevance?
Because she claimed it wasn't as fuzzy or as vague as the FBI recorded it.
She was angered and called out the FBI for the way they recorded her
statements to the reporters that revealed to her how her statements had
been taken down. Do you think the FBI "manipulated" her statements? Or do
you think only old defenseless ex CIA ladies have their statements
"manipulated"? Who was more likely to lie given their background? Carolyn
Arnold or Jane Roman? Was Carolyn Arnold the only witness who denounced
the FBI on the way they were taking down people's testimony? You know the
answer to that as well as i do. The answer is no. Oh, but you don't like
to look at that do you? The fact that other witnesses also denounced the
way the FBI took their statements and voiced the same discontent she did
only further enhances our reasons to believe her statements and
denunciations.
And here's the best part...
HER denunciations about the FBI are actually corroborated by other
witnesses unlike another witness you LN advocates choose to believe. Is
there something that is hard about that for you to understand? Are you
still in denial mode Bigdog? I can almost already hear the excuses you
will try to come up with.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenDo you understand that over time we learn new things? That trial took
place over 30 years ago. Did we know half as much about the CIA's coverups
regarding this case in 1986? Do you even understand why it's important? Do
you recall the CIA wouldn't even officially admit to the "benign" coverups
until just a few years ago. And those are just the "benign" ones related
to this case. But you don't like to see any of that. You're convinced in
your mind there is nothing to see there... move along Bigdog. Move along.
Keep your eyes closed. It's safer that way. What coverups?
CIA activities don't change the fact Oswald was the assassin.
Again, you assume he was the assassin. But even if he was you don't think
what the CIA has been withholding could change the context and way we look
at the assassination? You choose to not care. You choose to think it's not
important. And you give any excuse not to look into it. You don't really
care about clearing up this case. You like being blind and content with
what you believe. Close your eyes and go to sleep Bigdog. The world is
safer for you that way.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenSo now his IDing of Oswald wasn't significant apparently to either the WC
or the DPD for pinning the blame on Oswald? Well then... that settles it.
Let's just throw his testimony out since it is so insignificant. That's
exactly what the HSCA did anyways and who can blame them right?
Apparently you don't understand the difference between significant and
vital. They are not synonyms.
NEWSFLASH Bigdog: Brennan's testimony was BOTH significant and vital to
the WC and DPD for helping to pin the blame on Oswald! You think he got
the title "Star Witness" of the WC because of his rugged looks and good
charm? Please.
On what page did the WCR refer to Brennan as the "Star Witness". I missed
that part.
They didn't. Does that change the fact that that was exactly what he was
to them? To Belin? To you LN advocates? Name one other witness more
important than Brennan for reaffirming to the WC and you LN advocates that
Oswald was the shooter? Do you understand why he was the "star witness"
for them now? NOBODY other than Brennan could claim to positively ID
Oswald as the shooter. And there were certainly others that saw the
shooter and also gave descriptions of him but could not claim that it was
Oswald.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenNow you try to diminish his impact. Nice try Bigdog. But
you're not fooling anyone. Hahaha "hardly". You actually said "hardly" XD
I can "hardly" believe the excuses you make to diminish Brennan's impact
on the WC and the DPD on pinning the blame on Oswald.
I can hardly understand why you think because we believe Brennan's
testimony was valid we also believe it was vital.
Well that's no surprise. You don't seem to understand a lot of things I
argue. It started off with me pointing to how it seems Brennan's testimony
is vital to BOZ's arguments as a LN advocate and he has since done and
said exactly nothing to give us any reason to believe otherwise. You also
think the forensic evidence somehow proves that Oswald was the shooter.
Even though it does nothing to reaffirm that he pulled the trigger that
day. That's you leaping to assumptions again and claiming them as fact.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenA shame really. But we know
better now don't we? Surely even you wouldn't contend Brennan was an
unreliable witness at best with the benefit of hindsight.
If the case against Oswald rested on Brennan's testimony I would have
reasonable doubts.
Funny you say that because some witnesses weren't even called up to give
testimony. Remind us again why Carolyn Arnold wasn't called up before the
WC?
I wasn't privy to the discussions as to which witnesses should be called
to testify but Arnold's contemporaneous statement was very vague about
where and when she had seen Oswald and it wouldn't establish an alibi for
him so I don't dispute their judgement in not calling her to testify.
