Reply
PermalinkRaw Message
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by BOZPost by Anthony MarshPost by BOZPost by Anthony MarshPost by BOZPost by mainframetechPost by BOZCan someone on the conspiracy side tell me how the conspirators planted
the following evidence to frame Oswald?
His rifle on the 6th floor
His grey/off white jacket
The shells on the 6th floor
The rifle was Oswald's and he probably hid it there himself. It was
used by someone else though to shoot out the window at the motorcade.
The shooter left the shells, and Oswald put on the jacket himself.
Chris
Oswald was part of the conspiracy?
It's possible that Oswald's job was to provide the rifle or provide
access to the real shooters and act as the lookout.
How is it that witnesses saw Oswald but did not see the real shooters?
You have no proof that anyone saw Oswald.
Howard Brennan saw Oswald. You can pretend if you want.
Pretend you didn't know Brennan was a self proclaimed conspiracy advocate
BOZ. Pretend he never wrote about the suspicious lone car he saw also. Oh
wait... now his testimony doesn't interest you as much? Hmmm... how
interesting. Pretend the WC didn't have to work around several
inconsistencies in his testimony to make it fit into their final analysis.
Pretend he wasn't an unreliable witness too. And while you're at it,
remind us all what the HSCA did with his testimony...
Pretend Brennan is vital to establishing Oswald's guilt.
Pretend? My dear Bigdog, I certainly don't have to pretend Brennan is
vital to establishing Oswald's guilt.
That's good because he's not.
Agreed.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenThere are much better indications of
Oswald's guilt in other pieces of evidence like when he lied to the police
about the photos Marina took of him. But BOZ certainly seems to think he
is vital?
All he said was that Brennan saw Oswald. We know Brennan saw the shooter
and we know the shooter was Oswald so that seems like a perfectly
reasonable statement.
So let me get this straight. All he said was that Brennan claims to have
seen Oswald but somehow that isn't vital to him in his arguments as a LN
advocate to pinning the blame on Oswald?
No, it isn't vital because there is more than enough evidence to make the
case against Oswald without Brennan's testimony. That testimony is just
one last nail in Oswald's coffin, not that it was needed.
Post by Chosen TenThen why does BOZ always keep
bringing Brennan up as if he is somehow a ground shaking indication of
some proof of Oswald's guilt?
It contributes to the case so why wouldn't he use it? If that piece were
missing, a compelling case could still be made for Oswald's guilt. Why
ignore Brennan's ID of Oswald since it is corroborated by all the forensic
evidence.
Because he brought into question the validity of his claims through the
admissions in his book and the inconsistencies in his testimony .
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenIt could only be because he DOES believe
Brennan's claims to have seen Oswald to be valid and vital.
Just because that's the only reason you can think of doesn't make it so.
Notice he hasn't answered yet? It's not like he hasn't had ample
opportunities to tell us exactly why if he wanted to. He dodged me in
another thread as well. I'm not stopping him from answering back to
clarify in case you haven't noticed...
Post by bigdogBrennan's claim is valid.
The forensic evidence that you point to as "validating" Brennan's claims
doesn't even clarify whether Oswald made the shots or not that day against
the president so you have shown time and time again that you are perfectly
willing to jump to assumptions to support your beliefs. Brennan's
testimony is questionable. Why do you keep claiming things to be certain
that are far from it? I don't have a problem with you claiming and
defending your belief that Oswald was the lone shooter or that Brennan saw
Oswald but both of those things are not certainty. They are
assumptions.
It didn't need to be vital for BOZ to bring it
Post by bigdogup.
Post by Chosen TenSo I'm going
to have to disagree with you here Bigdog. And of course we don't know
Oswald was the shooter silly.
We might not. I do.
There you go again. Claiming things to be certain that are not yet. 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 bigdogPost by Chosen TenOtherwise we wouldn't be here.
I'd love to see the logic path that brought you to that conclusion.
