Discussion:
HOW DID THEY DO IT?
Add Reply
BOZ
2017-06-07 19:10:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Can 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
Jason Burke
2017-06-08 14:43:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Can 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
Based on the past 53+ years, the answers are:


They.

Just.

Did.
mainframetech
2017-06-08 19:19:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Can 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
bigdog
2017-06-09 13:20:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
All that nonsense makes more sense to you than Oswald just smuggled the
rifle into work and then shot JFK with it.
BOZ
2017-06-09 13:49:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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?
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-10 02:14:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
BOZ
2017-06-11 03:52:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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?
donald willis
2017-06-11 21:16:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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?
According to Insp. Sawyer's 12:44 apb & follow-up radio transmissions, his
witness(es) did NOT see the suspect in the depository!
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-12 14:14:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
BOZ
2017-06-13 13:55:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
donald willis
2017-06-14 00:17:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
If so, he saw him in a wide open window, as Brennan testified
BOZ
2017-06-15 19:02:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
If so, he saw him in a wide open window, as Brennan testified
Do you think the SE corner window was open or closed and was Oswald
shooting through glass?
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-16 02:16:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
If so, he saw him in a wide open window, as Brennan testified
Do you think the SE corner window was open or closed and was Oswald
shooting through glass?
I've not heard that theory before. Sounds like Fetzer. The public did not
have weapons that could shoot through glass leaving no marks.

The window of the sniper's nest was open 13 inches, enough for a clear
shot. The acoustical evidence proves that 3 shots were fired from that
window. Oswald had a habit of shooting through windows though.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-14 00:18:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
Yeah, on TV that night. Tainted lineup leads to dismissal of case.
Chosen Ten
2017-06-14 14:38:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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...
bigdog
2017-06-15 00:51:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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. Brennan is like
any other witness. The things he tells us may or may not be true and he
could get some parts right and some parts wrong. As with any witness the
way 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. Spent shells were found at the
location 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
which 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.
donald willis
2017-06-15 19:00:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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. Brennan is like
any other witness. The things he tells us may or may not be true and he
could get some parts right and some parts wrong. As with any witness the
way 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. Spent shells were found at the
location he saw the shooter.
(chuckle)

Other witnesses also pointed out the same
Post by bigdog
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
which 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.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-16 02:17:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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. Brennan is like
any other witness. The things he tells us may or may not be true and he
could get some parts right and some parts wrong. As with any witness the
way 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. Spent shells were found at the
location he saw the shooter.
(chuckle)
Other witnesses also pointed out the same
Post by bigdog
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
which 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.
Did you remember to write anything?
Leave a blank line or something to mark when you start your message.
Better yet, use lots of punctuation and all caps.
donald willis
2017-06-17 03:15:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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. Brennan is like
any other witness. The things he tells us may or may not be true and he
could get some parts right and some parts wrong. As with any witness the
way 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. Spent shells were found at the
location he saw the shooter.
(chuckle)
Other witnesses also pointed out the same
Post by bigdog
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
which 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.
Did you remember to write anything?
Leave a blank line or something to mark when you start your message.
Better yet, use lots of punctuation and all caps.
I just chuckled
Chosen Ten
2017-06-16 14:20:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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. There 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? And weren't you also just defending his testimony? It 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 was also seemingly
vital in the minds of the WC. And the DPD. A 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.

Im 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.

Brennan is like
Post by bigdog
any 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
possible evidence of a conspiracy (the suspicious lone car he also wrote
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.

The things he tells us may or may not be true and he
Post by bigdog
could 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?

As with any witness the
Post by bigdog
way 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.

Spent shells were found at the
Post by bigdog
location 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.
Post by bigdog
which 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.

What I am arguing is that many LN advocates choose to neglect what else
Brennan had to say concerning his testimony but still point to him as
"reliable" evidence of Oswald's guilt.

Many LN nut advocates don't even want to touch the subject of the
suspicious lone car he wrote that he saw. This is the "star witness" after
all for many of the LN advocates when it comes to placing the guilt on
Oswald for shooting JFK. They love to cite him when it comes to his IDing
of Oswald... Just not when it comes to anything else he said... Hmmm... I
wonder why...

Only his testimony regarding possibly seeing Oswald in the window is above
reproach to the LN's it seems.

That's the problem I have with LN's that cite Brennan and see him as a
"star witness." Surely even you wouldn't argue he is far from that given
what we know now in hindsight. But that doesn't seem to stop our good
friend BOZ from pointing to him as good proof of Oswald's guilt now does
it?

There are much better indications of that than Brennan's shaky and
unreliable testimony. At least we can agree on that I hope.
donald willis
2017-06-17 03:37:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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. There 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? And weren't you also just defending his testimony? It 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 was also seemingly
vital in the minds of the WC.
In fact, WC counsel David Belin, in his book, called Brennan the most
important witness!


And the DPD. A shame really. But we know
Post by Chosen Ten
better now don't we? Surely even you wouldn't contend Brennan was an
unreliable witness at best with the benefit of hindsight.
Im 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.
Brennan is like
Post by bigdog
any 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.
The things he tells us may or may not be true and he
Post by bigdog
could 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?
As with any witness the
Post by bigdog
way 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.
Spent shells were found at the
Post by bigdog
location 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.
Post by bigdog
which 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.
What I am arguing is that many LN advocates choose to neglect what else
Brennan had to say concerning his testimony but still point to him as
"reliable" evidence of Oswald's guilt.
Many LN nut advocates don't even want to touch the subject of the
suspicious lone car he wrote that he saw. This is the "star witness" after
all for many of the LN advocates when it comes to placing the guilt on
Oswald for shooting JFK. They love to cite him when it comes to his IDing
of Oswald... Just not when it comes to anything else he said... Hmmm... I
wonder why...
Only his testimony regarding possibly seeing Oswald in the window is above
reproach to the LN's it seems.
That's the problem I have with LN's that cite Brennan and see him as a
"star witness." Surely even you wouldn't argue he is far from that given
what we know now in hindsight. But that doesn't seem to stop our good
friend BOZ from pointing to him as good proof of Oswald's guilt now does
it?
There are much better indications of that than Brennan's shaky and
unreliable testimony. At least we can agree on that I hope.
Jonny Mayer
2017-06-17 23:38:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The DPD got their description of the shooter from a source other than
Brennan. Surprised you have all forgotten.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-17 13:34:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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. There are much better indications of
Brennan is about the ONLY witness they cite. In their limited little minds
they think that all crimes must be witnessed by several people or they
didn't happen. They've given up on Euins because he said the man in the
window was black, plus he was only a kid. But an old white man they have
to believe whatever he said, even if he didn't say it.
Post by Chosen Ten
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? And weren't you also just defending his testimony? It is clear
First of all, it wasn't Oswald who lied, it was the police.
Post by Chosen Ten
that in the minds of many LN advocates like our dear friend BOZ that
Brennan is vital to pinning the blame on Oswald. It was also seemingly
In their limited little minds they don't understand physical evidence and
rely on witnesses and then LIE about what the witnesses said to frame
their political suspect. Gotta pin it on a Lefty, any lefty.
Post by Chosen Ten
vital in the minds of the WC. And the DPD. A 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.
Im 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.
Brennan is like
Post by bigdog
any other witness.
2) Not true. He is the "star witness" in BOZ's eyes and in the hearts of
Almost the only witness, unless you want to believe the shooter was black.
Post by Chosen Ten
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
What mysterious car? Tell me more about this.
Post by Chosen Ten
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.
Who else they got?
Post by Chosen Ten
The things he tells us may or may not be true and he
Post by bigdog
could 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?
As with any witness the
Post by bigdog
way 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.
Not easy to see the shooter that far back from the window.
Post by Chosen Ten
Spent shells were found at the
Post by bigdog
location 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.
Post by bigdog
which 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.
What I am arguing is that many LN advocates choose to neglect what else
Brennan had to say concerning his testimony but still point to him as
"reliable" evidence of Oswald's guilt.
Many LN nut advocates don't even want to touch the subject of the
suspicious lone car he wrote that he saw. This is the "star witness" after
Tell me more about this car.
Post by Chosen Ten
all for many of the LN advocates when it comes to placing the guilt on
Oswald for shooting JFK. They love to cite him when it comes to his IDing
of Oswald... Just not when it comes to anything else he said... Hmmm... I
wonder why...
Only his testimony regarding possibly seeing Oswald in the window is above
reproach to the LN's it seems.
That's the problem I have with LN's that cite Brennan and see him as a
"star witness." Surely even you wouldn't argue he is far from that given
what we know now in hindsight. But that doesn't seem to stop our good
friend BOZ from pointing to him as good proof of Oswald's guilt now does
it?
There are much better indications of that than Brennan's shaky and
unreliable testimony. At least we can agree on that I hope.
Tell me again why we need Brennan?
bigdog
2017-06-17 13:40:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
There 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
And weren't you also just defending his testimony?
Yes I was but that doesn't mean it was vital to establishing Oswald's
guilt.
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
It was also seemingly
vital in the minds of the WC.
Hardly.
Post by Chosen Ten
And the DPD.
Not at all.
Post by Chosen Ten
A 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. There is so much evidence that tells us for certain
Oswald was the shooter. The forensic evidence validates Brennan, not the
other way around.
Post by Chosen Ten
Im 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Brennan is like
Post by bigdog
any 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
The things he tells us may or may not be true and he
Post by bigdog
could 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
As with any witness the
Post by bigdog
way 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. The fact
that he IDed the guy that all the forensic evidence tells us was the
shooter bolsters his account.
Post by Chosen Ten
Spent shells were found at the
Post by bigdog
location 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
which 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
What I am arguing is that many LN advocates choose to neglect what else
Brennan had to say concerning his testimony but still point to him as
"reliable" evidence of Oswald's guilt.
Again, his ID of Oswald is corroborated. The rest, not so much.
Post by Chosen Ten
Many LN nut advocates don't even want to touch the subject of the
suspicious lone car he wrote that he saw.
What was suspicious about a lone car?
Post by Chosen Ten
This is the "star witness" after
all for many of the LN advocates when it comes to placing the guilt on
Oswald for shooting JFK. They love to cite him when it comes to his IDing
of Oswald... Just not when it comes to anything else he said... Hmmm... I
wonder why...
Because his ID of Oswald is the only part that is corroborated.
Post by Chosen Ten
Only his testimony regarding possibly seeing Oswald in the window is above
reproach to the LN's it seems.
That's the problem I have with LN's that cite Brennan and see him as a
"star witness." Surely even you wouldn't argue he is far from that given
what we know now in hindsight. But that doesn't seem to stop our good
friend BOZ from pointing to him as good proof of Oswald's guilt now does
it?
Brennan's testimony is not proof of Oswald's guilt. It is just one
indication of Oswald's guilt and hardly the most compelling. In fact it is
probably the weakest indication of Oswald's guilt because Brennan could be
wrong. The forensic evidence tells us he was not.
Post by Chosen Ten
There are much better indications of that than Brennan's shaky and
unreliable testimony. At least we can agree on that I hope.
Yes we can. I disagree with your assessment that others place more
importance on Brennan than you and I.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-18 00:15:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
There 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
And weren't you also just defending his testimony?
Yes I was but that doesn't mean it was vital to establishing Oswald's
guilt.
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
It was also seemingly
vital in the minds of the WC.
Hardly.
Post by Chosen Ten
And the DPD.
Not at all.
Post by Chosen Ten
A 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. There is so much evidence that tells us for certain
Oswald was the shooter. The forensic evidence validates Brennan, not the
other way around.
Post by Chosen Ten
Im 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Brennan is like
Post by bigdog
any 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
The things he tells us may or may not be true and he
Post by bigdog
could 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
As with any witness the
Post by bigdog
way 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. The fact
that he IDed the guy that all the forensic evidence tells us was the
shooter bolsters his account.
Post by Chosen Ten
Spent shells were found at the
Post by bigdog
location 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
which 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
What I am arguing is that many LN advocates choose to neglect what else
Brennan had to say concerning his testimony but still point to him as
"reliable" evidence of Oswald's guilt.
Again, his ID of Oswald is corroborated. The rest, not so much.
Post by Chosen Ten
Many LN nut advocates don't even want to touch the subject of the
suspicious lone car he wrote that he saw.
What was suspicious about a lone car?
Post by Chosen Ten
This is the "star witness" after
all for many of the LN advocates when it comes to placing the guilt on
Oswald for shooting JFK. They love to cite him when it comes to his IDing
of Oswald... Just not when it comes to anything else he said... Hmmm... I
wonder why...
Because his ID of Oswald is the only part that is corroborated.
Post by Chosen Ten
Only his testimony regarding possibly seeing Oswald in the window is above
reproach to the LN's it seems.
That's the problem I have with LN's that cite Brennan and see him as a
"star witness." Surely even you wouldn't argue he is far from that given
what we know now in hindsight. But that doesn't seem to stop our good
friend BOZ from pointing to him as good proof of Oswald's guilt now does
it?
Brennan's testimony is not proof of Oswald's guilt. It is just one
indication of Oswald's guilt and hardly the most compelling. In fact it is
probably the weakest indication of Oswald's guilt because Brennan could be
wrong. The forensic evidence tells us he was not.
Brennan saw someone on the 6th floor and 3 shots were fired from the 6th
floor. With a little coaching Brennan said it was Oswald.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
There are much better indications of that than Brennan's shaky and
unreliable testimony. At least we can agree on that I hope.
Yes we can. I disagree with your assessment that others place more
importance on Brennan than you and I.
Chosen Ten
2017-06-18 00:22:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
There 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? Then 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 could only be because he DOES believe
Brennan's claims to have seen Oswald to be valid and vital. So I'm going
to have to disagree with you here Bigdog. And of course we don't know
Oswald was the shooter silly. Otherwise we wouldn't be here. You ASSUME
Oswald was the shooter. In your mind there is no other alternative. But
the case for Oswald being the shooter isn't exactly watertight. There'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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
And 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
And the DPD.
Not at all.
So 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?
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
A 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? Are we supposed to believe the WC wasn't interested in determining
Oswald's movements and whereabouts directly prior to the shooting? Why
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.

There is so much evidence that tells us for certain
Post by bigdog
Oswald was the shooter. The forensic evidence validates Brennan, not the
other way around.
Brennan invalidated himself through his own words in his book.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Im 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?
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Brennan is like
Post by bigdog
any 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.

I 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.

But 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
The things he tells us may or may not be true and he
Post by bigdog
could 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. And 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
As with any witness the
Post by bigdog
way 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 bigdog
that 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Spent shells were found at the
Post by bigdog
location 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. He is the ONLY witness to have claimed to
have seen Oswald doing the shooting. And you have already stated you
wouldn't put too much importance in Brennan's claims anyways. He 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
which 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?

I 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.

And with all these new documents and records being declassified, I think
it would be presumptuous to be able to say that with certainty yet.
Especially 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 know? Well then... you say one thing then
contradict yourself with another.

And you have already made it clear you have no intent to push towards
clarifying why the CIA has been so actively pushing to keep certain
documents withheld from the public eye regarding this case. You are
content with the answers we have and you believe already. A shame, and not
the mark of a true researcher. Believe what you will Bigdog. If the truth
is one day clarified into certainty you have made it clear it won't be
because of you.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
What I am arguing is that many LN advocates choose to neglect what else
Brennan had to say concerning his testimony but still point to him as
"reliable" evidence of Oswald's guilt.
Again, his ID of Oswald is corroborated. The rest, not so much.
Oh stop it Bigdog. His ID of Oswald as the shooter is not corroborated.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Many LN nut advocates don't even want to touch the subject of the
suspicious lone car he wrote that he saw.
What was suspicious about a lone car?
You mean to tell me you haven't read what Brennan said? Why would that not
shock me. I'm sure BOZ could probably recite it to you. Not that he'd want
to... Would you like a refresher perhaps?

https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobile=true#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/Oldsmobile%7Csort:relevance/alt.assassination.jfk/YDRuCPL-Ij0/QuZZHi_mRREJ

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk.uncensored/7MDV9rYDcvc

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/16323-brennans-suspicious-car/
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
This is the "star witness" after
all for many of the LN advocates when it comes to placing the guilt on
Oswald for shooting JFK. They love to cite him when it comes to his IDing
of Oswald... Just not when it comes to anything else he said... Hmmm... I
wonder why...
Because his ID of Oswald is the only part that is corroborated.
"Corroborated" sure sure.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Only his testimony regarding possibly seeing Oswald in the window is above
reproach to the LN's it seems.
That's the problem I have with LN's that cite Brennan and see him as a
"star witness." Surely even you wouldn't argue he is far from that given
what we know now in hindsight. But that doesn't seem to stop our good
friend BOZ from pointing to him as good proof of Oswald's guilt now does
it?
Brennan's testimony is not proof of Oswald's guilt.
It would be if it was true and we had no reason to doubt it.

It is just one
Post by bigdog
indication of Oswald's guilt and hardly the most compelling. In fact it is
probably the weakest indication of Oswald's guilt because Brennan could be
wrong.
Nooooooooooo... what in the world would make you say that? *definately not
using sarcasm* Brennan was blessed by providence with "extraordinary
eyesight." His "vision was perfect that day." So clearly we have no reason
to doubt what he saw right? So about that car...

The forensic evidence tells us he was not.