This is the LN advocate side of you talking at its finest.
OK, explain what Arnold's statement establishes that would be so VITAL.
When her statement is put together with Arnold Rowland and other witnesses
statements, it leads us to question whether LHO was really the shooter
because it indicates that there was a shooter on the 6th floor already at
the time she claims she saw Oswald in the lunchroom. The fact that she
emphasized that she was certain it was Oswald she saw also brings into
question why the FBI did not record her testimony correctly and made it
seem as if she was not sure if it was indeed Oswald. If she indeed saw
Oswald, then that not only does not add up with what the WC report
concluded when it stated that Charles Givens was the last known employee
to see Oswald at 11:45 AM, but it also leads us to question if he was the
shooter since around the same time there was already a man with a gun in
position on the 6th floor according to Arnold Rowland and other witnesses
that saw a gunman before the assassination.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/B%20Disk/Bronson%20Charles/Item%2027.pdf
We have already debated the Carolyn Arnold topic before in depth. If the
previous debates before did not make you see my point why should I expect
this time to be different?
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenIf she mentioned possibly seeing Oswald almost directly prior to the
assassination you don't think it would have interested the WC to interview
her to determine the veracity of her account?
Since her statement indicated she wasn't clear on where and when she saw
him, why would it be worth asking her again.
And which statement was that? THE ONE THE FBI WROTE! The one SHE DIDN'T
SIGN to verify! She was only required to sign the SECOND statement which
only asked a very selective set of 3 questions that the FBI asked every
worker from the TSBD which were:
1. Do you recall seeing LHO at the time of the assassination?
2. Do you recall seeing any strangers in the building housing the TSBD on
Nov,22, 1963?
3. At what time did you leave the TSBD?
One of the questions WAS NOT "did you see LHO on Nov 22, 1963 at any time
prior to the assassination?"
Only the answers to those questions were recorded for the second statement.
The part that really gets me is that even though the possibility of her
seeing Oswald was recorded by the FBI in the first report, (the FBI report
makes it seem as if she was uncertain as to when, where, and even if it
was indeed him that she saw, although she later denounced them vehemently
on this when she was informed of the way the FBI had recorded her
statements years later by reporters), the Warren Commission still failed
to follow up on that possible lead and determine the veracity of her
account! Well then... were they not a fact finding body? Why did they not
do their job?
If anything, we have more reason to believe her than doubt her given what
we know now. Her denounciations match what other witnesses also had to say
about the way the FBI recorded their testimonies. And she had no reason to
lie. She wasn't out to make financial gain. She didn't write a book like
Brennan did. She wasn't out for fame or fortune. She wasn't a glory
hunter. We have ZERO reason to believe that she lied. She didn't know how
the FBI had recorded her statements until it was brought to her attention
and she set the record straight immediately.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenIt should have right? Was
the WC not a "fact finding body" as you LN advocates like to say? Why did
they not do their job?
Sorry if their judgements as to relevancy don't conform with yours.
So basically you have no answers for that either. You want to talk about
relevancy?! You don't think establishing Oswald's movements and actions
directly prior to the assassination was relevant to the WC now? Who are
you kidding Bigdog? Only yourself.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenAnd WHY was it that her initial statement was
vague? Who recorded it? Oh? You don't remember? Let me remind you. The FBI
did. But her account was more detailed and precise than what the FBI
recorded.
15 years later she claimed far more certainty than she expressed in the
immediate aftermath. Ever hear of false memories. They can become very
vivid over time. Even if her 15 year old recollection was absolutely spot
on, it wouldn't establish an alibi for Oswald.
Wrong. It would bring into question whether he was the shooter at all when
put together with the other witness testimony. In any case, blame the WC
for not calling her up to check the veracity of her claim. Again, she was
not out for financial or personal gain. She didn't even know how the FBI
had recorded her statements in the first report until she was informed and
she immediately denounced the FBI and set the record straight.
He would have still had 15
Post by bigdogminutes to get to the sniper's nest.