Well in hindsight you may just be bored... you probably get a kick out of
these "debates" as much as I do sometimes. But there's no denying the
subject topic matters to both of us.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenYou ASSUME Oswald was the shooter.
Horseshit!!! There is overwhelming evidence that leaves no doubt in the
minds of any objective person that Oswald was the shooter.
Hmmmm... kind of like there is no doubt in the mind of any objective
person that the CIA has been lying and misdirecting us for decades
regarding documents related to this case and the Mexico City incident?
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 bigdogPost by Chosen TenIn your mind there is no other alternative.
There is no valid alternative that doesn't include Oswald as the shooter.
How many witnesses saw Oswald make his way down again? Oh? What's that?
Zero? 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 bigdogPost by Chosen TenBut the case for Oswald being the shooter isn't exactly watertight.
More horseshit!!!
Post by Chosen TenThere's no doubt in my mind that he's guilty of knowing more about the assassination
than he led on. But to say he was the shooter with absolute certainty is
more questionable in my mind.
Then I guess you are destined to remain perpetually confused because that
is the plain and simple truth.
Post by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenAnd weren't you also just defending his testimony?
Yes I was but that doesn't mean it was vital to establishing Oswald's
guilt.
The way many LN advocates I've talked to in the past keep bringing Brennan
up, you could've fooled me... BOZ is no exception.
You've presented nothing which indicates to me that BOZ or anyone else
considers Brennan vital to the case against Oswald.
"I have exclusive news for you CHOSEN. Read Howard Brennan's Eye Witness
to History." -BOZ 2017
At least BOZ has a sense of humor *chuckle*...
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 bigdogeasily been made if Brennan had never showed up in Dealey Plaza.
Post by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenIt is clear
that in the minds of many LN advocates like our dear friend BOZ that
Brennan is vital to pinning the blame on Oswald.
It doesn't seem that way to me.
Hahaha oh Bigdog! Why does that not surprise me? XD Have you been paying
attention to his posts lately? 3 posts, all about Brennan alone that he
posted just yesterday. Perhaps you missed them? And this is hardly the
first time he has pointed to Brennan for reassurance and reference that
Oswald is guilty. He stayed quiet last time I challenged his references to
Brennan in another post. If he doesn't believe Brennan's ID of Oswald is
vital why does he keep bringing it up? BOZ? Feel free to defend yourself
here. Don't let Bigdog have to do ALL the talking.
Brennan is just one more piece of evidence of Oswald's guilt. It is not
the most compelling piece nor is it vital to the case but it is a valid
piece of evidence because his identification is corroborated by a wealth
of forensic evidence. Why would we ignore a witness who is so
corroborated?
If he was so corroborated why do you say he is hardly the most vital piece
of evidence against Oswald? 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 bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenIt was also seemingly
vital in the minds of the WC.
Hardly.
Ooooooo Bigdog. Careful now. You put yourself most certainly on a slippery
slope with that comment. Denial isn't a good trait to have when it comes
to the coveted "star witness" of the WC. Perhaps you and David Belin would
have had an interesting conversation about Brennan's "significance" to the
WC as a witness were he still alive.
I has already been explained to you that while Brennan's ID of Oswald is
important, it is hardly necessary to establishing Oswald's guilt. To
illustrate that, in the mock trial in which Bugliosi prosecuted Oswald, he
was easily able to obtain a guilty verdict even though Brennan did not
testify.
And Brennan was the "star witness" of the WC once upon a time... do you
think that title would still be appropriate today?...
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 bigdogPost by Chosen TenSo now his IDing of Oswald wasn't significant apparently to either the WC
or the DPD for pinning the blame on Oswald? Well then... that settles it.
Let's just throw his testimony out since it is so insignificant. That's
exactly what the HSCA did anyways and who can blame them right?
Apparently you don't understand the difference between significant and
vital. They are not synonyms.