Already addressed this.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
There are much better indications of that than Brennan's shaky and
unreliable testimony. At least we can agree on that I hope.
Yes we can. I disagree with your assessment that others place more
importance on Brennan than you and I.
Hahahaha! Well that's it... You've really done it now Bigdog!!!! That last
statement is BY FAR the best thing you have ever said to me. Pure comedic
genius! We may yet make a fine stand up comedian out of you! XD Who's
Kevin Hart? Bigdog is over here channeling his inner Robin Williams. Have
you ever heard of... oh I don't know... the WC? Remind us all... how much
importance did THEY place on Brennan? You have me on the floor in tears of
mirth Bigdog. You can disagree all you like but that does not make your
beliefs fact. You seriously can't see the degree of importance LN
advocates attribute to Brennan??? How many other LN advocates have you
debated? I have seen and heard it in droves. Alot of LN advocates love to
cite Brennan's testimony as evidence against Oswald. You clearly haven't
been reading what BOZ has been saying then. Or perhaps it's just a matter
of a lack of understanding. Or denial. Either way... how you can't realize
the importance others have placed on Brennan's ID of Oswald is beyond
me.
bigdog
2017-06-18 21:40:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
There 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 Ten
Then 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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.
Brennan's claim is valid. It didn't need to be vital for BOZ to bring it
up.
Post by Chosen Ten
So 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Otherwise we wouldn't be here.
I'd love to see the logic path that brought you to that conclusion.
Post by Chosen Ten
You 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
In your mind there is no other alternative.
There is no valid alternative that doesn't include Oswald as the shooter.
Post by Chosen Ten
But the case for Oswald being the shooter isn't exactly watertight.
More horseshit!!!
Post by Chosen Ten
There'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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
And 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. That case could have
easily been made if Brennan had never showed up in Dealey Plaza.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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?
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
And the DPD.
Not at all.
So 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
A 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Are 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Why
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.
Post by Chosen Ten
There is so much evidence that tells us for certain
Post by bigdog
Oswald 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Im 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Brennan is like
Post by bigdog
any 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
I 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
But 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
The things he tells us may or may not be true and he
Post by bigdog
could 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 Ten
And 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
As with any witness the
Post by bigdog
way 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 bigdog
that 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Spent shells were found at the
Post by bigdog
location 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
He 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 Ten
And 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 Ten
He 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?
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
which 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 Ten
I 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 Ten
And 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. I
expect 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Especially 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 know? Well then... you say one thing then
contradict yourself with another.
I don't need to assume anything. There is rock solid evidence for
everything I believe. It is the CTs who are assuming there was a
conspiracy since there is no credible evidence to support that
position.
Post by Chosen Ten
And you have already made it clear you have no intent to push towards
clarifying why the CIA has been so actively pushing to keep certain
documents withheld from the public eye regarding this case. You are
content with the answers we have and you believe already. A shame, and not
the mark of a true researcher.
I never claimed to be a researcher. I am simply skeptical of people who
thing they are researchers when the simple fact is they are taking part in
the world's longest snipe hunt.
Post by Chosen Ten
Believe what you will Bigdog. If the truth
is one day clarified into certainty you have made it clear it won't be
because of you.
The truth was revealed 53 years ago. Sorry if it's not the one you want.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
What I am arguing is that many LN advocates choose to neglect what else
Brennan had to say concerning his testimony but still point to him as
"reliable" evidence of Oswald's guilt.
Again, his ID of Oswald is corroborated. The rest, not so much.
Oh stop it Bigdog. His ID of Oswald as the shooter is not corroborated.
I listed the corroboration early in this post. If you can come up with a
plausible alternative scenario that fits with all that evidence and
doesn't include Oswald as the shooter, let me know.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Many LN nut advocates don't even want to touch the subject of the
suspicious lone car he wrote that he saw.
What was suspicious about a lone car?
You mean to tell me you haven't read what Brennan said? Why would that not
shock me. I'm sure BOZ could probably recite it to you. Not that he'd want
to... Would you like a refresher perhaps?
https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobile=true#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/Oldsmobile%7Csort:relevance/alt.assassination.jfk/YDRuCPL-Ij0/QuZZHi_mRREJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk.uncensored/7MDV9rYDcvc
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/16323-brennans-suspicious-car/
Seriously? You find that suspicious. I see nothing that indicates it was
anything more than some unwitting motorist who was driving down Houston
and suddenly realized he wasn't going to be able to get through. Brennan's
description of the cop talking to the motorist seems perfectly consistent
with the cop just informing him he ought to turn around due to the chaos
ahead.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
This is the "star witness" after
all for many of the LN advocates when it comes to placing the guilt on
Oswald for shooting JFK. They love to cite him when it comes to his IDing
of Oswald... Just not when it comes to anything else he said... Hmmm... I
wonder why...
Because his ID of Oswald is the only part that is corroborated.
"Corroborated" sure sure.
I realize there are those who are simply going to invent excuses to
dismiss each and every piece of forensic evidence of Oswald's guilt but
after they do that that leaves us with no forensic evidence at all because
it all points to Oswald's guilt.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Only his testimony regarding possibly seeing Oswald in the window is above
reproach to the LN's it seems.
That's the problem I have with LN's that cite Brennan and see him as a
"star witness." Surely even you wouldn't argue he is far from that given
what we know now in hindsight. But that doesn't seem to stop our good
friend BOZ from pointing to him as good proof of Oswald's guilt now does
it?
Brennan's testimony is not proof of Oswald's guilt.
It would be if it was true and we had no reason to doubt it.
It is just one
Post by bigdog
indication of Oswald's guilt and hardly the most compelling. In fact it is
probably the weakest indication of Oswald's guilt because Brennan could be
wrong.
Nooooooooooo... what in the world would make you say that? *definately not
using sarcasm* Brennan was blessed by providence with "extraordinary
eyesight." His "vision was perfect that day." So clearly we have no reason
to doubt what he saw right? So about that car...
If Brennan's testimony was all we had, it would not be at all compelling.
In conjunction with all the other evidence it is very compelling.
Post by Chosen Ten
The forensic evidence tells us he was not.
Already addressed this.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
There are much better indications of that than Brennan's shaky and
unreliable testimony. At least we can agree on that I hope.
Yes we can. I disagree with your assessment that others place more
importance on Brennan than you and I.
Hahahaha! Well that's it... You've really done it now Bigdog!!!! That last
statement is BY FAR the best thing you have ever said to me. Pure comedic
genius! We may yet make a fine stand up comedian out of you! XD Who's
Kevin Hart? Bigdog is over here channeling his inner Robin Williams. Have
you ever heard of... oh I don't know... the WC? Remind us all... how much
importance did THEY place on Brennan?
They considered Brennan's testimony probative because it was supported by
a wealth of evidence. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Post by Chosen Ten
You have me on the floor in tears of
mirth Bigdog. You can disagree all you like but that does not make your
beliefs fact. You seriously can't see the degree of importance LN
advocates attribute to Brennan???
I see no evidence anyone places more importance on Brennan's testimony
than it deservers.
Post by Chosen Ten
How many other LN advocates have you
debated?
I generally don't debate people whom I agree with. That's boring.
Post by Chosen Ten
I have seen and heard it in droves. Alot of LN advocates love to
cite Brennan's testimony as evidence against Oswald.
With good reason. It is a valid account of the shooting supported by much
forensic evidence. It still isn't essential to the case against Oswald
which can be made without Brennan's testimony.
Post by Chosen Ten
You clearly haven't
been reading what BOZ has been saying then. Or perhaps it's just a matter
of a lack of understanding. Or denial. Either way... how you can't realize
the importance others have placed on Brennan's ID of Oswald is beyond
me.
Still haven't seen one quote from you that indicates any LN believes
Brennan's testimony is essential to establishing Oswald's guilt. Lots of
bluster. No cites.
Chosen Ten
2017-06-21 02:37:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
There 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 Ten
Then 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 .
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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...
Post by bigdog
Brennan'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.

It didn't need to be vital for BOZ to bring it
Post by bigdog
up.
Post by Chosen Ten
So 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. I'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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Otherwise 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
You 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?
Oh... 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

Hahahahaha! 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
In 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? Oswald 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?
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
But the case for Oswald being the shooter isn't exactly watertight.
More horseshit!!!
Post by Chosen Ten
There'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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
And 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*...

Why would he even refer and reference to Brennan unless he thought
Brennan's claims were valid? You 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? Of course it would be vital testimony if it was valid as the
WC believed it to be. But 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?

That case could have
Post by bigdog
easily been made if Brennan had never showed up in Dealey Plaza.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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? If 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...

The reality is not one witness could claim to confirm it was Oswald apart
from him.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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?...

You 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.

Do 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?
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
And the DPD.
Not at all.
So 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. Now 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
A 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.

If 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? It 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? And 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. The key here is that she was not asked to review and sign her
first statement. She signed her second statement. And Mrs. Arnold was
angered and later denounced the way they had recorded her first testimony
when she learned of it. But 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Are 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Why
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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
There is so much evidence that tells us for certain
Post by bigdog
Oswald 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Im 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Brennan is like
Post by bigdog
any 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"?

An 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.

If 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.

You 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
I 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.

But 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.

This is far from certainty still though.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/16323-brennans-suspicious-car/&page=2
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
But 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
The things he tells us may or may not be true and he
Post by bigdog
could 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 Ten
And 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. If 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.

I think it's highly probable Oswald did the shooting, but that hardly
establishes it as a certainty and what we need is certainty. There 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
As with any witness the
Post by bigdog
way 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 bigdog
that 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Spent shells were found at the
Post by bigdog
location 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
He 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 Ten
And 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 Ten
He 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
which 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 Ten
I 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 Ten
And 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.

Don'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 bigdog
expect 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".
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Especially 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 know? Well then... you say one thing then
contradict yourself with another.
I don't need to assume anything. There is rock solid evidence for
everything I believe. It is the CTs who are assuming there was a
conspiracy since there is no credible evidence to support that
position.
Post by Chosen Ten
And you have already made it clear you have no intent to push towards
clarifying why the CIA has been so actively pushing to keep certain
documents withheld from the public eye regarding this case. You are
content with the answers we have and you believe already. A shame, and not
the mark of a true researcher.
I never claimed to be a researcher. I am simply skeptical of people who
thing they are researchers when the simple fact is they are taking part in
the world's longest snipe hunt.
That's your dodge huh? Denial? I can just imagine what your group therapy
sessions must be like... "Hi my name is Bigdog. I'm a chronic JFK LN
advocate. I've been studying this case and evidence regarding it for
years, but I'm not a researcher. I'm just a guy who likes to tell other
researchers how stupid they are for not agreeing with the assumptions I've
reached based off of the evidence I've researched.... But I know the
truth.... and if you don't agree with me... you're stupid..."

Oh. Wow. Ok. Uhhh... Thank you for that lovely introduction Mr. Bigdog. I
think it's time to go take your meds now.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Believe what you will Bigdog. If the truth
is one day clarified into certainty you have made it clear it won't be
because of you.
The truth was revealed 53 years ago. Sorry if it's not the one you want.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
What I am arguing is that many LN advocates choose to neglect what else
Brennan had to say concerning his testimony but still point to him as
"reliable" evidence of Oswald's guilt.
Again, his ID of Oswald is corroborated. The rest, not so much.
Oh stop it Bigdog. His ID of Oswald as the shooter is not corroborated.
I listed the corroboration early in this post. If you can come up with a
plausible alternative scenario that fits with all that evidence and
doesn't include Oswald as the shooter, let me know.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Many LN nut advocates don't even want to touch the subject of the
suspicious lone car he wrote that he saw.
What was suspicious about a lone car?
You mean to tell me you haven't read what Brennan said? Why would that not
shock me. I'm sure BOZ could probably recite it to you. Not that he'd want
to... Would you like a refresher perhaps?
https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobile=true#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/Oldsmobile%7Csort:relevance/alt.assassination.jfk/YDRuCPL-Ij0/QuZZHi_mRREJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk.uncensored/7MDV9rYDcvc
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/16323-brennans-suspicious-car/
Seriously? You find that suspicious.
Brennan did. Are you questioning the WC's "star witness" Bigdog? Who are
you to suggest it wasn't suspicious? He was there. Were you? He "saw"
Oswald. He "saw" the suspicious car. Or did he?... are you suggesting he
might have been wrong? Or worse; lied? Legasp! No! Surely not. You are not
allowed to suggest such a thing. That would go against the LN advocate
code. How dare Brennan bring up possible evidence of a conspiracy!
Blasphemy!

I see nothing that indicates it was
Post by bigdog
anything more than some unwitting motorist who was driving down Houston
and suddenly realized he wasn't going to be able to get through.
Except he wasn't driving... Brennan claimed he was parked illegally right
next to the TSBD... with the door open. And the officer didn't make him
move. And then he was gone right after the shooting. But that isn't
strange or suspicious to you at all. You can't even admit that it would be
suspicious if it was true. You're a LN advocate. It would go against your
programming silly.

Regardless if Brennan's claims were true or not, you make up some excuse
and say he wasn't that vital to the WC or DPD's case against Oswald even
though you believe he did see Oswald. Is that your attempt to reduce his
role or reduce the embarrassment of knowing the WC's "star witness" was a
bigger conspiracy advocate than you are?

Brennan's
Post by bigdog
description of the cop talking to the motorist seems perfectly consistent
with the cop just informing him he ought to turn around due to the chaos
ahead.
You're joking. Did you even read what he wrote?

Brennan: "As I was watching the man in the car I saw a policeman who was
on foot walk over towards the car and begin talking to the man in a
friendly, laughing manner. So far as I could see, there was no attempt
made to get the man to move his car and after chatting for a minute or so,
the policeman walked back to his post. It was this fact that made me think
the police should have made some report about the presence of the car, but
I have never seen any other account of this "mystery car."

That was soon before the shooting. He even said as far as he "could see,
there was no attempt made to get the man to move his car and after
chatting for a minute or so, the policeman walked back to his post"!!! The
car wasn't going anywhere! And then shortly after the assassination it was
gone. But once again, the great all knowing Bigdog sees no reason to look
further into it. If he was the head of the WC this case would have been
over before it started.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
This is the "star witness" after
all for many of the LN advocates when it comes to placing the guilt on
Oswald for shooting JFK. They love to cite him when it comes to his IDing
of Oswald... Just not when it comes to anything else he said... Hmmm... I
wonder why...
Because his ID of Oswald is the only part that is corroborated.
"Corroborated" sure sure.
I realize there are those who are simply going to invent excuses to
dismiss each and every piece of forensic evidence of Oswald's guilt but
after they do that that leaves us with no forensic evidence at all because
it all points to Oswald's guilt.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Only his testimony regarding possibly seeing Oswald in the window is above
reproach to the LN's it seems.
That's the problem I have with LN's that cite Brennan and see him as a
"star witness." Surely even you wouldn't argue he is far from that given
what we know now in hindsight. But that doesn't seem to stop our good
friend BOZ from pointing to him as good proof of Oswald's guilt now does
it?
Brennan's testimony is not proof of Oswald's guilt.
It would be if it was true and we had no reason to doubt it.
It is just one
Post by bigdog
indication of Oswald's guilt and hardly the most compelling. In fact it is
probably the weakest indication of Oswald's guilt because Brennan could be
wrong.
Nooooooooooo... what in the world would make you say that? *definately not
using sarcasm* Brennan was blessed by providence with "extraordinary
eyesight." His "vision was perfect that day." So clearly we have no reason
to doubt what he saw right? So about that car...
If Brennan's testimony was all we had, it would not be at all compelling.
In conjunction with all the other evidence it is very compelling.
Post by Chosen Ten
The forensic evidence tells us he was not.
Already addressed this.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
There are much better indications of that than Brennan's shaky and
unreliable testimony. At least we can agree on that I hope.
Yes we can. I disagree with your assessment that others place more
importance on Brennan than you and I.
Hahahaha! Well that's it... You've really done it now Bigdog!!!! That last
statement is BY FAR the best thing you have ever said to me. Pure comedic
genius! We may yet make a fine stand up comedian out of you! XD Who's
Kevin Hart? Bigdog is over here channeling his inner Robin Williams. Have
you ever heard of... oh I don't know... the WC? Remind us all... how much
importance did THEY place on Brennan?
They considered Brennan's testimony probative because it was supported by
a wealth of evidence. Nothing more. Nothing less.
"Nothing more". "Nothing less." HAHAHAHA!!! XD Sure sure. He wasn't the "star witness" or anything. Keep trying to diminish his impact Bigdog. You make it easier for others to see how far in denial you are.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
You have me on the floor in tears of
mirth Bigdog. You can disagree all you like but that does not make your
beliefs fact. You seriously can't see the degree of importance LN
advocates attribute to Brennan???
I see no evidence anyone places more importance on Brennan's testimony
than it deservers.
Of course not. You don't even want to admit the vital role Brennan had on
influencing the WC and the DPD in determining LHO was the lone shooter.
You say he "hardly" influenced them. Why would you want to admit the
importance other LN advocates place on him knowing he was a conspiracy
advocate that may have been wrong or lied about what he saw?
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
How many other LN advocates have you
debated?
I generally don't debate people whom I agree with. That's boring.
Post by Chosen Ten
I have seen and heard it in droves. Alot of LN advocates love to
cite Brennan's testimony as evidence against Oswald.
With good reason. It is a valid account of the shooting supported by much
forensic evidence. It still isn't essential to the case against Oswald
which can be made without Brennan's testimony.
Post by Chosen Ten
You clearly haven't
been reading what BOZ has been saying then. Or perhaps it's just a matter
of a lack of understanding. Or denial. Either way... how you can't realize
the importance others have placed on Brennan's ID of Oswald is beyond
me.
Still haven't seen one quote from you that indicates any LN believes
Brennan's testimony is essential to establishing Oswald's guilt. Lots of
bluster. No cites.
That's BEYOND funny. Let me explain why. I already explained above when it
came to BOZ but let me take a different approach... for added effect, I'm
going to cite YOU.

I said, "Alot of LN advocates love to cite Brennan's testimony as evidence
against Oswald."

And you replied, "With good reason. It is a valid account of the shooting
supported by much forensic evidence."

And then immediately after that you said, "It still isn't essential to the
case against Oswald which can be made without Brennan's testimony.

Query: If it is as valid and concrete and absolutely true and corroborated
as you have been arguing, then how could it NOT be vital to the case
against LHO given that no one else could ID him as the shooter and there
is no solid photographic or video evidence pinning Oswald down as the
shooter???

Answer: It WOULD be... if we had no reason to doubt it. So your excuses
about him not being vital to LN advocates arguments falls lame in light of
the way the WC and DPD used his testimony to pin down Oswald as the
shooter. But in light of him being the only witness to claim to be able to
positively ID Oswald through the window as the shooter(despite having to
see him from an angle through a narrowed opening and others being in
positions to see the shooter as well but not being able to identify the
shooter), and his admissions in his own book, and the inconsistencies in
his testimony... we do have reason to doubt him.
John McAdams
2017-06-21 02:45:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chosen Ten
And Brennan was the "star witness" of the WC once upon a time... do you
think that title would still be appropriate today?...
Says who?
Post by Chosen Ten
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?
The WC never called him a "star witness."

Buffs always designate as a "star witness" somebody they think they
can discredit.