No. Not 15 minutes. Who was the other gunman that was already on the 6th
floor that Arnold Rowland claimed he saw at 12:15 if Oswald was in the
lunchroom? Even Brennan claimed he saw Oswald in the window as early as
between 12:22-12:24. And what about the rest of the witnesses that also
saw a gunman in the window prior to the assassination? He would not have
had 15 minutes to get to the window. You already seem to forget how early
the other witnesses saw a man in the window. And on top of that, the limo
was also late... how would the gunman have any idea it was running late
unless they had updates to the motorcades location as it approached Dealey
Plaza? You think they would want to risk missing their window to
assassinate the president?
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenThe key here is that she was not asked to review and sign her
first statement. She signed her second statement.
Gee, tell us why that was important.
See below.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenAnd Mrs. Arnold was
angered and later denounced the way they had recorded her first testimony
when she learned of it.
She signed her second statement.
Yes. She did. That's why we have no reason to believe the FBI might have
manipulated her statements on the answers she gave in that statement
because she verified the answers she gave were correct explicitly for that
statement. Do you even remember it? As stated before, the FBI asked 3 very
selective questions that were asked of every employee that worked in the
TSBD by the FBI which she answered and verified.
http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenBut there's no cries of "manipulation" from the LN
advocates when it comes to that is there? The reason why her testimony
would have mattered is because it posssibly could have reaffirmed the
alibi LHO gave to the police when put together with Arnold Rowland's and
Norman and Jarman's testimony as well as other witnesses.
LHO claimed he was in the first floor Domino room. How would Arnold's
claim of seeing him in the second floor lunchroom reaffirm his alibi(aka
outright lie).
Well if her claim is to be believed, (and there is almost no reason to
doubt her from what we know) he well could have made his way between both
lunchrooms prior to the assassination. And that would be consistent with
the other witness testimony.
There are 3 things that Arnold was quite adamant about.
1. That there was no mistaking that she saw Oswald in the second floor
lunchroom as she was headed out to see the motorcade.
2. That she left the TSBD at around 12:25 (this is the same exact thing
she testified in her second statement which she signed)
3. That she saw Oswald “About a quarter of an hour before the
assassination" when she "went into the lunchroom on the second
floor”
So her testimony would have posed problems for the WC unless they could
have exposed reason to doubt her testimony. Easier to just ignore her as a
witness than risk having to go through all that.
And Eddie Piper also said, “at 12:00 Noon, this fellow Lee says to
me, ‘I’m going up to eat”
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=517
Now. That does not mean Oswald could not have gone between both floors
during lunch.
Because, as you know, there were at least 3 other witnesses that affirmed
Oswald had also been in the first floor Domino room. William Shelly,
Bonnie Ray Williams, and Givens, although later Givens changed his story
interestingly.
http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-alibi
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenAre we supposed to believe the WC wasn't interested in determining
Oswald's movements and whereabouts directly prior to the shooting?
A witness with a fuzzy account of what she remembered wouldn't help
establish anything.
It was certainly more detailed and precise than what the FBI recorded. And
she denounced them to the reporters who showed her how her testimony had
been recorded on this.
Did she denounce the statement she signed too?
No because she reaffirmed that the information she signed on the second
statement was correct. But she was shocked that there wasn't more mention
of her sighting of Oswald and she denounced the FBI for how they had
recorded her first testimony.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenWhy
weren't they interested in doing their job? To prevent WW3? Obviously
there is still reasonable doubt in this case. Otherwise we wouldn't be
here debating.
Who's debating. The LN's are simply refuting the nonsense that comes from
the CT side. It's done for amusement only. It's not as if anything any of
you guys are saying is the least bit important.
Well that settles it then... the great Bigdog has spoken. All hail the all
knowing and all powerful Bigdog. He's never wrong it seems.
Rarely when debating conspiracy hobbyists because they are almost never
right.
Post by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenThere is so much evidence that tells us for certain
Post by bigdogOswald was the shooter. The forensic evidence validates Brennan, not the
other way around.
Brennan invalidated himself through his own words in his book.
Keep piling the horseshit.
Keep piling the excuses. I guess that's the only way you can negate what
he wrote later when he revealed that he was a conspiracy advocate huh?
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenIm about to do something that's gonna blow your mind Bigdog. You ready?...
I'm about to agree with you... to a certain extent. But I'm also going to
disagree with you to a certain extent. Hold on to your balls and bear with
me if you will.
1) I was addressing BOZ primarily since he clearly seems to think Brennan
is somehow a good reference for establishing Oswald's guilt. There are
much better pieces of evidence that point to his guilt as you and I know.