NEWSFLASH Bigdog: Brennan's testimony was BOTH significant and vital to
the WC and DPD for helping to pin the blame on Oswald! You think he got
the title "Star Witness" of the WC because of his rugged looks and good
charm? Please. 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 bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenA shame really. But we know
better now don't we? Surely even you wouldn't contend Brennan was an
unreliable witness at best with the benefit of hindsight.
If the case against Oswald rested on Brennan's testimony I would have
reasonable doubts.
Funny you say that because some witnesses weren't even called up to give
testimony. Remind us again why Carolyn Arnold wasn't called up before the
WC?
I wasn't privy to the discussions as to which witnesses should be called
to testify but Arnold's contemporaneous statement was very vague about
where and when she had seen Oswald and it wouldn't establish an alibi for
him so I don't dispute their judgement in not calling her to testify.
This is the LN advocate side of you talking at its finest.
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 bigdogPost by Chosen TenAre we supposed to believe the WC wasn't interested in determining
Oswald's movements and whereabouts directly prior to the shooting?
A witness with a fuzzy account of what she remembered wouldn't help
establish anything.
It was certainly more detailed and precise than what the FBI recorded. And
she denounced them to the reporters who showed her how her testimony had
been recorded on this.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenWhy
weren't they interested in doing their job? To prevent WW3? Obviously
there is still reasonable doubt in this case. Otherwise we wouldn't be
here debating.
Who's debating. The LN's are simply refuting the nonsense that comes from
the CT side. It's done for amusement only. It's not as if anything any of
you guys are saying is the least bit important.
Well that settles it then... the great Bigdog has spoken. All hail the all
knowing and all powerful Bigdog. He's never wrong it seems.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenThere is so much evidence that tells us for certain
Post by bigdogOswald was the shooter. The forensic evidence validates Brennan, not the
other way around.
Brennan invalidated himself through his own words in his book.
Keep piling the horseshit.
Keep piling the excuses. I guess that's the only way you can negate what
he wrote later when he revealed that he was a conspiracy advocate huh?
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenIm about to do something that's gonna blow your mind Bigdog. You ready?...
I'm about to agree with you... to a certain extent. But I'm also going to
disagree with you to a certain extent. Hold on to your balls and bear with
me if you will.
1) I was addressing BOZ primarily since he clearly seems to think Brennan
is somehow a good reference for establishing Oswald's guilt. There are
much better pieces of evidence that point to his guilt as you and I know.
BOZ knows that too.
Then someone tell him to stop with these ridiculous references to Brennan
for proof against Oswald. Why focus on Brennan when you have significantly
better evidence against Oswald?
Why would he stop. Brennan's ID of Oswald is a valid piece of evidence and
is corroborated by the forensic evidence all of which points to the guy he
IDed.
Post by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenBrennan is like
Post by bigdogany other witness.
2) Not true. He is the "star witness" in BOZ's eyes and in the hearts of
many LN advocates which is somewhat interesting and slightly ironic and
comical and troubling. He is not like any other witness because what he
claims to have seen does not just include LHO in the window but also
to have seen). And clearly he was not just any other witness in the eyes
of the WC. But the LN advocates only like to lend credence to the parts of
his testimony where he describes seeing LHO in the window... not the other
conspiratorial parts. BOZ is probably a prime example of that.
Point to anything BOZ has said which indicates he thinks the case against
Oswald depends on Brennan.
There's no reason to. When did I ever say "BOZ thinks the case against
Oswald depends on Brennan." I'll help you out Bigdog. Never.
By alleging that BOZ thinks Brennan's ID of Oswald was vital to the case
against him, that is exactly what you are saying.
No silly. Weren't you the one jumping on me over the importance of knowing
the difference between words like "vital" and "significant"? I'm gonna
pull a you here... Do you then, not understand the difference between
"vital to" and "depends on"?
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 bigdogPost by Chosen TenI said "the LN advocates only like to lend credence to the parts of his
[Brennan's] testimony where he describes seeing LHO in the window... not
the other conspiratorial parts." When have you ever seen BOZ discussing
the conspiratorial parts Brennan brought up? Brennan was a self proclaimed
conspiracy advocate and brought the validity of his testimony into
question through his own words in his own book. But many LN advocates seem
to forget this.