The WC said his testimony had "probative value" in establishing *a*
shooter in the Sniper's Nest, but not to establish the shooter was
Oswald.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-22 00:49:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Chosen Ten
And Brennan was the "star witness" of the WC once upon a time... do you
think that title would still be appropriate today?...
Says who?
Post by Chosen Ten
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?
The WC never called him a "star witness."
Buffs always designate as a "star witness" somebody they think they
can discredit.
The WC said his testimony had "probative value" in establishing *a*
shooter in the Sniper's Nest, but not to establish the shooter was
Oswald.
Close. So why do ignorant WC defenders take it one step further and claim
it is proof that Oswald was the shooter? Because they're not really WC
defenders because it' indefensible. They are just propagandists. Why don't
you accept the acoustical evidence which proved that 3 shots were fired
from that window? Because you don't believe in science.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
donald willis
2017-06-22 02:15:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Chosen Ten
And Brennan was the "star witness" of the WC once upon a time... do you
think that title would still be appropriate today?...
Says who?
Post by Chosen Ten
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?
The WC never called him a "star witness."
Buffs always designate as a "star witness" somebody they think they
can discredit.
The WC said his testimony had "probative value" in establishing *a*
shooter in the Sniper's Nest, but not to establish the shooter was
Oswald.
Grade: incomplete. David Belin, a counsel for the Commission, said, in
his book, that Brennan was their most important witness. No, he did not
use the phrase "star witness", I believe, so you can rest easy....

dcw
bigdog
2017-06-24 03:16:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by John McAdams
Post by Chosen Ten
And Brennan was the "star witness" of the WC once upon a time... do you
think that title would still be appropriate today?...
Says who?
Post by Chosen Ten
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?
The WC never called him a "star witness."
Buffs always designate as a "star witness" somebody they think they
can discredit.
The WC said his testimony had "probative value" in establishing *a*
shooter in the Sniper's Nest, but not to establish the shooter was
Oswald.
Grade: incomplete. David Belin, a counsel for the Commission, said, in
his book, that Brennan was their most important witness. No, he did not
use the phrase "star witness", I believe, so you can rest easy....
He was the most important witness because he was the only one who got a
good enough look at the shooter to ID him. Just because he was the most
important witness doesn't mean he was more important than the forensic
evidence in establishing Oswald's guilt. That is by far the most
compelling reason to believe Oswald was guilty, far more than any witness.
Chosen Ten
2017-06-23 20:07:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Chosen Ten
And Brennan was the "star witness" of the WC once upon a time... do you
think that title would still be appropriate today?...
Says who?
What other witnesses testimony was more impactful in pointing the blame for the assassination of JFK squarely on Oswald than Brennan's? He is the "star witness" in the hearts of the LN advocates because of his ID of Oswald. Just not anything else. His importance as a key witness to the commissions analysis was reaffirmed by the WC's conclusions and by Belin in his book who stated his importance to the commission.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Chosen Ten
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?
The WC never called him a "star witness."
Did they have to give him that title for him to be the most important
witness towards blaming Oswald for being the shooter in the minds of the
WC? He's the only one who claimed to have seen Oswald in the window and
the WC believed him. They didn't have to call him the "star witness" for
him to be just that to them silly.
Post by John McAdams
Buffs always designate as a "star witness" somebody they think they
can discredit.
"Star witness" is of course subjective. To the WC he was. I don't think
even you would go as far to place that title on him now in hindsight. But
there's no denying the effect his testimony had on the WC's analysis and
final conclusions.
Post by John McAdams
The WC said his testimony had "probative value" in establishing *a*
shooter in the Sniper's Nest, but not to establish the shooter was
Oswald.
We already had more than "Probative Value" that there was a shooter in the
snipers nest without his testimony. But "Probative value" in establishing
a shooter in the snipers nest doesn't seem to detract Bigdog and BOZ from
assuming "certain value" that Brennan not only saw a shooter, but that he
saw Oswald clearly as the shooter. The WC didn't need Brennan to establish
there was a shooter in the sniper's nest. There were already other
witnesses and pieces of evidence for that. Brennan's main contribution to
the WC was that he was the ONLY witness who claimed to be able to
positively affirm that the shooter was Oswald. And the WC believed him.
That's why he was the "star witness" for the Warren Commission.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
2017-06-24 20:25:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by John McAdams
Post by Chosen Ten
And Brennan was the "star witness" of the WC once upon a time... do you
think that title would still be appropriate today?...
Says who?
What other witnesses testimony was more impactful in pointing the blame for the assassination of JFK squarely on Oswald than Brennan's?
Pretty much all the expert testimony regarding the forensic evidence. That
is where the case was made. Brennan probably was the most important
eyewitness but that is a very low bar because the eyewitness accounts
varied widely. Brennan's real value was in identifying the source of the
shots and the fact he was able to ID the owner of the murder weapon who
forensics also tells us was the shooter makes him even more valuable.
However as you have been told a number of times, his ID of Oswald was not
vital to the case. Had he never looked up and seen Oswald fire the last
shot, the case against Oswald would still have been rock solid.
Post by Chosen Ten
He is the "star witness" in the hearts of the LN advocates because of his ID of Oswald. Just not anything else. His importance as a key witness to the commissions analysis was reaffirmed by the WC's conclusions and by Belin in his book who stated his importance to the commission.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Chosen Ten
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?
The WC never called him a "star witness."
Did they have to give him that title for him to be the most important
witness towards blaming Oswald for being the shooter in the minds of the
WC?
He wasn't. The expert witnesses were. They were the ones that nailed
Oswald as the shooter.
Post by Chosen Ten
He's the only one who claimed to have seen Oswald in the window and
the WC believed him. They didn't have to call him the "star witness" for
him to be just that to them silly.
Was he more important than the rest of the eyewitnesses in DP. Yes, but
only because the accounts of the rest of the eyewitnesses were so varied
as to be unreliable. Very little consensus other than there were three
shots and even that point had its doubters. Was Brennan more important
than all the witnesses who offered expert testimony regarding the forensic
evidence.

I liken Brennan to Eliot Ness. While the mythology is that Ness was the
one who put Al Capone away, the truth is he had almost nothing to do with
it. Yes, he was a Treasury agent in Chicago during Capone's reign and he
headed the section that battled Capone's bootlegging operations but he was
little more than a thorn in Capone's side, busting a few of his warehouses
and intercepting an occasional shipment of booze. It was the IRS agents
who made the case against Capone for tax evasion and Ness had no part in
that. So credit Brennan if you want just as many to this day still believe
it was Ness who put Capone away but it was the forensic experts who made
the case against Oswald just as it was the IRS agents who made the case
against Capone.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by John McAdams
Buffs always designate as a "star witness" somebody they think they
can discredit.
"Star witness" is of course subjective. To the WC he was.
Wrong.
Post by Chosen Ten
I don't think
even you would go as far to place that title on him now in hindsight. But
there's no denying the effect his testimony had on the WC's analysis and
final conclusions.
Had they never heard of Brennan, they would have reached the same
conclusion that they did. Oswald was the assassin and there was no
credible evidence he had even a single accomplice. There still isn't.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by John McAdams
The WC said his testimony had "probative value" in establishing *a*
shooter in the Sniper's Nest, but not to establish the shooter was
Oswald.
We already had more than "Probative Value" that there was a shooter in the
snipers nest without his testimony. But "Probative value" in establishing
a shooter in the snipers nest doesn't seem to detract Bigdog and BOZ from
assuming "certain value" that Brennan not only saw a shooter, but that he
saw Oswald clearly as the shooter.
We know Brennan saw Oswald not because Brennan said he saw Oswald but
because we know he saw the shooter and the forensic evidence makes it
clear that the shooter he saw was Oswald. You just can't get past the fact
that the case against Oswald rested on the forensics and not anybody's
eyewitness account.
Post by Chosen Ten
The WC didn't need Brennan to establish
there was a shooter in the sniper's nest. There were already other
witnesses and pieces of evidence for that. Brennan's main contribution to
the WC was that he was the ONLY witness who claimed to be able to
positively affirm that the shooter was Oswald. And the WC believed him.
That's why he was the "star witness" for the Warren Commission.
That made him slightly more valuable than the witnesses who saw the
shooter but couldn't identify him. If the case rested on Brennan's
account, it would be a very weak case.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-25 22:28:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by John McAdams
Post by Chosen Ten
And Brennan was the "star witness" of the WC once upon a time... do you
think that title would still be appropriate today?...
Says who?
What other witnesses testimony was more impactful in pointing the blame for the assassination of JFK squarely on Oswald than Brennan's?
Pretty much all the expert testimony regarding the forensic evidence. That
is where the case was made. Brennan probably was the most important
eyewitness but that is a very low bar because the eyewitness accounts
varied widely. Brennan's real value was in identifying the source of the
shots and the fact he was able to ID the owner of the murder weapon who
forensics also tells us was the shooter makes him even more valuable.
However as you have been told a number of times, his ID of Oswald was not
vital to the case. Had he never looked up and seen Oswald fire the last
shot, the case against Oswald would still have been rock solid.
Juvenile.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
He is the "star witness" in the hearts of the LN advocates because of his ID of Oswald. Just not anything else. His importance as a key witness to the commissions analysis was reaffirmed by the WC's conclusions and by Belin in his book who stated his importance to the commission.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Chosen Ten
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?
The WC never called him a "star witness."
Did they have to give him that title for him to be the most important
witness towards blaming Oswald for being the shooter in the minds of the
WC?
He wasn't. The expert witnesses were. They were the ones that nailed
Oswald as the shooter.
Post by Chosen Ten
He's the only one who claimed to have seen Oswald in the window and
the WC believed him. They didn't have to call him the "star witness" for
him to be just that to them silly.
Was he more important than the rest of the eyewitnesses in DP. Yes, but
only because the accounts of the rest of the eyewitnesses were so varied
as to be unreliable. Very little consensus other than there were three
shots and even that point had its doubters. Was Brennan more important
than all the witnesses who offered expert testimony regarding the forensic
evidence.
I liken Brennan to Eliot Ness. While the mythology is that Ness was the
one who put Al Capone away, the truth is he had almost nothing to do with
it. Yes, he was a Treasury agent in Chicago during Capone's reign and he
headed the section that battled Capone's bootlegging operations but he was
little more than a thorn in Capone's side, busting a few of his warehouses
and intercepting an occasional shipment of booze. It was the IRS agents
who made the case against Capone for tax evasion and Ness had no part in
that. So credit Brennan if you want just as many to this day still believe
it was Ness who put Capone away but it was the forensic experts who made
the case against Oswald just as it was the IRS agents who made the case
against Capone.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by John McAdams
Buffs always designate as a "star witness" somebody they think they
can discredit.
"Star witness" is of course subjective. To the WC he was.
Wrong.
Post by Chosen Ten
I don't think
even you would go as far to place that title on him now in hindsight. But
there's no denying the effect his testimony had on the WC's analysis and
final conclusions.
Had they never heard of Brennan, they would have reached the same
conclusion that they did. Oswald was the assassin and there was no
credible evidence he had even a single accomplice. There still isn't.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by John McAdams
The WC said his testimony had "probative value" in establishing *a*
shooter in the Sniper's Nest, but not to establish the shooter was
Oswald.
We already had more than "Probative Value" that there was a shooter in the
snipers nest without his testimony. But "Probative value" in establishing
a shooter in the snipers nest doesn't seem to detract Bigdog and BOZ from
assuming "certain value" that Brennan not only saw a shooter, but that he
saw Oswald clearly as the shooter.
We know Brennan saw Oswald not because Brennan said he saw Oswald but
because we know he saw the shooter and the forensic evidence makes it
clear that the shooter he saw was Oswald. You just can't get past the fact
that the case against Oswald rested on the forensics and not anybody's
eyewitness account.
Circular reasoning.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
The WC didn't need Brennan to establish
there was a shooter in the sniper's nest. There were already other
witnesses and pieces of evidence for that. Brennan's main contribution to
the WC was that he was the ONLY witness who claimed to be able to
positively affirm that the shooter was Oswald. And the WC believed him.
That's why he was the "star witness" for the Warren Commission.
That made him slightly more valuable than the witnesses who saw the
shooter but couldn't identify him. If the case rested on Brennan's
account, it would be a very weak case.
Jeez, you just admitted what we've been saying. Stop doing that.
Grow a backbone.
Chosen Ten
2017-06-27 19:10:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by John McAdams
Post by Chosen Ten
And Brennan was the "star witness" of the WC once upon a time... do you
think that title would still be appropriate today?...
Says who?
What other witnesses testimony was more impactful in pointing the blame for the assassination of JFK squarely on Oswald than Brennan's?
Pretty much all the expert testimony regarding the forensic evidence. That
is where the case was made. Brennan probably was the most important
eyewitness but that is a very low bar because the eyewitness accounts
varied widely. Brennan's real value was in identifying the source of the
shots and the fact he was able to ID the owner of the murder weapon who
forensics also tells us was the shooter makes him even more valuable.
However as you have been told a number of times, his ID of Oswald was not
vital to the case. Had he never looked up and seen Oswald fire the last
shot, the case against Oswald would still have been rock solid.
Juvenile.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
He is the "star witness" in the hearts of the LN advocates because of his ID of Oswald. Just not anything else. His importance as a key witness to the commissions analysis was reaffirmed by the WC's conclusions and by Belin in his book who stated his importance to the commission.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Chosen Ten
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?
The WC never called him a "star witness."
Did they have to give him that title for him to be the most important
witness towards blaming Oswald for being the shooter in the minds of the
WC?
He wasn't. The expert witnesses were. They were the ones that nailed
Oswald as the shooter.
Post by Chosen Ten
He's the only one who claimed to have seen Oswald in the window and
the WC believed him. They didn't have to call him the "star witness" for
him to be just that to them silly.
Was he more important than the rest of the eyewitnesses in DP. Yes, but
only because the accounts of the rest of the eyewitnesses were so varied
as to be unreliable. Very little consensus other than there were three
shots and even that point had its doubters. Was Brennan more important
than all the witnesses who offered expert testimony regarding the forensic
evidence.
I liken Brennan to Eliot Ness. While the mythology is that Ness was the
one who put Al Capone away, the truth is he had almost nothing to do with
it. Yes, he was a Treasury agent in Chicago during Capone's reign and he
headed the section that battled Capone's bootlegging operations but he was
little more than a thorn in Capone's side, busting a few of his warehouses
and intercepting an occasional shipment of booze. It was the IRS agents
who made the case against Capone for tax evasion and Ness had no part in
that. So credit Brennan if you want just as many to this day still believe
it was Ness who put Capone away but it was the forensic experts who made
the case against Oswald just as it was the IRS agents who made the case
against Capone.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by John McAdams
Buffs always designate as a "star witness" somebody they think they
can discredit.
"Star witness" is of course subjective. To the WC he was.
Wrong.
Post by Chosen Ten
I don't think
even you would go as far to place that title on him now in hindsight. But
there's no denying the effect his testimony had on the WC's analysis and
final conclusions.
Had they never heard of Brennan, they would have reached the same
conclusion that they did. Oswald was the assassin and there was no
credible evidence he had even a single accomplice. There still isn't.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by John McAdams
The WC said his testimony had "probative value" in establishing *a*
shooter in the Sniper's Nest, but not to establish the shooter was
Oswald.
We already had more than "Probative Value" that there was a shooter in the
snipers nest without his testimony. But "Probative value" in establishing
a shooter in the snipers nest doesn't seem to detract Bigdog and BOZ from
assuming "certain value" that Brennan not only saw a shooter, but that he
saw Oswald clearly as the shooter.
We know Brennan saw Oswald not because Brennan said he saw Oswald but
because we know he saw the shooter and the forensic evidence makes it
clear that the shooter he saw was Oswald. You just can't get past the fact
that the case against Oswald rested on the forensics and not anybody's
eyewitness account.
Circular reasoning.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
The WC didn't need Brennan to establish
there was a shooter in the sniper's nest. There were already other
witnesses and pieces of evidence for that. Brennan's main contribution to
the WC was that he was the ONLY witness who claimed to be able to
positively affirm that the shooter was Oswald. And the WC believed him.
That's why he was the "star witness" for the Warren Commission.
That made him slightly more valuable than the witnesses who saw the
shooter but couldn't identify him. If the case rested on Brennan's
account, it would be a very weak case.
Jeez, you just admitted what we've been saying. Stop doing that.
Grow a backbone.
I don't even think he realizes he just keeps further proving my points for
me Mr. Marsh. I've found once you figure out how Bigdog's reasoning works
(usually denial), it is easier to have him prove himself wrong without
knowing it for others to see than to just get him to concede a point
(because he usually never does).

For instance, it is easy to see the double standards he places on
"objectivity" when it comes to the evidence against Oswald as compared to
the CIA. He cries that anyone who isn't objective when it comes to the
evidence against Oswald is stupid and shouldn't be taken seriously but
then turns a blind eye and cries "I don't give a shit" when it comes to
what the CIA has been withholding related to this case.

So it becomes clear he doesn't care about really moving this case into
clarity as a whole. Simply pushing what he believes to be true as the only
truth. Not only that, the very fact he believes a dubious witness like
Brennan is valid but doesn't believe a witness like Arnold (who arguably
has less reason to be doubted than Brennan) and makes a whole slew of
excuses to dismiss her only further displays his bias.