BOZ knows that too.
Then someone tell him to stop with these ridiculous references to Brennan
for proof against Oswald. Why focus on Brennan when you have significantly
better evidence against Oswald?
Why would he stop. Brennan's ID of Oswald is a valid piece of evidence and
is corroborated by the forensic evidence all of which points to the guy he
IDed.
Post by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenBrennan is like
Post by bigdogany other witness.
2) Not true. He is the "star witness" in BOZ's eyes and in the hearts of
many LN advocates which is somewhat interesting and slightly ironic and
comical and troubling. He is not like any other witness because what he
claims to have seen does not just include LHO in the window but also
to have seen). And clearly he was not just any other witness in the eyes
of the WC. But the LN advocates only like to lend credence to the parts of
his testimony where he describes seeing LHO in the window... not the other
conspiratorial parts. BOZ is probably a prime example of that.
Point to anything BOZ has said which indicates he thinks the case against
Oswald depends on Brennan.
There's no reason to. When did I ever say "BOZ thinks the case against
Oswald depends on Brennan." I'll help you out Bigdog. Never.
By alleging that BOZ thinks Brennan's ID of Oswald was vital to the case
against him, that is exactly what you are saying.
No silly. Weren't you the one jumping on me over the importance of knowing
the difference between words like "vital" and "significant"? I'm gonna
pull a you here... Do you then, not understand the difference between
"vital to" and "depends on"?
Fair enough. Quote BOZ saying the case against Oswald "depends on"
Brennan's testimony.
Post by Chosen TenAn argument can have a key point that is vital to it, but not entirely
dependent on it. I never claimed BOZ thinks the case against Oswald
depends on Brennan solely. But Brennan's ID of Oswald does appear to be
vital to his case against Oswald.
It isn't vital if an airtight case against Oswald can be made without it.
Lebron James is vital to the Cleveland Cavaliers. Kyle Korver is not.
Post by Chosen TenIf it's not he can just say it's not and I won't have to worry about
pointing out how unreliable and ironic it is to point to Brennan's ID of
Oswald as evidence that Oswald did the shooting.
I wouldn't point to it if it wasn't corroborate by the forensic evidence
that makes it clear the guy he identified was the assassin.
Post by Chosen TenYou haven't seen all the posts and threads BOZ has made about Brennan?
Would you like to? That can be arranged. Although i wouldn't say all these
posts and threads point to BOZ thinking the case against Oswald depends on
Brennan. Rather that It points to BOZ thinking Brennan is a valid and
vital piece of evidence to use in his arguments as a LN advocate. Of
course you, and I, and maybe even he knows there are more solid pieces of
evidence against Oswald, but it's no secret BOZ posts a lot about Brennan
and seems to think he's a good reference to use as evidence Oswald shot
the president. Why would that not qualify Brennan as vital to BOZ's
arguments as a LN advocate? It was for the WC.
Because the case against Oswald can be made without it.
Post by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenI said "the LN advocates only like to lend credence to the parts of his
[Brennan's] testimony where he describes seeing LHO in the window... not
the other conspiratorial parts." When have you ever seen BOZ discussing
the conspiratorial parts Brennan brought up? Brennan was a self proclaimed
conspiracy advocate and brought the validity of his testimony into
question through his own words in his own book. But many LN advocates seem
to forget this.
If you have corroborating evidence for those other parts of Brennan's
testimony let us know.
The other parts are shoddy as well. That's my point. His testimony is
questionable.
The part where he IDed Oswald is not shoddy. That is corroborated.
Only in your mind. Weren't you the one saying even the Warren Commission considered it only "probative" that he saw the shooter?
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenBut there may be something of substance regarding the car upon closer
examination. The problem is Brennan didn't elaborate about the car either
other than what he thought the year and make may have been. A 55-57
Oldsmobile. Him not describing the color of the car makes it hard to
confirm if it was the car Brennan was talking about but there does seem to
be some advances towards establishing what car Brennan may have been
talking about.
We know Oswald didn't get in that car because he was getting on a bus
about the same time.
Brennan never said Oswald got in that car. Did you even read what Brennan
wrote in his book? He stated the exact opposite.