If you have corroborating evidence for those other parts of Brennan's
testimony let us know.
The other parts are shoddy as well. That's my point. His testimony is
questionable.
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 bigdogPost by Chosen TenBut in any case, Brennan still seems to be a favorite point of discussion
for BOZ to point to when it comes to evidence that Oswald was the shooter
which is slightly ironic and comical to me.
It is perfectly valid to use Brennan's ID of Oswald when arguing for his
guilt. That ID is supported by a wealth of forensic evidence.
Post by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenThe things he tells us may or may not be true and he
Post by bigdogcould get some parts right and some parts wrong.
3) But he only gets the parts that are convenient for the LN advocates
right and the parts detrimental to the LN advocates wrong right? Well
then... how much research have you actually done into that car he was
talking about?
We have forensic evidence which tells us which parts he got right. The
parts for which there is no corroborating evidence are dubious at best.
His IDing of Oswald is dubious at best also.
It would be if there was no corroborating evidence. The fact he IDed the
guy who owned the murder weapon, left his fingerprints at the scene of the
crime, left fibers from his shirt on the murder weapon, left his
fingerprints on the bag that he used to smuggle the rifle into work and
that bag had fibers matching his rifle blanket. Oh, yeah. Oswald was the
only TSBD employee who fled the scene and shot murdered the first cop he
came across and tried to murder some more a short time later. I think that
is more than enough to give credence to Brennan's ID of Oswald.
Post by Chosen TenAnd that is mostly Brennan's
own fault. Tell us all again how many of the witnesses could corroborate
specifically that Oswald was the shooter Bigdog... what's that? None of
them? Well... that's interesting... there were other witnesses who also
saw the shooter after all right? But none of them could ID Oswald... so
much for corroboration... the only thing corroborated was that there was
indeed a shooter. The forensic evidence provided only reaffirmed that the
rifle was Oswald's and that he worked there. Not necessarily that he was
the shooter or pulled the trigger that day. You would argue that we are
forced to leap and assume he was the shooter. There is no reasonable doubt
in your mind but there is in mine.
I listed the reasons for believing Brennan above. Not let's see if you can
come up with an alternative scenario that incorporates all that evidence.
If you do you will be the first one in 53 years to have done so.
What you listed does not reaffirm that Brennan could actually see Oswald
well enough to ID him if he was in the window. If there were others that
could ID Oswald that would help solidify his testimony. Others saw a
shooter in the window so that helps in reaffirming there was a shooter,
but that does nothing to help verify it was actually Oswald. 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 bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenAs with any witness the
Post by bigdogway to determine what he has gotten right is to see if there is
corroborating evidence. There is corroborating evidence that he correctly
pointed out the location of the shooter.
4) But none of those other witnesses that corroborated the location of the
shooter could ID Oswald as the shooter could they? Which of them could
corroborate that? None of them. Only Brennan alone claimed he could. And
his claims are shaky and unreliable at best.
If that's all there was, yes it would be shaky and unreliable.
It's still shaky and unreliable.
The fact
Post by bigdogthat he IDed the guy that all the forensic evidence tells us was the
shooter bolsters his account.
Not really. Again, all the forensic evidence tells us is that it was
indeed Oswald's rifle and that he was there as he worked there. And
Brennan even admitted he saw Oswald on TV before the lineup so the
veracity of his ID of Oswald is quite dubious at best.
Still waiting for a plausible alternative explanation for all that
evidence I listed above.
Post by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenSpent shells were found at the
Post by bigdoglocation he saw the shooter. Other witnesses also pointed out the same
location. By itself Brennan's ID of Oswald would not be very compelling
but the fact that he IDed the owner of the rifle found on the 6th floor
5) He ID'ed Oswald after seeing him on TV. And with Oswald standing out
clearly in the lineup due to his clothes.