How long have they been in so much denial Mr. Marsh? I believe you used
the term "propagandists" to describe them. That sounds somewhat accurate
for some of them at least, but I think more than that, it is just that the
majority of them have had to do battle with so many crackpot theories and
CT advocates for so long that they probably feel there is no room at all
for them to be wrong in their beliefs. It is unfortunate because it is
this type of forced denial that keeps this case from moving forward into
more of an area of clarity and certainty.
bigdog
2017-06-28 02:20:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by John McAdams
Post by Chosen Ten
And Brennan was the "star witness" of the WC once upon a time... do you
think that title would still be appropriate today?...
Says who?
What other witnesses testimony was more impactful in pointing the blame for the assassination of JFK squarely on Oswald than Brennan's?
Pretty much all the expert testimony regarding the forensic evidence. That
is where the case was made. Brennan probably was the most important
eyewitness but that is a very low bar because the eyewitness accounts
varied widely. Brennan's real value was in identifying the source of the
shots and the fact he was able to ID the owner of the murder weapon who
forensics also tells us was the shooter makes him even more valuable.
However as you have been told a number of times, his ID of Oswald was not
vital to the case. Had he never looked up and seen Oswald fire the last
shot, the case against Oswald would still have been rock solid.
Juvenile.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
He is the "star witness" in the hearts of the LN advocates because of his ID of Oswald. Just not anything else. His importance as a key witness to the commissions analysis was reaffirmed by the WC's conclusions and by Belin in his book who stated his importance to the commission.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Chosen Ten
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?
The WC never called him a "star witness."
Did they have to give him that title for him to be the most important
witness towards blaming Oswald for being the shooter in the minds of the
WC?
He wasn't. The expert witnesses were. They were the ones that nailed
Oswald as the shooter.
Post by Chosen Ten
He's the only one who claimed to have seen Oswald in the window and
the WC believed him. They didn't have to call him the "star witness" for
him to be just that to them silly.
Was he more important than the rest of the eyewitnesses in DP. Yes, but
only because the accounts of the rest of the eyewitnesses were so varied
as to be unreliable. Very little consensus other than there were three
shots and even that point had its doubters. Was Brennan more important
than all the witnesses who offered expert testimony regarding the forensic
evidence.
I liken Brennan to Eliot Ness. While the mythology is that Ness was the
one who put Al Capone away, the truth is he had almost nothing to do with
it. Yes, he was a Treasury agent in Chicago during Capone's reign and he
headed the section that battled Capone's bootlegging operations but he was
little more than a thorn in Capone's side, busting a few of his warehouses
and intercepting an occasional shipment of booze. It was the IRS agents
who made the case against Capone for tax evasion and Ness had no part in
that. So credit Brennan if you want just as many to this day still believe
it was Ness who put Capone away but it was the forensic experts who made
the case against Oswald just as it was the IRS agents who made the case
against Capone.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by John McAdams
Buffs always designate as a "star witness" somebody they think they
can discredit.
"Star witness" is of course subjective. To the WC he was.
Wrong.
Post by Chosen Ten
I don't think
even you would go as far to place that title on him now in hindsight. But
there's no denying the effect his testimony had on the WC's analysis and
final conclusions.
Had they never heard of Brennan, they would have reached the same
conclusion that they did. Oswald was the assassin and there was no
credible evidence he had even a single accomplice. There still isn't.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by John McAdams
The WC said his testimony had "probative value" in establishing *a*
shooter in the Sniper's Nest, but not to establish the shooter was
Oswald.
We already had more than "Probative Value" that there was a shooter in the
snipers nest without his testimony. But "Probative value" in establishing
a shooter in the snipers nest doesn't seem to detract Bigdog and BOZ from
assuming "certain value" that Brennan not only saw a shooter, but that he
saw Oswald clearly as the shooter.
We know Brennan saw Oswald not because Brennan said he saw Oswald but
because we know he saw the shooter and the forensic evidence makes it
clear that the shooter he saw was Oswald. You just can't get past the fact
that the case against Oswald rested on the forensics and not anybody's
eyewitness account.
Circular reasoning.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
The WC didn't need Brennan to establish
there was a shooter in the sniper's nest. There were already other
witnesses and pieces of evidence for that. Brennan's main contribution to
the WC was that he was the ONLY witness who claimed to be able to
positively affirm that the shooter was Oswald. And the WC believed him.
That's why he was the "star witness" for the Warren Commission.
That made him slightly more valuable than the witnesses who saw the
shooter but couldn't identify him. If the case rested on Brennan's
account, it would be a very weak case.
Jeez, you just admitted what we've been saying. Stop doing that.
Grow a backbone.
I don't even think he realizes he just keeps further proving my points for
me Mr. Marsh. I've found once you figure out how Bigdog's reasoning works
(usually denial), it is easier to have him prove himself wrong without
knowing it for others to see than to just get him to concede a point
(because he usually never does).
You've never presented anything which requires denial. You have presented
your suppositions that the CIA was involved in the assassination without
ever presenting a shred of evidence that they were. How can I deny
evidence you have never presented?
Post by Chosen Ten
For instance, it is easy to see the double standards he places on
"objectivity" when it comes to the evidence against Oswald as compared to
the CIA. He cries that anyone who isn't objective when it comes to the
evidence against Oswald is stupid and shouldn't be taken seriously but
then turns a blind eye and cries "I don't give a shit" when it comes to
what the CIA has been withholding related to this case.
There is ample evidence that Oswald was the assassin. There is zero
evidence the CIA was complicit in the crime. See the difference? Probably
not.
Post by Chosen Ten
So it becomes clear he doesn't care about really moving this case into
clarity as a whole.
The WC moved the case into clarity as a whole almost 53 years ago. Sorry
slept through it.
Post by Chosen Ten
Simply pushing what he believes to be true as the only
truth. Not only that, the very fact he believes a dubious witness like
Brennan is valid but doesn't believe a witness like Arnold (who arguably
has less reason to be doubted than Brennan) and makes a whole slew of
excuses to dismiss her only further displays his bias.
Brennan would be dubious if there wasn't a wealth of information which
corroborates his ID of Oswald. He pointed out the window where he saw the
shooter. Spent shells were later found at that window. He identified the
shooter as a guy whose fingerprints were at that very location oriented
exactly as they would be if he had been looking down Elm St. in the
direction of the limo. Those two pieces of evidence alone should give
great credence to Brennan's account but there is so much more in addition
to that. Oswald was where Brennan said he saw him and his rifle was the
only rifle in the world that could have fired the spent shells recovered
from where multiple witnesses so a gunman. But of course that means
nothing to the Oswald deniers. No amount of evidence will ever get them to
admit the obvious.
Post by Chosen Ten
How long have they been in so much denial Mr. Marsh? I believe you used
the term "propagandists" to describe them. That sounds somewhat accurate
for some of them at least, but I think more than that, it is just that the
majority of them have had to do battle with so many crackpot theories and
CT advocates for so long that they probably feel there is no room at all
for them to be wrong in their beliefs. It is unfortunate because it is
this type of forced denial that keeps this case from moving forward into
more of an area of clarity and certainty.
Nobody has to do battle with the conspiracy hobbyists. We do this for
amusement. All the LNs could suddenly decide they had better things to do
with their time and let the CTs dream up all sorts of conspiracy fables
completely unchallenged and it wouldn't make a bit of difference to the
world as a whole. But what would be the fun in that?
Chosen Ten
2017-06-29 01:06:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by John McAdams
Post by Chosen Ten
And Brennan was the "star witness" of the WC once upon a time... do you
think that title would still be appropriate today?...
Says who?
What other witnesses testimony was more impactful in pointing the blame for the assassination of JFK squarely on Oswald than Brennan's?
Pretty much all the expert testimony regarding the forensic evidence. That
is where the case was made. Brennan probably was the most important
eyewitness but that is a very low bar because the eyewitness accounts
varied widely. Brennan's real value was in identifying the source of the
shots and the fact he was able to ID the owner of the murder weapon who
forensics also tells us was the shooter makes him even more valuable.
However as you have been told a number of times, his ID of Oswald was not
vital to the case. Had he never looked up and seen Oswald fire the last
shot, the case against Oswald would still have been rock solid.
Juvenile.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
He is the "star witness" in the hearts of the LN advocates because of his ID of Oswald. Just not anything else. His importance as a key witness to the commissions analysis was reaffirmed by the WC's conclusions and by Belin in his book who stated his importance to the commission.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Chosen Ten
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?
The WC never called him a "star witness."
Did they have to give him that title for him to be the most important
witness towards blaming Oswald for being the shooter in the minds of the
WC?
He wasn't. The expert witnesses were. They were the ones that nailed
Oswald as the shooter.
Post by Chosen Ten
He's the only one who claimed to have seen Oswald in the window and
the WC believed him. They didn't have to call him the "star witness" for
him to be just that to them silly.
Was he more important than the rest of the eyewitnesses in DP. Yes, but
only because the accounts of the rest of the eyewitnesses were so varied
as to be unreliable. Very little consensus other than there were three
shots and even that point had its doubters. Was Brennan more important
than all the witnesses who offered expert testimony regarding the forensic
evidence.
I liken Brennan to Eliot Ness. While the mythology is that Ness was the
one who put Al Capone away, the truth is he had almost nothing to do with
it. Yes, he was a Treasury agent in Chicago during Capone's reign and he
headed the section that battled Capone's bootlegging operations but he was
little more than a thorn in Capone's side, busting a few of his warehouses
and intercepting an occasional shipment of booze. It was the IRS agents
who made the case against Capone for tax evasion and Ness had no part in
that. So credit Brennan if you want just as many to this day still believe
it was Ness who put Capone away but it was the forensic experts who made
the case against Oswald just as it was the IRS agents who made the case
against Capone.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by John McAdams
Buffs always designate as a "star witness" somebody they think they
can discredit.
"Star witness" is of course subjective. To the WC he was.
Wrong.
Post by Chosen Ten
I don't think
even you would go as far to place that title on him now in hindsight. But
there's no denying the effect his testimony had on the WC's analysis and
final conclusions.
Had they never heard of Brennan, they would have reached the same
conclusion that they did. Oswald was the assassin and there was no
credible evidence he had even a single accomplice. There still isn't.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by John McAdams
The WC said his testimony had "probative value" in establishing *a*
shooter in the Sniper's Nest, but not to establish the shooter was
Oswald.
We already had more than "Probative Value" that there was a shooter in the
snipers nest without his testimony. But "Probative value" in establishing
a shooter in the snipers nest doesn't seem to detract Bigdog and BOZ from
assuming "certain value" that Brennan not only saw a shooter, but that he
saw Oswald clearly as the shooter.
We know Brennan saw Oswald not because Brennan said he saw Oswald but
because we know he saw the shooter and the forensic evidence makes it
clear that the shooter he saw was Oswald. You just can't get past the fact
that the case against Oswald rested on the forensics and not anybody's
eyewitness account.
Circular reasoning.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
The WC didn't need Brennan to establish
there was a shooter in the sniper's nest. There were already other
witnesses and pieces of evidence for that. Brennan's main contribution to
the WC was that he was the ONLY witness who claimed to be able to
positively affirm that the shooter was Oswald. And the WC believed him.
That's why he was the "star witness" for the Warren Commission.
That made him slightly more valuable than the witnesses who saw the
shooter but couldn't identify him. If the case rested on Brennan's
account, it would be a very weak case.
Jeez, you just admitted what we've been saying. Stop doing that.
Grow a backbone.
I don't even think he realizes he just keeps further proving my points for
me Mr. Marsh. I've found once you figure out how Bigdog's reasoning works
(usually denial), it is easier to have him prove himself wrong without
knowing it for others to see than to just get him to concede a point
(because he usually never does).
You've never presented anything which requires denial.
HAHAHAHA XD!!! Bigdog. That statement IN ITSELF showcases your denial
better than I EVER could have! You make it too easy for me. Weren't you
just denying that Brennan was vital to BOZ in his arguments? Didn't you
deny that the bullets Oswald used could have originated from the CIA?
Didn't you deny that the CIA had anything to coverup related to this case
even though you didnt even know what it was that they were witholding? I
could LITERALLY copy and paste denial after denial from you from our
previous arguments! XD And then of course there's this among other
things... "Even if Arnold's 15 year old memory about where an when she saw
Oswald was spot on, it would do nothing to establish an alibi for him. He
could easily have gotten to the 6th floor in 15 minutes." Pure Gold!!! XD
You don't even understand how blatantly wrong that statement was! We
already established he wouldn't have had 15 minutes like you claim to get
to the 6th floor. Not only that, you fail to see how Arnold's statement
would create a problem for the WC. You just make excuses. Please stop with
this nonsense Bigdog. You are only digging your hole deeper and deeper.

Never forget... ""what they knew on Oswald prior to the assassination
doesn't indicate they had any knowledge of the assassination." -Bigdog
2017 XD but that wasn't a denial either was it Bigdog? Just like you
saying there was no coverup of the Hosty note. It was more "cover your
ass" than coverup. For the record, I just want it to be known... that my
dear friend Bigdog.... is completely full of $h!t. XD love you Bigdog.

You have presented
Post by bigdog
your suppositions that the CIA was involved in the assassination without
ever presenting a shred of evidence that they were.
Didn't I JUST have this same argument with Steve a little while back? Did
you already forget what was said in that one? I highly suggest you go back
and revisit it. I have never said "the CIA was involved in the
assassination" or claimed it as fact. I'll refresh your memory for you
since you're probably too lazy to go back and look at that thread anyways.
I said this in that thread to Steve...

"I've never even once stated "the CIA was involved in the assassination."
That would be presumptuous. I'm not leaping. I'm asking questions and
trying to figure out the answers. And the evidence at hand that we have
from the documents that HAVE been revealed and the work of all the
investigative committees has clearly shown
A) that the CIA knew more about Oswald than it let on prior to the
assassination
B) that certain high ranking officials within the CIA including McCone,
Angleton, Anne Goodpasture, Helms, etc... made a concerted effort to
coverup the information that the CIA had on Oswald.
And C) That the CIA has no problem still actively withholding the files
on Joannides illegally even when they were required to turn over ALL
documents related to the JFK assassination to be released to the public
this year.

How can I deny
Post by bigdog
evidence you have never presented?
You think I am saying I know the CIA was involved. I have never said that
or claimed that as fact but I have pondered it due to their actions which
indicate it as a possibility. And so I want to try to clarify the matter.
But you fail to even see the problem with what the CIA has been
witholding. You deny it has anything to do with the JFK assassination even
though you didn't even know what it was they were withholding. You deny
and make excuses. That seems to be your way of avoiding the problem.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
For instance, it is easy to see the double standards he places on
"objectivity" when it comes to the evidence against Oswald as compared to
the CIA. He cries that anyone who isn't objective when it comes to the
evidence against Oswald is stupid and shouldn't be taken seriously but
then turns a blind eye and cries "I don't give a shit" when it comes to
what the CIA has been withholding related to this case.
There is ample evidence that Oswald was the assassin. There is zero
evidence the CIA was complicit in the crime. See the difference? Probably
not.
You don't even care about the documents that COULD provide possible
evidence which I think really says a lot about you and your views. It's
safer for you to keep your eyes closed and say you don't care.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
So it becomes clear he doesn't care about really moving this case into
clarity as a whole.
The WC moved the case into clarity as a whole almost 53 years ago. Sorry
slept through it.
Lol. Tell that to all the witnesses they didn't call up. Tell that to
Carolyn Arnold. Did they call her to even determine the veracity of her
account? No. But of course, you don't see any problem with that. Her
account would bring into question your beliefs. The great all knowing
Bigdog can't have any of that.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Simply pushing what he believes to be true as the only
truth. Not only that, the very fact he believes a dubious witness like
Brennan is valid but doesn't believe a witness like Arnold (who arguably
has less reason to be doubted than Brennan) and makes a whole slew of
excuses to dismiss her only further displays his bias.
Brennan would be dubious if there wasn't a wealth of information which
corroborates his ID of Oswald. He pointed out the window where he saw the
shooter. Spent shells were later found at that window. He identified the
shooter as a guy whose fingerprints were at that very location oriented
exactly as they would be if he had been looking down Elm St. in the
direction of the limo. Those two pieces of evidence alone should give
great credence to Brennan's account but there is so much more in addition
to that. Oswald was where Brennan said he saw him and his rifle was the
only rifle in the world that could have fired the spent shells recovered
from where multiple witnesses so a gunman. But of course that means
nothing to the Oswald deniers. No amount of evidence will ever get them to
admit the obvious.
Even you called into question his credibility. But only when it comes to
things you don't want to hear. Like possible evidence of a conspiracy. As
long as he reaffirms that Oswald was the man he saw doing the shooting you
can throw out the rest he says and still think his claims were valid.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
How long have they been in so much denial Mr. Marsh? I believe you used
the term "propagandists" to describe them. That sounds somewhat accurate
for some of them at least, but I think more than that, it is just that the
majority of them have had to do battle with so many crackpot theories and
CT advocates for so long that they probably feel there is no room at all
for them to be wrong in their beliefs. It is unfortunate because it is
this type of forced denial that keeps this case from moving forward into
more of an area of clarity and certainty.
Nobody has to do battle with the conspiracy hobbyists. We do this for
amusement.
So you are all just trolls? Speak for yourself Bigdog. There are other LN
advocates that take this matter quite seriously.