Excerpt from Eyewitness to History:
BRENNAN: "Finally, I saw a policeman standing at the Southwest corner of
the SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY and I ran across the street to get his
attention. There was much noise and confusion and people were trying to
get out of the area. As I approached the policemen he said, "What do you
want?" I said, "The man you want is in the building!" He said, "Are you
sure?" I responded, "I sure am." He grabbed my arm and we both ran to the
front of the School Book Depository. I glanced back towards the street to
the side of the building. The car I had seen PARKED there before the
motorcade passed WAS GONE. Although only a few moments had elapsed and all
exits were blocked except one, the car had disappeared. The policeman who
had been talking to the driver was gone, but I assumed he was looking for
the gunman.
Many times since, especially in recent years, I have thought about the car
parked alongside the Texas Book Depository and wondered where it came from
and where it went. I have always wondered why the policeman allowed the
car to be parked illegally beside the building with its wheels turned
outward when other cars had been made to vacate the area. Of course, the
paramount question in my mind was, "Who was the man sitting behind the
wheel that day?"
As I watched the car, it never occurred to me that an assassination was
about to take place and this might be the "get-away" car. Even though I
could not have positively identified the man behind the wheel, I can say
this for certain. The man was white, middle-aged and dressed in civilian
clothes. I didn't have an opportunity to study his face, so identification
is impossible but I have always felt that somehow he was involved in the
assassination.
Later, I would remember, "if that was a 'get-away' car, why didn't it wait
to pick up the killer?" Was it possible that he was being left on purpose?
These questions and others tormented me for years after that experience
and will never be fully answered. The one thing I knew for certain--there
was a car there before the assassination and it disappeared before the
assassin had time to get out of the building."
So I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at Bigdog... of course he
didn't get in the car. No one ever said he did.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenThis is far from certainty still though.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/16323-brennans-suspicious-car/&page=2
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenBut in any case, Brennan still seems to be a favorite point of discussion
for BOZ to point to when it comes to evidence that Oswald was the shooter
which is slightly ironic and comical to me.
It is perfectly valid to use Brennan's ID of Oswald when arguing for his
guilt. That ID is supported by a wealth of forensic evidence.
Post by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenThe things he tells us may or may not be true and he
Post by bigdogcould get some parts right and some parts wrong.
3) But he only gets the parts that are convenient for the LN advocates
right and the parts detrimental to the LN advocates wrong right? Well
then... how much research have you actually done into that car he was
talking about?
We have forensic evidence which tells us which parts he got right. The
parts for which there is no corroborating evidence are dubious at best.
His IDing of Oswald is dubious at best also.
It would be if there was no corroborating evidence. The fact he IDed the
guy who owned the murder weapon, left his fingerprints at the scene of the
crime, left fibers from his shirt on the murder weapon, left his
fingerprints on the bag that he used to smuggle the rifle into work and
that bag had fibers matching his rifle blanket. Oh, yeah. Oswald was the
only TSBD employee who fled the scene and shot murdered the first cop he
came across and tried to murder some more a short time later. I think that
is more than enough to give credence to Brennan's ID of Oswald.
Post by Chosen TenAnd that is mostly Brennan's
own fault. Tell us all again how many of the witnesses could corroborate
specifically that Oswald was the shooter Bigdog... what's that? None of
them? Well... that's interesting... there were other witnesses who also
saw the shooter after all right? But none of them could ID Oswald... so
much for corroboration... the only thing corroborated was that there was
indeed a shooter. The forensic evidence provided only reaffirmed that the
rifle was Oswald's and that he worked there. Not necessarily that he was
the shooter or pulled the trigger that day. You would argue that we are
forced to leap and assume he was the shooter. There is no reasonable doubt
in your mind but there is in mine.
I listed the reasons for believing Brennan above. Not let's see if you can
come up with an alternative scenario that incorporates all that evidence.
If you do you will be the first one in 53 years to have done so.
What you listed does not reaffirm that Brennan could actually see Oswald
well enough to ID him if he was in the window. If there were others that
could ID Oswald that would help solidify his testimony. Others saw a
shooter in the window so that helps in reaffirming there was a shooter,
but that does nothing to help verify it was actually Oswald.
The forensic evidence does that quite nicely.
Post by Chosen TenIf it were
Oswald doing the shooting, would that solidify that there was no
conspiracy? No. The CIA matter would still have to be cleared up. That is
why it is important to find out what the CIA has been hiding. It benefits
everyone. Well... except the CIA maybe. Depending on the contents of what
it is they have been withholding so ardently.