Which doesn't preclude the fact that the guy he saw firing the rifle was
Oswald and we know the guy he saw firing the rifle was Oswald.
WE know? Correction. You assume.
No, I know.
I know my correction was right. You assume. You are forced to assume as we
all are to a certain degree.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenHe is the ONLY witness to have claimed to
have seen Oswald doing the shooting.
If he had never showed up in Dealey Plaza there would be no doubt that
Oswald was the assassin.
Post by Chosen TenAnd you have already stated you
wouldn't put too much importance in Brennan's claims anyways.
I said I wouldn't put much faith in it if it stood alone but it doesn't
stand alone.
Post by Chosen TenHe is an
unreliable witness with dubious testimony that even the WC had to work
around to be able to fit it in with their analysis.
How much horseshit can you pile into one post?
Pretend the WC didn't have to look past problems and inconsistencies in
his testimony.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogwhich is the only rifle in the world which could have fired the three
spent shells and the only two bullets recovered from the shooting, that
the owner of the rifle left his fingerprints at the location Brennan saw
the shooter, and the owner of the rifle left fibers from his shirt on the
butt plate of the rifle make's Brennan's ID of Oswald very compelling.
Everything fits together. Try coming up with an alternative scenario which
fits the evidence as well as the scenario presented by the WC. Come to
think of it, try coming up with an alternative scenario that fits the
evidence at all.
6) Many other researchers have attempted just that. But they could all be
wrong. That's not the issue I'm arguing.
They are all wrong. Any scenario which doesn't include Oswald as the
assassin can't be taken seriously.
So you say and believe. It's not even a possibility in your mind that
Oswald could have been involved but not have been the shooter?
Of course it isn't. That would be stupid.
Post by Chosen TenI believe he well could have been the shooter but that is far from a
certainty yet given how we are still learning things related to Oswald and
the assassination to date.
Within 12 hours of the assassination there had already been enough
evidence gathered to easily convict Oswald. Everything learned after that
only bolstered the case.
Post by Chosen TenAnd with all these new documents and records being declassified, I think
it would be presumptuous to be able to say that with certainty yet.
I remember having these same conversations back in the early 1990s when
the ARRB was formed and the CTs were so sure it would reveal solid
evidence of a conspiracy and it turned out to be a whole lot of nothing.
Oh really. I think it revealed more than you give it credit for. Did the
CIA lawfully turn over all the documents they were supposed to so they
could be released this year? The Joanidess Files? Were they fully
transparent to the AARB then? Or did they do more stonewalling and
evading? Who is this "Howard" you speak of? And remember what Tunheim said
about the CIA? The AARB revealed more than you give it credit for.
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 bigdogexpect the same to occur this time around. And then the CTs will continue
to claim the government is still withholding evidence because they have
already convinced themselves that there was a conspiracy.
Do YOU expect the CIA to release the Joanidess files this year that they
illegally witheld from the AARB and NARA so they would not have to be
declassified this year? Have you already forgotten about that? Oh but that
doesn't count as the government withholding evidence does it? The CIA
never lied or witheld any information regarding this case right? Why
should we question them or hold them accountable? So much for
"objectivity".
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenEspecially since there is so much more we could do to push into a realm of
more certainty on various matters regarding this case. But you seem to be
perfectly ok with assuming? Weren't you the one who said you didn't like
to assume? You liked to 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 TenAnd 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 bigdogPost by Chosen TenBelieve 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 TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenWhat 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 TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenMany 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 bigdoganything 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 bigdogdescription 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 bigdogPost by Chosen TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenThis 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 TenPost by bigdogPost by Chosen TenOnly 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 bigdogindication 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 TenThe forensic evidence tells us he was not.
Already addressed this.
Post by bigdogPost by Chosen TenThere 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 bigdogPost by Chosen TenYou 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 bigdogPost by Chosen TenHow many other LN advocates have you
debated?
I generally don't debate people whom I agree with. That's boring.
Post by Chosen TenI 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 TenYou 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.