All the LNs could suddenly decide they had better things to do
Post by bigdog
with their time and let the CTs dream up all sorts of conspiracy fables
completely unchallenged and it wouldn't make a bit of difference to the
world as a whole. But what would be the fun in that?
Silly. You find being wrong is fun? Is that why you don't want to concede
anything when it comes to the Carolyn Arnold case. You won't even concede
that the WC might have goofed in not calling her up to verify. And you
wrongly believe Oswald would still have had 15 minutes to make it to the
snipers nest. That silly argument, ironically, is dismissed even by
Brennan's testimony who you love to claim is a valid and credible witness.
And that isn't even taking into account the other witnesses like Arnold
Rowland who also saw a shooter in the window prior to the assassination.
Save some dignity and stop claiming everything you believe to be true as
fact. You only further reaffirm my points and expose your denial.
bigdog
2017-06-30 00:15:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by John McAdams
Post by Chosen Ten
And Brennan was the "star witness" of the WC once upon a time... do you
think that title would still be appropriate today?...
Says who?
What other witnesses testimony was more impactful in pointing the blame for the assassination of JFK squarely on Oswald than Brennan's?
Pretty much all the expert testimony regarding the forensic evidence. That
is where the case was made. Brennan probably was the most important
eyewitness but that is a very low bar because the eyewitness accounts
varied widely. Brennan's real value was in identifying the source of the
shots and the fact he was able to ID the owner of the murder weapon who
forensics also tells us was the shooter makes him even more valuable.
However as you have been told a number of times, his ID of Oswald was not
vital to the case. Had he never looked up and seen Oswald fire the last
shot, the case against Oswald would still have been rock solid.
Juvenile.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
He is the "star witness" in the hearts of the LN advocates because of his ID of Oswald. Just not anything else. His importance as a key witness to the commissions analysis was reaffirmed by the WC's conclusions and by Belin in his book who stated his importance to the commission.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Chosen Ten
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?
The WC never called him a "star witness."
Did they have to give him that title for him to be the most important
witness towards blaming Oswald for being the shooter in the minds of the
WC?
He wasn't. The expert witnesses were. They were the ones that nailed
Oswald as the shooter.
Post by Chosen Ten
He's the only one who claimed to have seen Oswald in the window and
the WC believed him. They didn't have to call him the "star witness" for
him to be just that to them silly.
Was he more important than the rest of the eyewitnesses in DP. Yes, but
only because the accounts of the rest of the eyewitnesses were so varied
as to be unreliable. Very little consensus other than there were three
shots and even that point had its doubters. Was Brennan more important
than all the witnesses who offered expert testimony regarding the forensic
evidence.
I liken Brennan to Eliot Ness. While the mythology is that Ness was the
one who put Al Capone away, the truth is he had almost nothing to do with
it. Yes, he was a Treasury agent in Chicago during Capone's reign and he
headed the section that battled Capone's bootlegging operations but he was
little more than a thorn in Capone's side, busting a few of his warehouses
and intercepting an occasional shipment of booze. It was the IRS agents
who made the case against Capone for tax evasion and Ness had no part in
that. So credit Brennan if you want just as many to this day still believe
it was Ness who put Capone away but it was the forensic experts who made
the case against Oswald just as it was the IRS agents who made the case
against Capone.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by John McAdams
Buffs always designate as a "star witness" somebody they think they
can discredit.
"Star witness" is of course subjective. To the WC he was.
Wrong.
Post by Chosen Ten
I don't think
even you would go as far to place that title on him now in hindsight. But
there's no denying the effect his testimony had on the WC's analysis and
final conclusions.
Had they never heard of Brennan, they would have reached the same
conclusion that they did. Oswald was the assassin and there was no
credible evidence he had even a single accomplice. There still isn't.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by John McAdams
The WC said his testimony had "probative value" in establishing *a*
shooter in the Sniper's Nest, but not to establish the shooter was
Oswald.
We already had more than "Probative Value" that there was a shooter in the
snipers nest without his testimony. But "Probative value" in establishing
a shooter in the snipers nest doesn't seem to detract Bigdog and BOZ from
assuming "certain value" that Brennan not only saw a shooter, but that he
saw Oswald clearly as the shooter.
We know Brennan saw Oswald not because Brennan said he saw Oswald but
because we know he saw the shooter and the forensic evidence makes it
clear that the shooter he saw was Oswald. You just can't get past the fact
that the case against Oswald rested on the forensics and not anybody's
eyewitness account.
Circular reasoning.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
The WC didn't need Brennan to establish
there was a shooter in the sniper's nest. There were already other
witnesses and pieces of evidence for that. Brennan's main contribution to
the WC was that he was the ONLY witness who claimed to be able to
positively affirm that the shooter was Oswald. And the WC believed him.
That's why he was the "star witness" for the Warren Commission.
That made him slightly more valuable than the witnesses who saw the
shooter but couldn't identify him. If the case rested on Brennan's
account, it would be a very weak case.
Jeez, you just admitted what we've been saying. Stop doing that.
Grow a backbone.
I don't even think he realizes he just keeps further proving my points for
me Mr. Marsh. I've found once you figure out how Bigdog's reasoning works
(usually denial), it is easier to have him prove himself wrong without
knowing it for others to see than to just get him to concede a point
(because he usually never does).
You've never presented anything which requires denial.
HAHAHAHA XD!!! Bigdog. That statement IN ITSELF showcases your denial
better than I EVER could have! You make it too easy for me. Weren't you
just denying that Brennan was vital to BOZ in his arguments?
Yes I did because he's not. The case against Oswald could be made solely on the forensic evidence.
Post by Chosen Ten
Didn't you
deny that the bullets Oswald used could have originated from the CIA?
No, I didn't.
Post by Chosen Ten
Didn't you deny that the CIA had anything to coverup related to this case
even though you didnt even know what it was that they were witholding?
I said there was no evidence the CIA was involved in the assassination.
Post by Chosen Ten
I
could LITERALLY copy and paste denial after denial from you from our
previous arguments!
That would be nice because then you couldn't misrepresent what I actually
said.
Post by Chosen Ten
XD And then of course there's this among other
things... "Even if Arnold's 15 year old memory about where an when she saw
Oswald was spot on, it would do nothing to establish an alibi for him. He
could easily have gotten to the 6th floor in 15 minutes." Pure Gold!!!
Completely true.
Post by Chosen Ten
XD
You don't even understand how blatantly wrong that statement was! We
already established he wouldn't have had 15 minutes like you claim to get
to the 6th floor. Not only that, you fail to see how Arnold's statement
would create a problem for the WC. You just make excuses. Please stop with
this nonsense Bigdog. You are only digging your hole deeper and deeper.
This is why you should copy what I said rather than give your spin on what
I said.
Post by Chosen Ten
Never forget... ""what they knew on Oswald prior to the assassination
doesn't indicate they had any knowledge of the assassination." -Bigdog
Would you like to explain why that statement isn't correct?
Post by Chosen Ten
2017 XD but that wasn't a denial either was it Bigdog? Just like you
saying there was no coverup of the Hosty note. It was more "cover your
ass" than coverup. For the record, I just want it to be known... that my
dear friend Bigdog.... is completely full of $h!t. XD love you Bigdog.
You are the one ranting mindlessly.
Post by Chosen Ten
You have presented
Post by bigdog
your suppositions that the CIA was involved in the assassination without
ever presenting a shred of evidence that they were.
Didn't I JUST have this same argument with Steve a little while back?
I really don't know nor do I care.
Post by Chosen Ten
Did
you already forget what was said in that one?
How can I forget something I never read in the first place. Do you think
everything you write is worth reading.
Post by Chosen Ten
I highly suggest you go back
and revisit it. I have never said "the CIA was involved in the
assassination" or claimed it as fact. I'll refresh your memory for you
since you're probably too lazy to go back and look at that thread anyways.
I said this in that thread to Steve...
"I've never even once stated "the CIA was involved in the assassination."
That would be presumptuous. I'm not leaping. I'm asking questions and
trying to figure out the answers. And the evidence at hand that we have
from the documents that HAVE been revealed and the work of all the
investigative committees has clearly shown
A) that the CIA knew more about Oswald than it let on prior to the
assassination
Tell us what they knew that the kept secret.
Post by Chosen Ten
B) that certain high ranking officials within the CIA including McCone,
Angleton, Anne Goodpasture, Helms, etc... made a concerted effort to
coverup the information that the CIA had on Oswald.
Where is your evidence of that?
Post by Chosen Ten
And C) That the CIA has no problem still actively withholding the files
on Joannides illegally even when they were required to turn over ALL
documents related to the JFK assassination to be released to the public
this year.
In October.
Post by Chosen Ten
How can I deny
Post by bigdog
evidence you have never presented?
You think I am saying I know the CIA was involved. I have never said that
or claimed that as fact but I have pondered it due to their actions which
indicate it as a possibility. And so I want to try to clarify the matter.
But you fail to even see the problem with what the CIA has been
witholding. You deny it has anything to do with the JFK assassination even
though you didn't even know what it was they were withholding. You deny
and make excuses. That seems to be your way of avoiding the problem.
I don't assume the secrets the CIA keeps has anything to do with JFK. That
is your ballgame.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
For instance, it is easy to see the double standards he places on
"objectivity" when it comes to the evidence against Oswald as compared to
the CIA. He cries that anyone who isn't objective when it comes to the
evidence against Oswald is stupid and shouldn't be taken seriously but
then turns a blind eye and cries "I don't give a shit" when it comes to
what the CIA has been withholding related to this case.
There is ample evidence that Oswald was the assassin. There is zero
evidence the CIA was complicit in the crime. See the difference? Probably
not.
You don't even care about the documents that COULD provide possible
evidence which I think really says a lot about you and your views. It's
safer for you to keep your eyes closed and say you don't care.
My eyes are open and I don't care.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
So it becomes clear he doesn't care about really moving this case into
clarity as a whole.
The WC moved the case into clarity as a whole almost 53 years ago. Sorry
slept through it.
Lol. Tell that to all the witnesses they didn't call up. Tell that to
Carolyn Arnold.
What was there in either of the statements regarding Arnold that would
warrant them calling her as a witness.
Post by Chosen Ten
Did they call her to even determine the veracity of her
account? No. But of course, you don't see any problem with that.
Not a bit.
Post by Chosen Ten
Her
account would bring into question your beliefs. The great all knowing
Bigdog can't have any of that.
Her contemporaneous account was that she thought she saw Oswald earlier
but wasn't sure where or when. What she said 15 years later is irrelevant
to the question of why she wasn't called to testify in 1964.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Simply pushing what he believes to be true as the only
truth. Not only that, the very fact he believes a dubious witness like
Brennan is valid but doesn't believe a witness like Arnold (who arguably
has less reason to be doubted than Brennan) and makes a whole slew of
excuses to dismiss her only further displays his bias.
Brennan would be dubious if there wasn't a wealth of information which
corroborates his ID of Oswald. He pointed out the window where he saw the
shooter. Spent shells were later found at that window. He identified the
shooter as a guy whose fingerprints were at that very location oriented
exactly as they would be if he had been looking down Elm St. in the
direction of the limo. Those two pieces of evidence alone should give
great credence to Brennan's account but there is so much more in addition
to that. Oswald was where Brennan said he saw him and his rifle was the
only rifle in the world that could have fired the spent shells recovered
from where multiple witnesses so a gunman. But of course that means
nothing to the Oswald deniers. No amount of evidence will ever get them to
admit the obvious.
Even you called into question his credibility.
Once again you should QUOTE what I said instead of misrepresenting what I
said. I said that Brennan would be dubious if there was no corroborating
evidence. There is plenty of corroborating evidence which gives great
credibility to Brennan's account.
Post by Chosen Ten
But only when it comes to
things you don't want to hear. Like possible evidence of a conspiracy.
Brennan provided no evidence of a conspiracy.
Post by Chosen Ten
As
long as he reaffirms that Oswald was the man he saw doing the shooting you
can throw out the rest he says and still think his claims were valid.
I neither throw out nor accept the things he said which are neither
corroborated nor refuted by the body of evidence. For those parts we can
only say they may or may not be true. Even if true, there is nothing I've
read from him which would constitute evidence of a conspiracy.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
How long have they been in so much denial Mr. Marsh? I believe you used
the term "propagandists" to describe them. That sounds somewhat accurate
for some of them at least, but I think more than that, it is just that the
majority of them have had to do battle with so many crackpot theories and
CT advocates for so long that they probably feel there is no room at all
for them to be wrong in their beliefs. It is unfortunate because it is
this type of forced denial that keeps this case from moving forward into
more of an area of clarity and certainty.
Nobody has to do battle with the conspiracy hobbyists. We do this for
amusement.
So you are all just trolls? Speak for yourself Bigdog. There are other LN
advocates that take this matter quite seriously.
They don't take the conspiracy hobbyists seriously. Why would they?
Post by Chosen Ten
All the LNs could suddenly decide they had better things to do
Post by bigdog
with their time and let the CTs dream up all sorts of conspiracy fables
completely unchallenged and it wouldn't make a bit of difference to the
world as a whole. But what would be the fun in that?
Silly. You find being wrong is fun?
I don't find it at all.
Post by Chosen Ten
Is that why you don't want to concede
anything when it comes to the Carolyn Arnold case.
What's there to concede? That she might have seen Oswald in the lunchroom
15 minutes before the shooting. Completely meaningless.
Post by Chosen Ten
You won't even concede
that the WC might have goofed in not calling her up to verify.
I concede they would have goofed if they had called her because nothing in
either statement indicated she had anything of value to add to the body of
knowledge.
Post by Chosen Ten
And you
wrongly believe Oswald would still have had 15 minutes to make it to the
snipers nest.
Let me see. She said she saw Oswald at 12:15. Oswald shot JFK at 12:30.
Post by Chosen Ten
That silly argument, ironically, is dismissed even by
Brennan's testimony who you love to claim is a valid and credible witness.
And that isn't even taking into account the other witnesses like Arnold
Rowland who also saw a shooter in the window prior to the assassination.
And didn't bother to tell anybody about it.
Post by Chosen Ten
Save some dignity and stop claiming everything you believe to be true as
fact.
It is a fact that Oswald shot JFK. You can deny it if you want. It's a
free country.
Post by Chosen Ten
You only further reaffirm my points and expose your denial.
You have never presented any evidence which requires me to deny it.
bigdog
2017-06-21 21:52:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
There 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 Ten
Then 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. If all the
book did was reiterate what he told the WC, it's doubtful anybody would
have been interested. Not that very many were anyway.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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?
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Brennan'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. But of course that isn't enough to convince the
anybody-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.
Post by Chosen Ten
It didn't need to be vital for BOZ to bring it
Post by bigdog
up.
Post by Chosen Ten
So 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 Ten
I'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.
I KNOW Oswald was the assassin. Sorry if you are still stumped 53 and half
years later.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Otherwise 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
You 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Oh... 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Hahahahaha! 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
In 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. We know he
was in the sniper's nest at 12:30. We know he was seen entering the
lunchroom a short time later. I'm reasonably certain he didn't teleport
his way down to the second floor.
Post by Chosen Ten
Oswald 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?
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
But the case for Oswald being the shooter isn't exactly watertight.
More horseshit!!!
Post by Chosen Ten
There'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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
And 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Why 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
You 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. They can be helpful but they are not vital.
Post by Chosen Ten
Of 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
But 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. It was neither vital nor irrelevant.
Post by Chosen Ten
That case could have
Post by bigdog
easily been made if Brennan had never showed up in Dealey Plaza.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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. If you can't
understand the difference between valid and vital, I can't help you.
Post by Chosen Ten
If 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. Without Brennan's testimony, it is a 99.99999%
certainty Oswald was the assassin. With Brennan's testimony, it would
become 99.999998%. More witnesses would make it 99.999999% certain.
Post by Chosen Ten
The 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
You 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?
Post by Chosen Ten
Do 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
And the DPD.
Not at all.
So 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Now 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
A 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
If 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
And 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. He would have still had 15
minutes to get to the sniper's nest.
Post by Chosen Ten
The 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
And 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
But 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).
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Are 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?
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Why
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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
There is so much evidence that tells us for certain
Post by bigdog
Oswald 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Im 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Brennan is like
Post by bigdog
any 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 Ten
An 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 Ten
If 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 Ten
You 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
I 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
But 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
This is far from certainty still though.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/16323-brennans-suspicious-car/&page=2
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
But 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
The things he tells us may or may not be true and he
Post by bigdog
could 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 Ten
And 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 Ten
If 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 Ten
I 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
There 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
As with any witness the
Post by bigdog
way 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 bigdog
that 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Spent shells were found at the
Post by bigdog
location 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
He 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 Ten
And 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 Ten
He 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
which 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 Ten
I 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 Ten
And 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Don'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 bigdog
expect 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.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Especially 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 know? Well then... you say one thing then
contradict yourself with another.
I don't need to assume anything. There is rock solid evidence for
everything I believe. It is the CTs who are assuming there was a
conspiracy since there is no credible evidence to support that
position.
Post by Chosen Ten
And you have already made it clear you have no intent to push towards
clarifying why the CIA has been so actively pushing to keep certain
documents withheld from the public eye regarding this case. You are
content with the answers we have and you believe already. A shame, and not
the mark of a true researcher.
I never claimed to be a researcher. I am simply skeptical of people who
thing they are researchers when the simple fact is they are taking part in
the world's longest snipe hunt.
That's your dodge huh? Denial? I can just imagine what your group therapy
sessions must be like... "Hi my name is Bigdog. I'm a chronic JFK LN
advocate. I've been studying this case and evidence regarding it for
years, but I'm not a researcher. I'm just a guy who likes to tell other
researchers how stupid they are for not agreeing with the assumptions I've
reached based off of the evidence I've researched.... But I know the
truth.... and if you don't agree with me... you're stupid..."
I do this for amusement only and this last paragraph from you is very
amusing.
Post by Chosen Ten
Oh. Wow. Ok. Uhhh... Thank you for that lovely introduction Mr. Bigdog. I
think it's time to go take your meds now.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Believe what you will Bigdog. If the truth
is one day clarified into certainty you have made it clear it won't be
because of you.
The truth was revealed 53 years ago. Sorry if it's not the one you want.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
What I am arguing is that many LN advocates choose to neglect what else
Brennan had to say concerning his testimony but still point to him as
"reliable" evidence of Oswald's guilt.
Again, his ID of Oswald is corroborated. The rest, not so much.
Oh stop it Bigdog. His ID of Oswald as the shooter is not corroborated.
I listed the corroboration early in this post. If you can come up with a
plausible alternative scenario that fits with all that evidence and
doesn't include Oswald as the shooter, let me know.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Many LN nut advocates don't even want to touch the subject of the
suspicious lone car he wrote that he saw.
What was suspicious about a lone car?
You mean to tell me you haven't read what Brennan said? Why would that not
shock me. I'm sure BOZ could probably recite it to you. Not that he'd want
to... Would you like a refresher perhaps?
https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobile=true#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/Oldsmobile%7Csort:relevance/alt.assassination.jfk/YDRuCPL-Ij0/QuZZHi_mRREJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk.uncensored/7MDV9rYDcvc
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/16323-brennans-suspicious-car/
Seriously? You find that suspicious.
Brennan did. Are you questioning the WC's "star witness" Bigdog?
The WC had no star witnesses. They had a mountain of forensic evidence.
Post by Chosen Ten
Who are
you to suggest it wasn't suspicious? He was there. Were you? He "saw"
Oswald. He "saw" the suspicious car.
Still would like to know what was suspicious about it.
Post by Chosen Ten
Or did he?... are you suggesting he
might have been wrong? Or worse; lied? Legasp! No! Surely not. You are not
allowed to suggest such a thing. That would go against the LN advocate
code. How dare Brennan bring up possible evidence of a conspiracy!
Blasphemy!
I see nothing that indicates it was
Post by bigdog
anything more than some unwitting motorist who was driving down Houston
and suddenly realized he wasn't going to be able to get through.
Except he wasn't driving... Brennan claimed he was parked illegally right
next to the TSBD... with the door open.
Yeah, I'll bet when he saw what was going on at Elm and Houston he did
park the car.
Post by Chosen Ten
And the officer didn't make him
move. And then he was gone right after the shooting. But that isn't
strange or suspicious to you at all. You can't even admit that it would be
suspicious if it was true. You're a LN advocate. It would go against your
programming silly.
Not the least bit suspicious.
Post by Chosen Ten
Regardless if Brennan's claims were true or not, you make up some excuse
and say he wasn't that vital to the WC or DPD's case against Oswald even
though you believe he did see Oswald. Is that your attempt to reduce his
role or reduce the embarrassment of knowing the WC's "star witness" was a
bigger conspiracy advocate than you are?
I only care what Brennan saw, not what he believes. He saw Oswald fire the
kill shot at JFK.
Post by Chosen Ten
Brennan's
Post by bigdog
description of the cop talking to the motorist seems perfectly consistent
with the cop just informing him he ought to turn around due to the chaos
ahead.
You're joking. Did you even read what he wrote?
Brennan: "As I was watching the man in the car I saw a policeman who was
on foot walk over towards the car and begin talking to the man in a
friendly, laughing manner. So far as I could see, there was no attempt
made to get the man to move his car and after chatting for a minute or so,
the policeman walked back to his post. It was this fact that made me think
the police should have made some report about the presence of the car, but
I have never seen any other account of this "mystery car."
Why would there be an account of it?
Post by Chosen Ten
That was soon before the shooting. He even said as far as he "could see,
there was no attempt made to get the man to move his car and after
chatting for a minute or so, the policeman walked back to his post"!!! The
car wasn't going anywhere! And then shortly after the assassination it was
gone. But once again, the great all knowing Bigdog sees no reason to look
further into it. If he was the head of the WC this case would have been
over before it started.
That would indicate that after the cop walked away, the motorist turned
the car around and left. Exactly what I would expect him to do after being
told Houston street was being blocked off.
Chosen Ten
2017-06-25 22:24:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
There 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 Ten
Then 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 bigdog
book 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Brennan'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 bigdog
anybody-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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It didn't need to be vital for BOZ to bring it
Post by bigdog
up.
Post by Chosen Ten
So 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 Ten
I'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 bigdog
I 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Otherwise 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
You 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Oh... 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Hahahahaha! 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
In 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 bigdog
was in the sniper's nest at 12:30.
No. You assume.

We know he was seen entering the
Post by bigdog
lunchroom 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Oswald 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
But the case for Oswald being the shooter isn't exactly watertight.
More horseshit!!!
Post by Chosen Ten
There'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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
And 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Why 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
You 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 bigdog
They can be helpful but they are not vital.
They CAN be vital. I'm going to have to disagree with that statement.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Of 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
But 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 bigdog
It 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
That case could have
Post by bigdog
easily been made if Brennan had never showed up in Dealey Plaza.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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 bigdog
understand the difference between valid and vital, I can't help you.
Post by Chosen Ten
If 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 bigdog
certainty 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
The 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
You 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Do 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
And the DPD.
Not at all.
So 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Now 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
A 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
If 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
And 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 bigdog
minutes 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
The 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
And 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
But 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Are 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Why
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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
There is so much evidence that tells us for certain
Post by bigdog
Oswald 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Im 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Brennan is like
Post by bigdog
any 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 Ten
An 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 Ten
If 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 Ten
You 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
I 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
But 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
This is far from certainty still though.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/16323-brennans-suspicious-car/&page=2
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
But 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
The things he tells us may or may not be true and he
Post by bigdog
could 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 Ten
And 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 Ten
If 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 Ten
I 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
There 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
As with any witness the
Post by bigdog
way 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 bigdog
that 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Spent shells were found at the
Post by bigdog
location 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
He 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 Ten
And 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 Ten
He 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
which 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 Ten
I 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 Ten
And 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Don'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 bigdog
expect 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Especially 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
bigdog
2017-06-26 20:46:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
There 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 Ten
Then 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?
It isn't a crime to lie in a book. You don't go to jail for doing that.
Post by Chosen Ten
If all the
Post by bigdog
book 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?
Yes.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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.
Where does he say Brennan's testimony is proof Oswald killed JFK. All you
would have to do is quote him saying that. Not a difficult thing to do
unless he never said that.
Post by Chosen Ten
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?
It isn't vital. It is valid. You seem to have a hard time distinguishing
between those two concepts.
Post by Chosen Ten
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?
How many times do you need this explained to you? Brennan's testimony is
not vital because a rock solid case can be made against Oswald without it.
Vital would mean the case against Oswald couldn't be made without it.