There is zero evidence anybody except Oswald took part in the crime. Lots
of speculation. No evidence.
Post by Chosen TenI think it's highly probable Oswald did the shooting, but that hardly
establishes it as a certainty and what we need is certainty.
If the evidence we have know doesn't make you certain Oswald was the
assassin, nothing ever will.
I'm not you. I don't claim to know the truth. And I actually want to help
advance this case into more of an area of certainty. You have repeatedly
shown you don't.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenThere is
something very off with this case. And it does not help that the CIA has
been less than transparent with us on matters related to Oswald and the
Mexico City incident even to this day.
Spy agencies usually aren't very transparent. It's bad for business.
Is that an excuse for over 5 decades of deceits, stonewalling, and
misdirections on their part related to this case? If it is, it's a very
poor one. All the other excuses you have given are poor too. Castro's dead
and the sources and methods they used back then definately aren't the same
as they were back in the 60's. Get with the program Bigdog. You have to
use the "National Security" excuse now. I guess that just shows you how
serious what they're keeping under wraps must be. Or how desperate the CIA
is to withhold what they have.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenAs with any witness the
Post by bigdogway to determine what he has gotten right is to see if there is
corroborating evidence. There is corroborating evidence that he correctly
pointed out the location of the shooter.
4) But none of those other witnesses that corroborated the location of the
shooter could ID Oswald as the shooter could they? Which of them could
corroborate that? None of them. Only Brennan alone claimed he could. And
his claims are shaky and unreliable at best.
If that's all there was, yes it would be shaky and unreliable.
It's still shaky and unreliable.
The fact
Post by bigdogthat he IDed the guy that all the forensic evidence tells us was the
shooter bolsters his account.
Not really. Again, all the forensic evidence tells us is that it was
indeed Oswald's rifle and that he was there as he worked there. And
Brennan even admitted he saw Oswald on TV before the lineup so the
veracity of his ID of Oswald is quite dubious at best.
Still waiting for a plausible alternative explanation for all that
evidence I listed above.
Post by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenSpent shells were found at the
Post by bigdoglocation he saw the shooter. Other witnesses also pointed out the same
location. By itself Brennan's ID of Oswald would not be very compelling
but the fact that he IDed the owner of the rifle found on the 6th floor
5) He ID'ed Oswald after seeing him on TV. And with Oswald standing out
clearly in the lineup due to his clothes.
Which doesn't preclude the fact that the guy he saw firing the rifle was
Oswald and we know the guy he saw firing the rifle was Oswald.
WE know? Correction. You assume.
No, I know.
I know my correction was right. You assume. You are forced to assume as we
all are to a certain degree.
Assumptions are beliefs based in lieu of evidence. That isn't the case
regarding Oswald's guilt.
Agreed. He was definitely guilty of knowing more about the assassination
than he let on.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenHe is the ONLY witness to have claimed to
have seen Oswald doing the shooting.
If he had never showed up in Dealey Plaza there would be no doubt that
Oswald was the assassin.
Post by Chosen TenAnd you have already stated you
wouldn't put too much importance in Brennan's claims anyways.
I said I wouldn't put much faith in it if it stood alone but it doesn't
stand alone.
Post by Chosen TenHe is an
unreliable witness with dubious testimony that even the WC had to work
around to be able to fit it in with their analysis.
How much horseshit can you pile into one post?
Pretend the WC didn't have to look past problems and inconsistencies in
his testimony.
It didn't look past them. It presented them.
Right, right. He was, in his own words, gifted with "extraordinary
eyesight" and on that day his "vision was perfect." So perfect in fact
that he could positively ID Oswald doing the shooting, but could not tell
whether or not the gun Oswald had right in front of his face had a scope
on it. Among other things that seemed curious in his testimony. But
remember, his faith led him "to believe that my gift of super-eyesight may
have caused Providence to place me at that spot in Dealy Plaza." Well I
guess that settles it then... why would we have any reason to doubt him?
And remind me, did the WC present Carolyn Arnold's testimony or did it
look past it? Hmmmmm....
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogwhich is the only rifle in the world which could have fired the three
spent shells and the only two bullets recovered from the shooting, that
the owner of the rifle left his fingerprints at the location Brennan saw
the shooter, and the owner of the rifle left fibers from his shirt on the
butt plate of the rifle make's Brennan's ID of Oswald very compelling.