Perhaps a dictionary definition of "vital" will alleviate your confusion:

vi·tal
[ˈvīdl]

ADJECTIVE
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Brennan'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.
I guess we are supposed to believe it was just Oswald's shit luck that he
happened to place his hand on the boxes in the sniper's nest oriented
exactly like they would be if he were facing down Elm St. and that he just
happened to wear exactly the same kind of shirt that the real shooter wore
that day. Never mind he smuggled his disassembled rifle into the TSBD and
his palm print was on the barrel of the rifle where it could only have
been placed with the rifle disassembled. That is that kind of stretch it
takes to believe that Oswald was innocent of shooting JFK. On top of that
he leaves the scene of the crime, fetches his revolver and murders the
first cop he encounters. Just the sort of thing an innocent man would
do.
Post by Chosen Ten
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.
Conspiracyland must be a fascinating place to live. You can believe all
kinds of nonsense and nobody seems to care. Anybody who claims to be
interested in the truth and can look at all the evidence that Oswald
murdered JFK and not be convinced of his guilt is not someone who should
be taken seriously. And you aren't.
Post by Chosen Ten
But of course that isn't enough to convince the
Post by bigdog
anybody-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.
No reasonable person could look at the evidence of Oswald's guilt and
still have a reasonable doubt about his guilt.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It didn't need to be vital for BOZ to bring it
Post by bigdog
up.
Post by Chosen Ten
So 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 Ten
I'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?
By itself it is not rock solid. In conjunction with all the forensic
evidence that corroborates it, it becomes very rock solid. He IDed the guy
that all the forensic evidence points to.
Post by Chosen Ten
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 bigdog
I 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
Probably so.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Otherwise 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.
You seem to not understand the term "assumption" either. Conclusions based
on compelling evidence are not assumptions.
Post by Chosen Ten
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.
You are going into full rant mode now. Maybe you should take a timeout.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
You 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.
You don't know that either. You simply assume you do.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Oh... 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.
The case is crystal clear. If you want to confuse yourself with fantasies,
nobody can stop you.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Hahahahaha! 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.
You are assuming it is serious and that it impacts the JFK assassination.
Post by Chosen Ten
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.
Watergate is irrelevant to the JFK assassination.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
In 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.
It isn't an assumption. There is a wealth of evidence that he was there.
Post by Chosen Ten
If Carolyn Arnold indeed saw
him in the lunchroom like she positively claimed, then who saw him go up
Bigdog? No one.
So you don't think it is possible for him to go upstairs without being
seen. Gee, nobody else would have been preoccupied at the time.
Post by Chosen Ten
I think it's possible the WC recognized this possible
problem and decided not to call Mrs. Arnold to testify.
I think you are letting your imagination run wild. Time to rein it in.
Post by Chosen Ten
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.
Everything they had then told them it would be pointless. The statement
from her was very vague about where and when she saw Oswald. Were they
supposed to know that 15 years later she would suddenly be struck with
clarity about that.
Post by Chosen Ten
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".
So you think it would be a wise use of their time to summon a witness who
was on record as being unsure where or when she saw Oswald.
Post by Chosen Ten
We know he
Post by bigdog
was in the sniper's nest at 12:30.
No. You assume.
Once again, conclusions based on compelling evidence are not assumptions.
Post by Chosen Ten
We know he was seen entering the
Post by bigdog
lunchroom 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.
Other witnesses who went through that same lunchroom didn't remember
seeing him there. She wasn't positive about that in 1963. She didn't seem
positive until 15 years later.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Oswald 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?
Any evidence anybody came down the elevator? Didn't think so.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
But the case for Oswald being the shooter isn't exactly watertight.
More horseshit!!!
Post by Chosen Ten
There'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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
And 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.
So now we are supposed to accept your perceptions as reality.
Post by Chosen Ten
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?
He brings it up because it is a valid piece of evidence which doesn't make
it vital because there are lots of other valid pieces of evidence that
tells us Oswald was the assassin.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Why 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.
They seem that way to you.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
You 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.
Brennan was corroborated. Uncorroborated eyewitnesses are less convincing.
They are probably the number one reason for false convictions. For some
odd reason, many jurors place more faith in eyewitnesses than in forensic
evidence.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
They can be helpful but they are not vital.
They CAN be vital. I'm going to have to disagree with that statement.
Oh goody.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Of 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".
Yes you should have. We both could have saved a lot of time because
Brennan's testimony is significant. It is significant because it is
corroborated.
Post by Chosen Ten
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.
If Brennan's testimony was corroborated by other witnesses and not by
forensic evidence, I would have less faith in it. If one witness can be
wrong, multiple witnesses can be wrong about the same point. In this case
we have lots of witnesses and lots of disagreement about key points.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
But 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 bigdog
It 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?
It was a loaded question with a clear implication.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
That case could have
Post by bigdog
easily been made if Brennan had never showed up in Dealey Plaza.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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 bigdog
understand the difference between valid and vital, I can't help you.
Post by Chosen Ten
If 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.
It is impossible to construct a viable scenario that takes into account
all the forensic evidence and doesn't include Oswald as the shooter. No
one has been able to present such a scenario in 53 years.
Post by Chosen Ten
Without Brennan's testimony, it is a 99.99999%
Post by bigdog
certainty 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.
downplay Brennan even though you claim to believe him.
Those figures are accurate within a margin of error of .000001%.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
The 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.
Do you think it is silly to think a crime can be solved without any
eyewitnesses.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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.
Don't need another one. We don't even need Brennan.
Post by Chosen Ten
Do you realize that the WC believed his claims to be valid?
They were. His claims were corroborated.
Post by Chosen Ten
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?
You can decide for yourself what constitutes a star witness. To me a star
witness is essential to a case. Brennan was not essential.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
You 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 claimed that 15 years later.
Post by Chosen Ten
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.
She signed one of the statements. Why didn't she object then?
Post by Chosen Ten
Do you think the FBI "manipulated" her statements?
No.
Post by Chosen Ten
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.
Lots of people claimed lots of things years later, many of them after
being goaded by the likes of charlatans like Mark Lane.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Do 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.
I know he was the assassin.
Post by Chosen Ten
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.
I am content with what I believe. Sorry if you're still troubled by it.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
And the DPD.
Not at all.
So 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?
Pretty much all the expert witnesses who testified regarding what the
forensic evidence indicated.
Post by Chosen Ten
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.
Nobody else need to ID Oswald. We didn't even need Brennan to ID Oswald.
He was simply a nice addition to the body of evidence.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Now 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.
I can't help how things seem to you. I don't care either.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
A 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.
Even if Arnold's 15 year old memory about where an when she saw Oswald was
spot on, it would do nothing to establish an alibi for him. He could
easily have gotten to the 6th floor in 15 minutes.
Post by Chosen Ten
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.
How do you know they didn't record what she said accurately? Because 15
years later she remembered it differently?
Post by Chosen Ten
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.
Why would you think any witness marked the time they saw anybody? People
were guessing about the times they saw certain things. Their guesses are
not established facts.
Post by Chosen Ten
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?
It wouldn't be any different. Your arguments still don't make sense to me.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
If 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
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?
There was nothing in anything the WC had available to them that would have
indicated Arnold had anything of value to contribute.
Post by Chosen Ten
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.
People's memories get fuzzy over time even though in their minds they seem
to become clearer. False memories do occur.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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.
Arnold's vague statements wouldn't help establish that.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
And 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 bigdog
minutes 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?
So you think Rowland noted the time he saw a gunman in the window?
Post by Chosen Ten
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?
He wouldn't have needed 15 minutes. He only had to go up four floors.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
The 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
And 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
But 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.
Neither of her recorded statements said she saw Oswald in the lunchroom at
12:15. That was added 15 years later.
Post by Chosen Ten
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.
Also doesn't mean he could not have gone to the sixth floor to shoot JFK.
Chosen Ten
2017-06-26 18:56:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Are 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Why
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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
There is so much evidence that tells us for certain
Post by bigdog
Oswald 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Im 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Brennan is like
Post by bigdog
any 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 Ten
An 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 Ten
If 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 Ten
You 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
I 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
But 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
This is far from certainty still though.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/16323-brennans-suspicious-car/&page=2
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
But 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
The things he tells us may or may not be true and he
Post by bigdog
could 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 Ten
And 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 Ten
If 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 Ten
I 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
There 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
As with any witness the
Post by bigdog
way 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 bigdog
that 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Spent shells were found at the
Post by bigdog
location 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
He 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 Ten
And 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 Ten
He 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
which 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 Ten
I 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 Ten
And 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Don'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 bigdog
expect 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 how
far in denial you are.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Especially 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
bigdog
2017-06-27 20:42:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Are 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Why
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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
There is so much evidence that tells us for certain
Post by bigdog
Oswald 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Im 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Brennan is like
Post by bigdog
any 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 Ten
An 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 Ten
If 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 Ten
You 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
I 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?
Yes. It was probative. It was not shoddy.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
But 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.
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.
So we both agree there is no significance to Brennan's unfounded suspicions about that car.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
This is far from certainty still though.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/16323-brennans-suspicious-car/&page=2
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
But 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
The things he tells us may or may not be true and he
Post by bigdog
could 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 Ten
And 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 Ten
If 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 Ten
I 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 it's unlikely you ever will.
Post by Chosen Ten
And I actually want to help
advance this case into more of an area of certainty. You have repeatedly
shown you don't.
The case doesn't need to be advanced. It's out there for all to see. You
can accept the truth or reject it but you don't get to have another truth.
There is only one.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
There 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.
You can go on assuming that they know more about the JFK assassination
than they have revealed up to now. Let us know when you have real evidence
of that.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
As with any witness the
Post by bigdog
way 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 bigdog
that 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 Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Spent shells were found at the
Post by bigdog
location 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.
No shit. He knew he killed JFK. He never admitted it. It wasn't hard to
figure out.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
He 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 Ten
And 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 Ten
He 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?
I see no reason to doubt he saw Oswald fire the fatal shot.
Post by Chosen Ten
And remind me, did the WC present Carolyn Arnold's testimony or did it
look past it? Hmmmmm....
She gave no testimony. She gave two statements, neither of which contained
anything of significance.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
which 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 Ten
I 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 Ten
And 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.
So continue with your snipe hunt.
Post by Chosen Ten
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.
Get out the torches and the pitchforks.
Post by Chosen Ten
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.
Keep chuckling. The statement is completely true. You don't know what the
CIA was withholding either. You just like assuming.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Don'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 bigdog
expect 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.
There is lots of evidence Oswald was the assassin. There is zero evidence
the CIA had any involvement. You just like imagining there is.
Post by Chosen Ten
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.
There is no proof against the CIA related to this case. Only wild
assumptions.
Post by Chosen Ten
Or anything else that could
compromise your views. Good job Bigdog. You have just further exposed how
far in denial you are.
I am not in denial of anything for which there is real evidence.
Chosen Ten
2017-06-21 18:38:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
They considered Brennan's testimony probative because it was supported by
a wealth of evidence. Nothing more. Nothing less.
"Nothing more". "Nothing less." HAHAHAHA!!! XD Sure sure. He wasn't the
"star witness" or anything. Keep trying to diminish his impact Bigdog. You
make it easier for others to see how far in denial you are.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
You have me on the floor in tears of
mirth Bigdog. You can disagree all you like but that does not make your
beliefs fact. You seriously can't see the degree of importance LN
advocates attribute to Brennan???
I see no evidence anyone places more importance on Brennan's testimony
than it deservers.
Of course not. You don't even want to admit the vital role Brennan had on
influencing the WC and the DPD in determining LHO was the lone shooter.
You say he "hardly" influenced them. Why would you want to admit the
importance other LN advocates place on him knowing he was a conspiracy
advocate that may have been wrong or lied about what he saw?
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
How many other LN advocates have you
debated?
I generally don't debate people whom I agree with. That's boring.
Post by Chosen Ten
I have seen and heard it in droves. Alot of LN advocates love to
cite Brennan's testimony as evidence against Oswald.
With good reason. It is a valid account of the shooting supported by much
forensic evidence. It still isn't essential to the case against Oswald
which can be made without Brennan's testimony.
Post by Chosen Ten
You clearly haven't
been reading what BOZ has been saying then. Or perhaps it's just a matter
of a lack of understanding. Or denial. Either way... how you can't realize
the importance others have placed on Brennan's ID of Oswald is beyond
me.
Still haven't seen one quote from you that indicates any LN believes
Brennan's testimony is essential to establishing Oswald's guilt. Lots of
bluster. No cites.
That's BEYOND funny. Let me explain why. I already explained above when it
came to BOZ but let me take a different approach... for added effect, I'm
going to cite YOU.

I said, "Alot of LN advocates love to cite Brennan's testimony as evidence
against Oswald."

And you replied, "With good reason. It is a valid account of the shooting
s= upported by much forensic evidence."

And then immediately after that you said, "It still isn't essential to the
= case against Oswald which can be made without Brennan's testimony.

Query: If it is as valid and concrete and absolutely true and corroborated
as you have been arguing, then how could it NOT be vital to the case
against LHO given that no one else could ID him as the shooter and there
is no solid photographic or video evidence pinning Oswald down as the
shooter???

Answer: It WOULD be... if we had no reason to doubt it. So your excuses
about him not being vital to LN advocates arguments falls lame in light of
the way the WC and DPD used his testimony to pin down Oswald as the
shooter. But in light of him being the only witness to claim to be able to
positively ID Oswald through the window as the shooter(despite having to
see him from an angle through a narrowed opening and others being in
positions to see the shooter as well but not being able to identify the
shooter), and his admissions in his own book, and the inconsistencies in
his testimony... we do have reason to doubt him.
bigdog
2017-06-22 02:32:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
They considered Brennan's testimony probative because it was supported by
a wealth of evidence. Nothing more. Nothing less.
"Nothing more". "Nothing less." HAHAHAHA!!! XD Sure sure. He wasn't the
"star witness" or anything. Keep trying to diminish his impact Bigdog. You
make it easier for others to see how far in denial you are.
I don't need to understate nor overstate the importance of Brennan's
testimony. It is just one piece of dozens of pieces of evidence that
establishes that Oswald was the shooter. By itself, it doesn't do that. In
conjunction with all those other pieces it leaves no doubt as to Oswald's
guilt. No one piece of evidence by itself can establish Oswald's guilt nor
is any one piece of evidence so vital that Oswald's guilt couldn't be
established without it. Collectively, all that evidence does establish his
guilt. There simply is no plausible scenario that can be constructed that
takes into account all that evidence and doesn't include Oswald as the
shooter. If there was, somebody would have come up with one by now.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
You have me on the floor in tears of
mirth Bigdog. You can disagree all you like but that does not make your
beliefs fact. You seriously can't see the degree of importance LN
advocates attribute to Brennan???
I see no evidence anyone places more importance on Brennan's testimony
than it deservers.
Of course not. You don't even want to admit the vital role Brennan had on
influencing the WC and the DPD in determining LHO was the lone shooter.
You keep insisting Oswald's guilt couldn't have been established without
Brennan's testimony. The truth is there was more than enough forensic
evidence to do that.
Post by Chosen Ten
You say he "hardly" influenced them. Why would you want to admit the
importance other LN advocates place on him knowing he was a conspiracy
advocate that may have been wrong or lied about what he saw?
You keep insisting that others place more value on Brennan's testimony
than I do. If that is true you should be able to quote one or more LN's
saying that without Brennan's testimony, the case against Oswald would
have collapsed.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
How many other LN advocates have you
debated?
I generally don't debate people whom I agree with. That's boring.
Post by Chosen Ten
I have seen and heard it in droves. Alot of LN advocates love to
cite Brennan's testimony as evidence against Oswald.
With good reason. It is a valid account of the shooting supported by much
forensic evidence. It still isn't essential to the case against Oswald
which can be made without Brennan's testimony.
Post by Chosen Ten
You clearly haven't
been reading what BOZ has been saying then. Or perhaps it's just a matter
of a lack of understanding. Or denial. Either way... how you can't realize
the importance others have placed on Brennan's ID of Oswald is beyond
me.
Still haven't seen one quote from you that indicates any LN believes
Brennan's testimony is essential to establishing Oswald's guilt. Lots of
bluster. No cites.
That's BEYOND funny. Let me explain why. I already explained above when it
came to BOZ but let me take a different approach... for added effect, I'm
going to cite YOU.
You keep insisting BOZ believes that but you also keep failing to quote
him saying that.
Post by Chosen Ten
I said, "Alot of LN advocates love to cite Brennan's testimony as evidence
against Oswald."
I know what you said. Now I'd like to see you back it up.
Post by Chosen Ten
And you replied, "With good reason. It is a valid account of the shooting
s upported by much forensic evidence."
And then immediately after that you said, "It still isn't essential to the
case against Oswald which can be made without Brennan's testimony.
Those two statements are perfectly compatible with one another. Sorry if
your reading comprehension is so poor that you don't understand that.
Post by Chosen Ten
Query: If it is as valid and concrete and absolutely true and corroborated
as you have been arguing, then how could it NOT be vital to the case
against LHO given that no one else could ID him as the shooter and there
is no solid photographic or video evidence pinning Oswald down as the
shooter???
Should I type the answer slower this time so you can follow along?
Brennan's ID of Oswald is perfectly valid because it is corroborated by
all the forensic evidence which indicates that the guy Brennan IDed was
the assassin. Brennan's ID is NOT vital because the case against Oswald
can be made without Brennan's ID. Brennan's ID would only be vital if the
case against Oswald depended on it. It doesn't.
Post by Chosen Ten
Answer: It WOULD be... if we had no reason to doubt it. So your excuses
about him not being vital to LN advocates arguments falls lame in light of
the way the WC and DPD used his testimony to pin down Oswald as the
shooter. But in light of him being the only witness to claim to be able to
positively ID Oswald through the window as the shooter(despite having to
see him from an angle through a narrowed opening and others being in
positions to see the shooter as well but not being able to identify the
shooter), and his admissions in his own book, and the inconsistencies in
his testimony... we do have reason to doubt him.
I gave you the explanation above. If you can't follow along there is
nothing more I can do to help you out of your confused state. You will
continue to grope for answers that were clearly given 53 years ago.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-23 03:49:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
They considered Brennan's testimony probative because it was supported by
a wealth of evidence. Nothing more. Nothing less.
"Nothing more". "Nothing less." HAHAHAHA!!! XD Sure sure. He wasn't the
"star witness" or anything. Keep trying to diminish his impact Bigdog. You
make it easier for others to see how far in denial you are.
I don't need to understate nor overstate the importance of Brennan's
testimony. It is just one piece of dozens of pieces of evidence that
establishes that Oswald was the shooter. By itself, it doesn't do that. In
conjunction with all those other pieces it leaves no doubt as to Oswald's
guilt. No one piece of evidence by itself can establish Oswald's guilt nor
is any one piece of evidence so vital that Oswald's guilt couldn't be
established without it. Collectively, all that evidence does establish his
guilt. There simply is no plausible scenario that can be constructed that
takes into account all that evidence and doesn't include Oswald as the
shooter. If there was, somebody would have come up with one by now.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
You have me on the floor in tears of
mirth Bigdog. You can disagree all you like but that does not make your
beliefs fact. You seriously can't see the degree of importance LN
advocates attribute to Brennan???
I see no evidence anyone places more importance on Brennan's testimony
than it deservers.
Of course not. You don't even want to admit the vital role Brennan had on
influencing the WC and the DPD in determining LHO was the lone shooter.
You keep insisting Oswald's guilt couldn't have been established without
Brennan's testimony. The truth is there was more than enough forensic
evidence to do that.
Post by Chosen Ten
You say he "hardly" influenced them. Why would you want to admit the
importance other LN advocates place on him knowing he was a conspiracy
advocate that may have been wrong or lied about what he saw?
You keep insisting that others place more value on Brennan's testimony
than I do. If that is true you should be able to quote one or more LN's
saying that without Brennan's testimony, the case against Oswald would
have collapsed.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
How many other LN advocates have you
debated?
I generally don't debate people whom I agree with. That's boring.
Post by Chosen Ten
I have seen and heard it in droves. Alot of LN advocates love to
cite Brennan's testimony as evidence against Oswald.
With good reason. It is a valid account of the shooting supported by much
forensic evidence. It still isn't essential to the case against Oswald
which can be made without Brennan's testimony.
Post by Chosen Ten
You clearly haven't
been reading what BOZ has been saying then. Or perhaps it's just a matter
of a lack of understanding. Or denial. Either way... how you can't realize
the importance others have placed on Brennan's ID of Oswald is beyond
me.
Still haven't seen one quote from you that indicates any LN believes
Brennan's testimony is essential to establishing Oswald's guilt. Lots of
bluster. No cites.
That's BEYOND funny. Let me explain why. I already explained above when it
came to BOZ but let me take a different approach... for added effect, I'm
going to cite YOU.
You keep insisting BOZ believes that but you also keep failing to quote
him saying that.
Post by Chosen Ten
I said, "Alot of LN advocates love to cite Brennan's testimony as evidence
against Oswald."
I know what you said. Now I'd like to see you back it up.
Post by Chosen Ten
And you replied, "With good reason. It is a valid account of the shooting
s upported by much forensic evidence."
And then immediately after that you said, "It still isn't essential to the
case against Oswald which can be made without Brennan's testimony.
Those two statements are perfectly compatible with one another. Sorry if
your reading comprehension is so poor that you don't understand that.
Post by Chosen Ten
Query: If it is as valid and concrete and absolutely true and corroborated
as you have been arguing, then how could it NOT be vital to the case
against LHO given that no one else could ID him as the shooter and there
is no solid photographic or video evidence pinning Oswald down as the
shooter???
Should I type the answer slower this time so you can follow along?
Brennan's ID of Oswald is perfectly valid because it is corroborated by
all the forensic evidence which indicates that the guy Brennan IDed was
the assassin. Brennan's ID is NOT vital because the case against Oswald
can be made without Brennan's ID. Brennan's ID would only be vital if the
case against Oswald depended on it. It doesn't.
Circular reasoning. Or in your case maybe spiral.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Answer: It WOULD be... if we had no reason to doubt it. So your excuses
about him not being vital to LN advocates arguments falls lame in light of
the way the WC and DPD used his testimony to pin down Oswald as the
shooter. But in light of him being the only witness to claim to be able to
positively ID Oswald through the window as the shooter(despite having to
see him from an angle through a narrowed opening and others being in
positions to see the shooter as well but not being able to identify the
shooter), and his admissions in his own book, and the inconsistencies in
his testimony... we do have reason to doubt him.
I gave you the explanation above. If you can't follow along there is
nothing more I can do to help you out of your confused state. You will
continue to grope for answers that were clearly given 53 years ago.
mainframetech
2017-06-23 00:06:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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 bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
There 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? Then 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 could only be because he DOES believe
Brennan's claims to have seen Oswald to be valid and vital. So I'm going
to have to disagree with you here Bigdog. And of course we don't know
Oswald was the shooter silly. Otherwise we wouldn't be here. You ASSUME
Oswald was the shooter. In your mind there is no other alternative. But
the case for Oswald being the shooter isn't exactly watertight. There'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.
Agreed. Someone with a sane mind!
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
And 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
It 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.
We must also remember that Brennan discredited himself in his
autobiography, where he said he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went
to the lineup, and when he was at the lineup, a detective told him which
position Oswald was in in the lineup. Result...discredited. As well,
Brennan said he didn't see any scope on the rifle, but then a lawyer got
him to say he wasn't sure. Also, a teenager Amos Euins was near Brennan
and when he looked up, he could barely se that the shooter had a bald
spot, but he wasn't sure if the shooter was black or white. Brennan was
no decent witness.
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
And the DPD.
Not at all.
So 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?
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
A 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? Are we supposed to believe the WC wasn't interested in determining
Oswald's movements and whereabouts directly prior to the shooting? Why
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.
There is so much evidence that tells us for certain
Post by bigdog
Oswald was the shooter. The forensic evidence validates Brennan, not the
other way around.
Brennan invalidated himself through his own words in his book.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Im 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?
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Brennan is like
Post by bigdog
any 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.
I 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.
But 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
The things he tells us may or may not be true and he
Post by bigdog
could 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. And 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
As with any witness the
Post by bigdog
way 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 bigdog
that 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Spent shells were found at the
Post by bigdog
location 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. He is the ONLY witness to have claimed to
have seen Oswald doing the shooting. And you have already stated you
wouldn't put too much importance in Brennan's claims anyways. He 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.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
which 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.
Ridiculous! Spent MC type bullets do not prove that the MC rifle was
the weapon that killed JFK. Only that it fired the 2 bullets at some
point. And probably fired the 3 shells left in the 6th floor 'nest'.
Post by Chosen Ten
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?
I 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.
And with all these new documents and records being declassified, I think
it would be presumptuous to be able to say that with certainty yet.
Especially 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 know? Well then... you say one thing then
contradict yourself with another.
And you have already made it clear you have no intent to push towards
clarifying why the CIA has been so actively pushing to keep certain
documents withheld from the public eye regarding this case. You are
content with the answers we have and you believe already. A shame, and not
the mark of a true researcher. Believe what you will Bigdog. If the truth
is one day clarified into certainty you have made it clear it won't be
because of you.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
What I am arguing is that many LN advocates choose to neglect what else
Brennan had to say concerning his testimony but still point to him as
"reliable" evidence of Oswald's guilt.
Again, his ID of Oswald is corroborated. The rest, not so much.
Oh stop it Bigdog. His ID of Oswald as the shooter is not corroborated.
Agreed!
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Many LN nut advocates don't even want to touch the subject of the
suspicious lone car he wrote that he saw.
What was suspicious about a lone car?
You mean to tell me you haven't read what Brennan said? Why would that not
shock me. I'm sure BOZ could probably recite it to you. Not that he'd want
to... Would you like a refresher perhaps?
https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobile=true#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/Oldsmobile%7Csort:relevance/alt.assassination.jfk/YDRuCPL-Ij0/QuZZHi_mRREJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk.uncensored/7MDV9rYDcvc
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/16323-brennans-suspicious-car/
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
This is the "star witness" after
all for many of the LN advocates when it comes to placing the guilt on
Oswald for shooting JFK. They love to cite him when it comes to his IDing
of Oswald... Just not when it comes to anything else he said... Hmmm... I
wonder why...
Because his ID of Oswald is the only part that is corroborated.
No other person corroborated it as a sighting of Oswald.
Post by Chosen Ten
"Corroborated" sure sure.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
Only his testimony regarding possibly seeing Oswald in the window is above
reproach to the LN's it seems.
That's the problem I have with LN's that cite Brennan and see him as a
"star witness." Surely even you wouldn't argue he is far from that given
what we know now in hindsight. But that doesn't seem to stop our good
friend BOZ from pointing to him as good proof of Oswald's guilt now does
it?
Brennan's testimony is not proof of Oswald's guilt.
It would be if it was true and we had no reason to doubt it.
There is plenty od reason to doubt it, see above for a list of the
reasons.
Post by Chosen Ten
It is just one
Post by bigdog
indication of Oswald's guilt and hardly the most compelling. In fact it is
probably the weakest indication of Oswald's guilt because Brennan could be
wrong.
Nooooooooooo... what in the world would make you say that? *definately not
using sarcasm* Brennan was blessed by providence with "extraordinary
eyesight." His "vision was perfect that day." So clearly we have no reason
to doubt what he saw right? So about that car...
The forensic evidence tells us he was not.
Already addressed this.
Post by bigdog
Post by Chosen Ten
There are much better indications of that than Brennan's shaky and
unreliable testimony. At least we can agree on that I hope.
Yes we can. I disagree with your assessment that others place more
importance on Brennan than you and I.
Hahahaha! Well that's it... You've really done it now Bigdog!!!! That last
statement is BY FAR the best thing you have ever said to me. Pure comedic
genius! We may yet make a fine stand up comedian out of you! XD Who's
Kevin Hart? Bigdog is over here channeling his inner Robin Williams. Have
you ever heard of... oh I don't know... the WC? Remind us all... how much
importance did THEY place on Brennan? You have me on the floor in tears of
mirth Bigdog. You can disagree all you like but that does not make your
beliefs fact. You seriously can't see the degree of importance LN
advocates attribute to Brennan??? How many other LN advocates have you
debated? I have seen and heard it in droves. Alot of LN advocates love to
cite Brennan's testimony as evidence against Oswald. You clearly haven't
been reading what BOZ has been saying then. Or perhaps it's just a matter
of a lack of understanding. Or denial. Either way... how you can't realize
the importance others have placed on Brennan's ID of Oswald is beyond
me.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-15 16:44:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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
I don't hold that against him. The point is that Brennan did not see the
shooter shooting and had to be HELPED by the police to identify Oswald.
Post by Chosen Ten
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...
donald willis
2017-06-16 01:04:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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
I don't hold that against him. The point is that Brennan did not see the
shooter shooting and had to be HELPED by the police to identify Oswald.
Post by Chosen Ten
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...
And DPD notes on the lineup had to be re-done to include Brennan!
BOZ
2017-06-16 23:28:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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
I don't hold that against him. The point is that Brennan did not see the
shooter shooting and had to be HELPED by the police to identify Oswald.
Post by Chosen Ten
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...
And DPD notes on the lineup had to be re-done to include Brennan!
Do you think the SE corner window was open or closed and was Oswald
shooting through glass?Do you think the SE corner window was open or
closed and was Oswald shooting through glass?
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-17 17:49:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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
I don't hold that against him. The point is that Brennan did not see the
shooter shooting and had to be HELPED by the police to identify Oswald.
Post by Chosen Ten
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...
And DPD notes on the lineup had to be re-done to include Brennan!
Do you think the SE corner window was open or closed and was Oswald
shooting through glass?Do you think the SE corner window was open or
closed and was Oswald shooting through glass?
What kind of silly question is that?
What kind of silly question is that?
The photographic evidence shows that the window was open.
The scientific evidence proves that 3 shots were fired through that open
window. It doesn't tell you who fired the shots.
donald willis
2017-06-17 17:55:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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
I don't hold that against him. The point is that Brennan did not see the
shooter shooting and had to be HELPED by the police to identify Oswald.
Post by Chosen Ten
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...
And DPD notes on the lineup had to be re-done to include Brennan!
Do you think the SE corner window was open or closed and was Oswald
shooting through glass?Do you think the SE corner window was open or
closed and was Oswald shooting through glass?
What? What?