Everything fits together. Try coming up with an alternative scenario which
fits the evidence as well as the scenario presented by the WC. Come to
think of it, try coming up with an alternative scenario that fits the
evidence at all.
6) Many other researchers have attempted just that. But they could all be
wrong. That's not the issue I'm arguing.
They are all wrong. Any scenario which doesn't include Oswald as the
assassin can't be taken seriously.
So you say and believe. It's not even a possibility in your mind that
Oswald could have been involved but not have been the shooter?
Of course it isn't. That would be stupid.
Post by Chosen TenI believe he well could have been the shooter but that is far from a
certainty yet given how we are still learning things related to Oswald and
the assassination to date.
Within 12 hours of the assassination there had already been enough
evidence gathered to easily convict Oswald. Everything learned after that
only bolstered the case.
Post by Chosen TenAnd with all these new documents and records being declassified, I think
it would be presumptuous to be able to say that with certainty yet.
I remember having these same conversations back in the early 1990s when
the ARRB was formed and the CTs were so sure it would reveal solid
evidence of a conspiracy and it turned out to be a whole lot of nothing.
Oh really. I think it revealed more than you give it credit for. Did the
CIA lawfully turn over all the documents they were supposed to so they
could be released this year? The Joanidess Files? Were they fully
transparent to the AARB then? Or did they do more stonewalling and
evading? Who is this "Howard" you speak of? And remember what Tunheim said
about the CIA? The AARB revealed more than you give it credit for.
So you find what the AARB did not release is revealing.
Yes. To a certain extent. Ask the people who actually served on the AARB
if they learned anything. Tunheim made it perfectly clear exactly what it
revealed. It showed us part of the CIA's hand. It showed us that the CIA
was still actively stonewalling and illegally and deliberately withholding
documents related to this case. It didn't reveal why they were doing it,
but it did point us in a direction to possibly find out why.
The main point is it showed us that the CIA still had something to hide
related to this case and more importantly, WHAT, in part, the CIA was
trying to hide. The Joanidess Files fall into that category. But we don't
know why yet. We can only make informed assumptions. Whatever it is though
must be pretty significant given how hard they fought against Morley's
lawsuit to find out what it was they were hiding. They even pulled out the
"National Security" excuse to keep those files witheld. Must be pretty
serious then. Morley couldn't do it alone. I'm arguing that we should, as
the JFK research community and as citizens, band together in the interest
of helping to further clarify this case and hold our government agencies
accountable for their actions.
Those files aren't set to be released this year because the CIA illegally
refused to hand them over. If you don't want to do anything to help get
them released I never again want to hear you say things like "what they
knew on Oswald prior to the assassination doesn't indicate they had any
knowledge of the assassination." That one still makes me chuckle. You
didn't even know what the CIA was witholding silly.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenDon't take it from me. Take it from people who actually served on the
AARB.
http://jfkfacts.org/judge-tunheim-says-jfk-files-probably-unlawfully-withheld-cia/
I
Post by bigdogexpect the same to occur this time around. And then the CTs will continue
to claim the government is still withholding evidence because they have
already convinced themselves that there was a conspiracy.
Do YOU expect the CIA to release the Joanidess files this year that they
illegally witheld from the AARB and NARA so they would not have to be
declassified this year? Have you already forgotten about that? Oh but that
doesn't count as the government withholding evidence does it? The CIA
never lied or witheld any information regarding this case right? Why
should we question them or hold them accountable? So much for
"objectivity".
I really don't give a shit.
You are only further proving my point. You cry out how stupid people are
for not being objective about the evidence that points to LHO possibly
being the shooter but then cry you "don't give a shit" when it comes to
what the CIA is withholding related to this case. NOW you don't want to be
"objective" when it comes to something that could change the way we look
at this case. Objectivity be damned. Objectivity is everything to you when
it comes to the proof against Oswald in this case, just not the proof
against the CIA related to this case. Or anything else that could
compromise your views. Good job Bigdog. You have just further exposed
yourself.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenEspecially since there is so much more we could do to push into a realm of
more certainty on various matters regarding this case. But you seem to be
perfectly ok with assuming? Weren't you the one who said you didn't like
to assume? You liked to kn