And what do your question(s) have to do with the revamped lineup?

dcw
BOZ
2017-06-16 23:29:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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
I don't hold that against him. The point is that Brennan did not see the
shooter shooting and had to be HELPED by the police to identify Oswald.
Post by Chosen Ten
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...
And DPD notes on the lineup had to be re-done to include Brennan!
Do you think Brennan existed at all or was a myth like the Loch Ness
monster.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-17 17:49:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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
I don't hold that against him. The point is that Brennan did not see the
shooter shooting and had to be HELPED by the police to identify Oswald.
Post by Chosen Ten
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...
And DPD notes on the lineup had to be re-done to include Brennan!
Do you think Brennan existed at all or was a myth like the Loch Ness
monster.
I still don't think he was a shooter.
BOZ
2017-06-15 19:02:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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...
Do you think Brennan was part of the alleged conspiracy
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-16 02:15:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Chosen Ten
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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...
Do you think Brennan was part of the alleged conspiracy
I don't think he fired any shots. I don't see a gun in his hand.
mainframetech
2017-06-17 23:35:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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?
What witnesses saw Oswald? Brennan was the only one that claimed he
saw a Oswald, but he later discredited himself in his autobiography.

Chris
donald willis
2017-06-11 04:33:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
That's my best speculation--that O was a lookout, on the first floor to
slow down early-bird cops. Which he did....

dcw
bigdog
2017-06-11 23:28:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
That's my best speculation--that O was a lookout, on the first floor to
slow down early-bird cops. Which he did....
So you acknowledge that Oswald was a co-conspirator in the murder of JFK.
If you believe that why is it so hard for you to believe he was the one
who pulled the trigger?
BOZ
2017-06-12 16:46:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
That's my best speculation--that O was a lookout, on the first floor to
slow down early-bird cops. Which he did....
So you acknowledge that Oswald was a co-conspirator in the murder of JFK.
If you believe that why is it so hard for you to believe he was the one
who pulled the trigger?
Because Oswald brought the rifle to the annual TSBD yard sale.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-13 01:50:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
That's my best speculation--that O was a lookout, on the first floor to
slow down early-bird cops. Which he did....
So you acknowledge that Oswald was a co-conspirator in the murder of JFK.
If you believe that why is it so hard for you to believe he was the one
who pulled the trigger?
Because Oswald brought the rifle to the annual TSBD yard sale.
It was take your rifle to work week. Truly brought in his to show off.
Caster brought in his to show off.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-12 16:50:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
That's my best speculation--that O was a lookout, on the first floor to
slow down early-bird cops. Which he did....
So you acknowledge that Oswald was a co-conspirator in the murder of JFK.
If you believe that why is it so hard for you to believe he was the one
who pulled the trigger?
Maybe, or maybe just a patsy, like the bank robber who was the lookout
and left behind to take the fall.
mainframetech
2017-06-17 23:34:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
That's my best speculation--that O was a lookout, on the first floor to
slow down early-bird cops. Which he did....
So you acknowledge that Oswald was a co-conspirator in the murder of JFK.
If you believe that why is it so hard for you to believe he was the one
who pulled the trigger?
I acknowledge nothing of the kind. Don't try your usual phony gimmicks
on me.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-18 21:31:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
That's my best speculation--that O was a lookout, on the first floor to
slow down early-bird cops. Which he did....
So you acknowledge that Oswald was a co-conspirator in the murder of JFK.
If you believe that why is it so hard for you to believe he was the one
who pulled the trigger?
I acknowledge nothing of the kind. Don't try your usual phony gimmicks
on me.
If he was acting as a lookout to slow down the cops he would be aiding and
abetting the shooters. That fact alone would make him a co-conspirator,
just as the guy who waits outside in the getaway car while his buddies are
robbing the bank is as guilty as they are. If that had been Oswald's only
role in the assassination he would be guilty of capital murder and subject
to the death penalty. Four people were hanged for Lincoln's murder and not
one of them had set foot in Ford's Theater the night Lincoln was shot.
donald willis
2017-06-19 17:08:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
That's my best speculation--that O was a lookout, on the first floor to
slow down early-bird cops. Which he did....
So you acknowledge that Oswald was a co-conspirator in the murder of JFK.
If you believe that why is it so hard for you to believe he was the one
who pulled the trigger?
I acknowledge nothing of the kind. Don't try your usual phony gimmicks
on me.
If he was acting as a lookout to slow down the cops he would be aiding and
abetting the shooters. That fact alone would make him a co-conspirator,
just as the guy who waits outside in the getaway car while his buddies are
robbing the bank is as guilty as they are.
I think that may have been what Oswald was was up to. Of course, the
prosecution would have had to prove that's what he was up to....

dcw
bigdog
2017-06-19 23:26:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
That's my best speculation--that O was a lookout, on the first floor to
slow down early-bird cops. Which he did....
So you acknowledge that Oswald was a co-conspirator in the murder of JFK.
If you believe that why is it so hard for you to believe he was the one
who pulled the trigger?
I acknowledge nothing of the kind. Don't try your usual phony gimmicks
on me.
If he was acting as a lookout to slow down the cops he would be aiding and
abetting the shooters. That fact alone would make him a co-conspirator,
just as the guy who waits outside in the getaway car while his buddies are
robbing the bank is as guilty as they are.
I think that may have been what Oswald was was up to. Of course, the
prosecution would have had to prove that's what he was up to....
No they wouldn't have because they would have easily proven that Oswald
fired the shots that killed JFK and JDT.
mainframetech
2017-06-23 00:08:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
That's my best speculation--that O was a lookout, on the first floor to
slow down early-bird cops. Which he did....
So you acknowledge that Oswald was a co-conspirator in the murder of JFK.
If you believe that why is it so hard for you to believe he was the one
who pulled the trigger?
I acknowledge nothing of the kind. Don't try your usual phony gimmicks
on me.
If he was acting as a lookout to slow down the cops he would be aiding and
abetting the shooters. That fact alone would make him a co-conspirator,
just as the guy who waits outside in the getaway car while his buddies are
robbing the bank is as guilty as they are.
I think that may have been what Oswald was was up to. Of course, the
prosecution would have had to prove that's what he was up to....
No they wouldn't have because they would have easily proven that Oswald
fired the shots that killed JFK and JDT.
Naah. Since you can't prove it, how should anyone else be able to?
You have not provided evidence that puts the MC rifle into Oswald's hands
and has him firing into Dealey Plaza, and worse, you have nothing
whatsoever that proved that a bullet from the MC rifle ever hit or hurt
anyone.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-23 20:20:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
That's my best speculation--that O was a lookout, on the first floor to
slow down early-bird cops. Which he did....
So you acknowledge that Oswald was a co-conspirator in the murder of JFK.
If you believe that why is it so hard for you to believe he was the one
who pulled the trigger?
I acknowledge nothing of the kind. Don't try your usual phony gimmicks
on me.
If he was acting as a lookout to slow down the cops he would be aiding and
abetting the shooters. That fact alone would make him a co-conspirator,
just as the guy who waits outside in the getaway car while his buddies are
robbing the bank is as guilty as they are.
I think that may have been what Oswald was was up to. Of course, the
prosecution would have had to prove that's what he was up to....
No they wouldn't have because they would have easily proven that Oswald
fired the shots that killed JFK and JDT.
Naah. Since you can't prove it, how should anyone else be able to?
You have not provided evidence that puts the MC rifle into Oswald's hands
and has him firing into Dealey Plaza, and worse, you have nothing
whatsoever that proved that a bullet from the MC rifle ever hit or hurt
anyone.
There is no question that the Carcano was the kill weapon despite your
moronic insistence that it there must be some kind of proof that bullets
recovered outside the body had passed through the bodies of the victims.
This is not something that is required in any other case. Just what type
of test do you think should have been conducted to prove that. It is
simply your inane way of denying that the bullets recovered from the limo
and from Parkland were the ones that killed JFK and wounded JBC. It is an
unreasonable demand but if you were reasonable, you wouldn't be a CT.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-24 20:26:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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.
That's my best speculation--that O was a lookout, on the first floor to
slow down early-bird cops. Which he did....
So you acknowledge that Oswald was a co-conspirator in the murder of JFK.
If you believe that why is it so hard for you to believe he was the one
who pulled the trigger?
I acknowledge nothing of the kind. Don't try your usual phony gimmicks
on me.
If he was acting as a lookout to slow down the cops he would be aiding and
abetting the shooters. That fact alone would make him a co-conspirator,
just as the guy who waits outside in the getaway car while his buddies are
robbing the bank is as guilty as they are.
I think that may have been what Oswald was was up to. Of course, the
prosecution would have had to prove that's what he was up to....
No they wouldn't have because they would have easily proven that Oswald
fired the shots that killed JFK and JDT.
Naah. Since you can't prove it, how should anyone else be able to?
You have not provided evidence that puts the MC rifle into Oswald's hands
and has him firing into Dealey Plaza, and worse, you have nothing
whatsoever that proved that a bullet from the MC rifle ever hit or hurt
anyone.
There is no question that the Carcano was the kill weapon despite your
moronic insistence that it there must be some kind of proof that bullets
There is no question that Oswald's Carcano fired 3 shots.
But there is no proof that one of them was the kill shot. Are you
including the one that everyone says was a miss? Lattimer said CE 399
was the kill shot because of Kennedy's Addison's disease. Is that your
theory?
Post by bigdog
recovered outside the body had passed through the bodies of the victims.
Now, how come you are allowed to use the word "moronic" about conspiracy
believers, but I am not allowed to use the word "moronic" about WC
defenders? BIAS. Censorship. Cover-up.
Post by bigdog
This is not something that is required in any other case. Just what type
of test do you think should have been conducted to prove that. It is
In some cases they want to know if it was the police bullets which
killed the person or the criminal's bullets. How do they determine that
in real life cases?
Post by bigdog
simply your inane way of denying that the bullets recovered from the limo
and from Parkland were the ones that killed JFK and wounded JBC. It is an
Why do the FRAGMENTS recovered from the limo have to be from a kill shot?
You keep repeating falsehoods and McAdams is not honest enough to
correct you.
No bullets were recovered from the limo.
That is a simple fact.
You are not telling the truth.
You are making up factoids.
Post by bigdog
unreasonable demand but if you were reasonable, you wouldn't be a CT.
mainframetech
2017-06-11 04:12:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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?
If certain authors are correct, he knew about SOME of it, but
certainly not that he was picked out as the 'patsy'.

I believe he was keeping quiet about whatever he knew to try to
infiltrate into the group of people in Dallas that were on the inside of
many of the goings on in the area, like gun-running with Jack Ruby, and
the Cubans. Then he would go to authorities and tell them the whole story
or as much as he could glean from his work.

I believe it was a surprise when he figured out that they were setting
him up at the TSBD, and that's why he got out of there and wanted to go
talk to one of the people who set him up.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-11 23:28:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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?
If certain authors are correct, he knew about SOME of it, but
certainly not that he was picked out as the 'patsy'.
I believe he was keeping quiet about whatever he knew to try to
infiltrate into the group of people in Dallas that were on the inside of
many of the goings on in the area, like gun-running with Jack Ruby, and
the Cubans. Then he would go to authorities and tell them the whole story
or as much as he could glean from his work.
I guess it was just more of Oswald's shit luck that JFK got murdered
before he had a chance to do that.

Why would an unskilled laborer take it upon himself to engage in
undercover work for law enforcement?
Post by mainframetech
I believe it was a surprise when he figured out that they were setting
him up at the TSBD, and that's why he got out of there and wanted to go
talk to one of the people who set him up.
It must be fun being a CT. You get to dream up all sorts of interesting
scenarios that require no evidence whatsoever. Whatever you can imagine or
assume is just fine.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-12 16:51:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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?
If certain authors are correct, he knew about SOME of it, but
certainly not that he was picked out as the 'patsy'.
I believe he was keeping quiet about whatever he knew to try to
infiltrate into the group of people in Dallas that were on the inside of
many of the goings on in the area, like gun-running with Jack Ruby, and
the Cubans. Then he would go to authorities and tell them the whole story
or as much as he could glean from his work.
I guess it was just more of Oswald's shit luck that JFK got murdered
before he had a chance to do that.
Why would an unskilled laborer take it upon himself to engage in
undercover work for law enforcement?
Some low-lifes will do anything for money. But who said Oswald worked
for law enforcement?
Some low-lifes work as informants because they were caught in a crime
and the cops agree not to prosecute them if they become informants.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I believe it was a surprise when he figured out that they were setting
him up at the TSBD, and that's why he got out of there and wanted to go
talk to one of the people who set him up.
It must be fun being a CT. You get to dream up all sorts of interesting
scenarios that require no evidence whatsoever. Whatever you can imagine or
assume is just fine.
mainframetech
2017-06-17 23:34:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Can 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?
If certain authors are correct, he knew about SOME of it, but
certainly not that he was picked out as the 'patsy'.
I believe he was keeping quiet about whatever he knew to try to
infiltrate into the group of people in Dallas that were on the inside of
many of the goings on in the area, like gun-running with Jack Ruby, and
the Cubans. Then he would go to authorities and tell them the whole story
or as much as he could glean from his work.
I guess it was just more of Oswald's shit luck that JFK got murdered
before he had a chance to do that.
Why would an unskilled laborer take it upon himself to engage in
undercover work for law enforcement?
I guess you forgot his background. Wasn't there a TV show he really
liked about an FBI agent? "I led Three Lives".
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I believe it was a surprise when he figured out that they were setting
him up at the TSBD, and that's why he got out of there and wanted to go
talk to one of the people who set him up.
It must be fun being a CT. You get to dream up all sorts of interesting
scenarios that require no evidence whatsoever. Whatever you can imagine or
assume is just fine.
You'll notice I don't vary my proofs much. Of course, you vary yours
by the second.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-08 19:27:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.

Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.

Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Jason Burke
2017-06-09 13:37:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
And that someone was named Lee Harvey Oswald.
Deal with it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you
could add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind.
Did the conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators
plant that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for
that? Etc.
BOZ
2017-06-09 13:49:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Someone used his rifle? His rifle was the murder weapon? 2 separate
cases? The Tippit shooting was the result of Oswald's murder of JFK.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-10 02:14:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Someone used his rifle? His rifle was the murder weapon? 2 separate
I SAID his rifle was fired during the assasassination.
Post by BOZ
cases? The Tippit shooting was the result of Oswald's murder of JFK.
The Tippit shooting was separate from the assassination.
You are ASSuMING what you can't prove.
BOZ
2017-06-11 03:51:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Someone used his rifle? His rifle was the murder weapon? 2 separate
I SAID his rifle was fired during the assasassination.
Post by BOZ
cases? The Tippit shooting was the result of Oswald's murder of JFK.
The Tippit shooting was separate from the assassination.
You are ASSuMING what you can't prove.
I can prove it. I have proved. You are stuck on the CIA. Why don't you
apply. It's become more leftwing
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-12 14:14:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Someone used his rifle? His rifle was the murder weapon? 2 separate
I SAID his rifle was fired during the assasassination.
Post by BOZ
cases? The Tippit shooting was the result of Oswald's murder of JFK.
The Tippit shooting was separate from the assassination.
You are ASSuMING what you can't prove.
I can prove it. I have proved. You are stuck on the CIA. Why don't you
apply. It's become more leftwing
Parts of it were more leftwing at the time.
I had chances to join but would not after what they did to my father and
all their other crimes.
OHLeeRedux
2017-06-13 01:34:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Someone used his rifle? His rifle was the murder weapon? 2 separate
I SAID his rifle was fired during the assasassination.
Post by BOZ
cases? The Tippit shooting was the result of Oswald's murder of JFK.
The Tippit shooting was separate from the assassination.
You are ASSuMING what you can't prove.
I can prove it. I have proved. You are stuck on the CIA. Why don't you
apply. It's become more leftwing
Parts of it were more leftwing at the time.
I had chances to join but would not after what they did to my father and
all their other crimes.
False. Yet another alternative fact.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-14 03:00:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Someone used his rifle? His rifle was the murder weapon? 2 separate
I SAID his rifle was fired during the assasassination.
Post by BOZ
cases? The Tippit shooting was the result of Oswald's murder of JFK.
The Tippit shooting was separate from the assassination.
You are ASSuMING what you can't prove.
I can prove it. I have proved. You are stuck on the CIA. Why don't you
apply. It's become more leftwing
Parts of it were more leftwing at the time.
I had chances to join but would not after what they did to my father and
all their other crimes.
False. Yet another alternative fact.
As usual you don't know how to post properly so we don't know what you
are talking about.
OHLeeRedux
2017-06-14 18:56:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Someone used his rifle? His rifle was the murder weapon? 2 separate
I SAID his rifle was fired during the assasassination.
Post by BOZ
cases? The Tippit shooting was the result of Oswald's murder of JFK.
The Tippit shooting was separate from the assassination.
You are ASSuMING what you can't prove.
I can prove it. I have proved. You are stuck on the CIA. Why don't you
apply. It's become more leftwing
Parts of it were more leftwing at the time.
I had chances to join but would not after what they did to my father and
all their other crimes.
False. Yet another alternative fact.
As usual you don't know how to post properly so we don't know what you
are talking about.
You said: "I had chances to join but would not after what they did to my father and
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
all their other crimes."
I pointed out that this entire sentence is patently false.


You are the only one incapable of understanding a simple post. You blame
everyone but yourself. You recently whined that your Internet provider
doesn't carry Google groups. So either get better software, change
providers, or quit your whining.

Better yet, stop spreading your damnable alternative facts. As long as you
continue, I will point them out, and you can keep pretending as if you
don't understand.
mainframetech
2017-06-11 04:11:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Someone used his rifle? His rifle was the murder weapon? 2 separate
cases? The Tippit shooting was the result of Oswald's murder of JFK.
Why would you assume that? Oswald knew he was being set up, and so he
also knew that the police would be after him soon. when Tippit came
along, I think they knew each other. I believe Tippit was looking
specifically for Oswald, based on his previous search activities.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-11 23:27:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Someone used his rifle? His rifle was the murder weapon? 2 separate
cases? The Tippit shooting was the result of Oswald's murder of JFK.
Why would you assume that? Oswald knew he was being set up, and so he
also knew that the police would be after him soon. when Tippit came
along, I think they knew each other. I believe Tippit was looking
specifically for Oswald, based on his previous search activities.
So you at least acknowledge that Oswald was present when Tippit was
murdered. We are making progress.

If you thought you were being framed for a crime you know you didn't
commit, would you respond by murdering the first cop who stopped to
question you?
mainframetech
2017-06-17 23:35:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Someone used his rifle? His rifle was the murder weapon? 2 separate
cases? The Tippit shooting was the result of Oswald's murder of JFK.
Why would you assume that? Oswald knew he was being set up, and so he
also knew that the police would be after him soon. when Tippit came
along, I think they knew each other. I believe Tippit was looking
specifically for Oswald, based on his previous search activities.
So you at least acknowledge that Oswald was present when Tippit was
murdered. We are making progress.
Well, at least it was an Oswald lookalike.
Post by bigdog
If you thought you were being framed for a crime you know you didn't
commit, would you respond by murdering the first cop who stopped to
question you?
Depends on many factors. Was that cop out to kill me? Did I know
that cop and his connections in Dallas? These things matter.

Chris
Jason Burke
2017-06-18 21:28:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Someone used his rifle? His rifle was the murder weapon? 2 separate
cases? The Tippit shooting was the result of Oswald's murder of JFK.
Why would you assume that? Oswald knew he was being set up, and so he
also knew that the police would be after him soon. when Tippit came
along, I think they knew each other. I believe Tippit was looking
specifically for Oswald, based on his previous search activities.
So you at least acknowledge that Oswald was present when Tippit was
murdered. We are making progress.
Well, at least it was an Oswald lookalike.
Seriously, Chris?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
If you thought you were being framed for a crime you know you didn't
commit, would you respond by murdering the first cop who stopped to
question you?
Depends on many factors. Was that cop out to kill me? Did I know
that cop and his connections in Dallas? These things matter.
Chris
bigdog
2017-06-18 21:32:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Someone used his rifle? His rifle was the murder weapon? 2 separate
cases? The Tippit shooting was the result of Oswald's murder of JFK.
Why would you assume that? Oswald knew he was being set up, and so he
also knew that the police would be after him soon. when Tippit came
along, I think they knew each other. I believe Tippit was looking
specifically for Oswald, based on his previous search activities.
So you at least acknowledge that Oswald was present when Tippit was
murdered. We are making progress.
Well, at least it was an Oswald lookalike.
Amazing the things you will dream up to try to hold your silly beliefs
together. So did the lookalike Oswald give the murder weapon to the real
Oswald after he shot Tippit with it or was that the lookalike Oswald that
was arrested at the Texas Theater.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
If you thought you were being framed for a crime you know you didn't
commit, would you respond by murdering the first cop who stopped to
question you?
Depends on many factors. Was that cop out to kill me? Did I know
that cop and his connections in Dallas? These things matter.
By killing the cop you would be driving another nail in your coffin. Of
course having just killed the POTUS, Oswald had nothing to lose by killing
a cop. He was going to be sentenced to the electric chair if captured and
he knew that.
BOZ
2017-06-12 16:46:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Someone used his rifle? His rifle was the murder weapon? 2 separate
cases? The Tippit shooting was the result of Oswald's murder of JFK.
Why would you assume that? Oswald knew he was being set up, and so he
also knew that the police would be after him soon. when Tippit came
along, I think they knew each other. I believe Tippit was looking
specifically for Oswald, based on his previous search activities.
Chris
How did Oswald know he was being set up? Edgar Cayce or Nostradamus?
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-13 01:50:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Someone used his rifle? His rifle was the murder weapon? 2 separate
cases? The Tippit shooting was the result of Oswald's murder of JFK.
Why would you assume that? Oswald knew he was being set up, and so he
also knew that the police would be after him soon. when Tippit came
along, I think they knew each other. I believe Tippit was looking
specifically for Oswald, based on his previous search activities.
Chris
How did Oswald know he was being set up? Edgar Cayce or Nostradamus?
Baker.
mainframetech
2017-06-17 23:34:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Someone used his rifle? His rifle was the murder weapon? 2 separate
cases? The Tippit shooting was the result of Oswald's murder of JFK.
Why would you assume that? Oswald knew he was being set up, and so he
also knew that the police would be after him soon. when Tippit came
along, I think they knew each other. I believe Tippit was looking
specifically for Oswald, based on his previous search activities.
Chris
How did Oswald know he was being set up? Edgar Cayce or Nostradamus?
He had previous knowledge of some of the killers, and knew they had
fired from the TSBD 6th floor with his rifle.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-18 21:31:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Someone used his rifle? His rifle was the murder weapon? 2 separate
cases? The Tippit shooting was the result of Oswald's murder of JFK.
Why would you assume that? Oswald knew he was being set up, and so he
also knew that the police would be after him soon. when Tippit came
along, I think they knew each other. I believe Tippit was looking
specifically for Oswald, based on his previous search activities.
Chris
How did Oswald know he was being set up? Edgar Cayce or Nostradamus?
He had previous knowledge of some of the killers, and knew they had
fired from the TSBD 6th floor with his rifle.
The only way he would know that would be if he was a co-conspirator.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-19 23:24:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Someone used his rifle? His rifle was the murder weapon? 2 separate
cases? The Tippit shooting was the result of Oswald's murder of JFK.
Why would you assume that? Oswald knew he was being set up, and so he
also knew that the police would be after him soon. when Tippit came
along, I think they knew each other. I believe Tippit was looking
specifically for Oswald, based on his previous search activities.
Chris
How did Oswald know he was being set up? Edgar Cayce or Nostradamus?
He had previous knowledge of some of the killers, and knew they had
fired from the TSBD 6th floor with his rifle.
The only way he would know that would be if he was a co-conspirator.
Ok, so you say that all patsies must be co-conspirators.
Like Dreyfus? Like the 5 Boston Bookies?
BOZ
2017-06-20 22:39:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Someone used his rifle? His rifle was the murder weapon? 2 separate
cases? The Tippit shooting was the result of Oswald's murder of JFK.
Why would you assume that? Oswald knew he was being set up, and so he
also knew that the police would be after him soon. when Tippit came
along, I think they knew each other. I believe Tippit was looking
specifically for Oswald, based on his previous search activities.
Chris
How did Oswald know he was being set up? Edgar Cayce or Nostradamus?
He had previous knowledge of some of the killers, and knew they had
fired from the TSBD 6th floor with his rifle.
The only way he would know that would be if he was a co-conspirator.
Ok, so you say that all patsies must be co-conspirators.
Like Dreyfus? Like the 5 Boston Bookies?
Richard Dreyfus had nothing to do with Robert Shaw's death.
Jonny Mayer
2017-06-21 18:27:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Can someone on the conspiracy side tell me how the conspirators planted
the following evidence to frame Oswald?

His rifle on the 6th floor - they 'found' Frazier's first.

His grey/off white jacket - the one with laundry tags from outside of
Texas? As if Oswald used to get his clothes dry cleaned.

The shells on the 6th floor - see Fritz and those reinactment photos of
the sniper's nest.
donald willis
2017-06-21 02:25:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Someone used his rifle? His rifle was the murder weapon? 2 separate
cases? The Tippit shooting was the result of Oswald's murder of JFK.
Why would you assume that? Oswald knew he was being set up, and so he
also knew that the police would be after him soon. when Tippit came
along, I think they knew each other. I believe Tippit was looking
specifically for Oswald, based on his previous search activities.
Chris
How did Oswald know he was being set up? Edgar Cayce or Nostradamus?
He had previous knowledge of some of the killers, and knew they had
fired from the TSBD 6th floor with his rifle.
The only way he would know that would be if he was a co-conspirator.
Ok, so you say that all patsies must be co-conspirators.
Like Dreyfus? Like the 5 Boston Bookies?
There were five? I remember only one Boston Blackie. Well, two. In the
movies in the Forties, Chester Morris. On TV in the 50s I think it was
Kent Taylor.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-22 00:50:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Can 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
You are conflating 2 seperate cases.
Someone used his rifle which already had a clip with 4 rounds in it.
Your remark about the jacket pertains only to the Tippit shooting. I
already stipulated that Oswald killed Tippit. Just to be a troll you could
add more irrelevant things like: Leaving his wedding ring behind. Did the
conspirators plant that? The Walker bullet. Did the conspirators plant
that? Defection to Russia. Did the conspirators frame him for that? Etc.
Someone used his rifle? His rifle was the murder weapon? 2 separate
cases? The Tippit shooting was the result of Oswald's murder of JFK.
Why would you assume that? Oswald knew he was being set up, and so he
also knew that the police would be after him soon. when Tippit came
along, I think they knew each other. I believe Tippit was looking
specifically for Oswald, based on his previous search activities.
Chris
How did Oswald know he was being set up? Edgar Cayce or Nostradamus?
He had previous knowledge of some of the killers, and knew they had
fired from the TSBD 6th floor with his rifle.
The only way he would know that would be if he was a co-conspirator.
Ok, so you say that all patsies must be co-conspirators.
Like Dreyfus? Like the 5 Boston Bookies?
There were five? I remember only one Boston Blackie. Well, two. In the
movies in the Forties, Chester Morris. On TV in the 50s I think it was
Kent Taylor.
Obviously I am more interested in this case because I live in the Boston
area. But also for personal reasons because of the honest cops I knew.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/30/news/mn-18895

http://articles.courant.com/2001-01-06/news/0101061156_1_peter-limone-edward-teddy-deegan-notorious-murder-cases
donald willis
2017-06-10 02:39:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Can someone on the conspiracy side tell me how the conspirators planted
the following evidence to frame Oswald?
His rifle on the 6th floor
The ATF man said it was found on a floor lower than the 6th. Backing up
this claim: The two DPD homicide detectives, Montgomery & Johnson, in
charge of guarding the "sniper's nest" between about 1:10 & 2:30, heard
nothing of a discovery of a rifle during that time. But they did hear,
about 1:20, a call on a police radio outside telling of the shooting of
Tippit. And note that some of the participants in the discovery of the
rifle tell of shouting....
Post by BOZ
His grey/off white jacket
Witness Warren Reynolds told the police on 11/22/63 that he last saw the
suspect going in a direction opposite to the parking lot where a jacket
was found....
Post by BOZ
The shells on the 6th floor
Three witnesses said that Fritz picked up the shells, or that they were
handed to him. His later affidavit suggested (didn't quite come out & say
it) that he did not touch the hulls in the depository. There's a real
conflict here re the shells--where they were found, etc.

Try again....

dcw
donald willis
2017-06-12 20:44:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Can someone on the conspiracy side tell me how the conspirators planted
the following evidence to frame Oswald?
His rifle on the 6th floor
The ATF man said it was found on a floor lower than the 6th. Backing up
this claim: The two DPD homicide detectives, Montgomery & Johnson, in
charge of guarding the "sniper's nest" between about 1:10 & 2:30, heard
nothing of a discovery of a rifle during that time. But they did hear,
about 1:20, a call on a police radio outside telling of the shooting of
Tippit. And note that some of the participants in the discovery of the
rifle tell of shouting....
Post by BOZ
His grey/off white jacket
Witness Warren Reynolds told the police on 11/22/63 that he last saw the
suspect going in a direction opposite to the parking lot where a jacket
was found....
Post by BOZ
The shells on the 6th floor
Three witnesses said that Fritz picked up the shells, or that they were
handed to him. His later affidavit suggested (didn't quite come out & say
it) that he did not touch the hulls in the depository. There's a real
conflict here re the shells--where they were found, etc.
Try again....
dcw
LNers don't like to admit that some of their rock-solid evidence is a
little malleable. As noted above, it's hardly crystal-clear that the
official stories of the rifle, the jacket, and the shells are genuine....

dcw
bigdog
2017-06-13 18:39:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Can someone on the conspiracy side tell me how the conspirators planted
the following evidence to frame Oswald?
His rifle on the 6th floor
The ATF man said it was found on a floor lower than the 6th. Backing up
this claim: The two DPD homicide detectives, Montgomery & Johnson, in
charge of guarding the "sniper's nest" between about 1:10 & 2:30, heard
nothing of a discovery of a rifle during that time. But they did hear,
about 1:20, a call on a police radio outside telling of the shooting of
Tippit. And note that some of the participants in the discovery of the
rifle tell of shouting....
Post by BOZ
His grey/off white jacket
Witness Warren Reynolds told the police on 11/22/63 that he last saw the
suspect going in a direction opposite to the parking lot where a jacket
was found....
Post by BOZ
The shells on the 6th floor
Three witnesses said that Fritz picked up the shells, or that they were
handed to him. His later affidavit suggested (didn't quite come out & say
it) that he did not touch the hulls in the depository. There's a real
conflict here re the shells--where they were found, etc.
Try again....
dcw
LNers don't like to admit that some of their rock-solid evidence is a
little malleable. As noted above, it's hardly crystal-clear that the
official stories of the rifle, the jacket, and the shells are genuine....
It is to all those who aren't determined to invent excuses to dismiss any
and all evidence that Oswald was the assassin which is pretty much all the
evidence we have in this case. It all tells us Oswald was the assassin.
Those who can't accept that are engaging in an exercise in self delusion.
Loading...