info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 "Reasons", #11 - Refuted.
95 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Jan 31, 2017, 11:28:08 AM1/31/17
to
(11) Howard Brennan saw Lee Harvey Oswald fire the third shot that killed the President.
This is an outright lie on Bugliosi's part. Bugliosi knows quite well that Howard Brennen refused to identify Oswald, and indeed, described an assassin that CANNOT match Oswald.
It's true that months later, Brennan claimed that he really HAD identified Oswald, but was afraid for his family that other conspirators would harm them if he identified Oswald - but this really makes no sense... because Brennan made the effort to come forward. He also described the assassin wearing light colored clothing - Oswald, of course, wore dark clothing.
It's more reasonable to accept that Brennan was pressured in the intervening months to identify Oswald.
The Internet's foremost defender of Vincent Bugliosi meanwhile continues to illustrate that he can't defend Bugliosi against a knowledgeable critic.
This is an outright lie on Bugliosi's part. Bugliosi knows quite well that Howard Brennen refused to identify Oswald, and indeed, described an assassin that CANNOT match Oswald.
It's true that months later, Brennan claimed that he really HAD identified Oswald, but was afraid for his family that other conspirators would harm them if he identified Oswald - but this really makes no sense... because Brennan made the effort to come forward. He also described the assassin wearing light colored clothing - Oswald, of course, wore dark clothing.
It's more reasonable to accept that Brennan was pressured in the intervening months to identify Oswald.
The Internet's foremost defender of Vincent Bugliosi meanwhile continues to illustrate that he can't defend Bugliosi against a knowledgeable critic.
Bud
Jan 31, 2017, 1:46:06 PM1/31/17
to
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 11:28:08 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> (11) Howard Brennan saw Lee Harvey Oswald fire the third shot that killed the President.
First, let me start by including the content that Ben is deceitfully leaving out...
> (11) Howard Brennan saw Lee Harvey Oswald fire the third shot that killed the President.
"11. After the first and second shots rang out in Dealey Plaza, a motorcade witness, Howard Brennan, sitting on a short concrete wall directly across the street from the sixth-floor window, looked up and actually saw Oswald in the window holding his rifle. Only 120 feet away from Oswald, he got a very good look as he watched, in horror, Oswald (whom he had seen in the window earlier, before the motorcade had arrived) take deliberate aim and fire the final shot from his rifle.29 At the police lineup that evening, Brennan picked Oswald out, saying, “He looks like him, but I cannot positively say,” giving the police the reason that he had since seen Oswald on television and that could have “messed me up.”30 However, Brennan signed an affidavit at the Dallas sheriff’s office within an hour after the shooting and before the lineup saying, “I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again.”31 On December 18, 1963, Brennan told the FBI he was “sure” that Oswald was the man he had seen in the window.32 And he later told the Warren Commission that in reality at the lineup, “with all fairness, I could have positively identified the man” but did not do so out of fear. “If it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I…might not be safe.”33 Although Brennan did not positively identify Oswald at the lineup, he did say, as we’ve seen, that Oswald looked like the man. And we know Brennan is legitimate since the description of the man in the window that he gave to the authorities right after the shooting—a slender, white male about thirty years old, five feet ten inches—matches Oswald fairly closely, and had to have been the basis for the description of the man sent out over police radio just fifteen minutes after the shooting.
> This is an outright lie on Bugliosi's part. Bugliosi knows quite well that Howard Brennen refused to identify Oswald,
> and indeed, described an assassin that CANNOT match Oswald."
This is the kind of empty, meaningless claims conspiracy retards have been bandying around for as long as I`ve been frequenting these forums.
> It's true that months later, Brennan claimed that he really HAD identified Oswald, but was afraid for his family that other conspirators would harm them if he identified Oswald - but this really makes no sense...
> because Brennan made the effort to come forward.
>He also described the assassin wearing light colored clothing - Oswald, of course, wore dark clothing.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1474786/thumbs/o-LEE-HARVEY-OSWALD-facebook.jpg
> It's more reasonable to accept that Brennan was pressured in the intervening months to identify Oswald.
> The Internet's foremost defender of Vincent Bugliosi meanwhile continues to illustrate that he can't defend Bugliosi against a knowledgeable critic.
Ben Holmes
Jan 31, 2017, 2:32:22 PM1/31/17
to
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 10:46:06 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 11:28:08 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > (11) Howard Brennan saw Lee Harvey Oswald fire the third shot that killed the President.
>
> First, let me start by including the content that Ben is deceitfully leaving out...
>
> "11. After the first and second shots rang out in Dealey Plaza, a motorcade witness, Howard Brennan, sitting on a short concrete wall directly across the street from the sixth-floor window, looked up and actually saw Oswald in the window holding his rifle. Only 120 feet away from Oswald, he got a very good look as he watched, in horror, Oswald (whom he had seen in the window earlier, before the motorcade had arrived) take deliberate aim and fire the final shot from his rifle.29 At the police lineup that evening, Brennan picked Oswald out, saying, “He looks like him, but I cannot positively say,” giving the police the reason that he had since seen Oswald on television and that could have “messed me up.”30 However, Brennan signed an affidavit at the Dallas sheriff’s office within an hour after the shooting and before the lineup saying, “I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again.”31 On December 18, 1963, Brennan told the FBI he was “sure” that Oswald was the man he had seen in the window.32 And he later told the Warren Commission that in reality at the lineup, “with all fairness, I could have positively identified the man” but did not do so out of fear. “If it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I…might not be safe.”33 Although Brennan did not positively identify Oswald at the lineup, he did say, as we’ve seen, that Oswald looked like the man. And we know Brennan is legitimate since the description of the man in the window that he gave to the authorities right after the shooting—a slender, white male about thirty years old, five feet ten inches—matches Oswald fairly closely, and had to have been the basis for the description of the man sent out over police radio just fifteen minutes after the shooting.
Notice that nothing relevant was left out.
> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 11:28:08 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > (11) Howard Brennan saw Lee Harvey Oswald fire the third shot that killed the President.
>
> First, let me start by including the content that Ben is deceitfully leaving out...
>
> "11. After the first and second shots rang out in Dealey Plaza, a motorcade witness, Howard Brennan, sitting on a short concrete wall directly across the street from the sixth-floor window, looked up and actually saw Oswald in the window holding his rifle. Only 120 feet away from Oswald, he got a very good look as he watched, in horror, Oswald (whom he had seen in the window earlier, before the motorcade had arrived) take deliberate aim and fire the final shot from his rifle.29 At the police lineup that evening, Brennan picked Oswald out, saying, “He looks like him, but I cannot positively say,” giving the police the reason that he had since seen Oswald on television and that could have “messed me up.”30 However, Brennan signed an affidavit at the Dallas sheriff’s office within an hour after the shooting and before the lineup saying, “I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again.”31 On December 18, 1963, Brennan told the FBI he was “sure” that Oswald was the man he had seen in the window.32 And he later told the Warren Commission that in reality at the lineup, “with all fairness, I could have positively identified the man” but did not do so out of fear. “If it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I…might not be safe.”33 Although Brennan did not positively identify Oswald at the lineup, he did say, as we’ve seen, that Oswald looked like the man. And we know Brennan is legitimate since the description of the man in the window that he gave to the authorities right after the shooting—a slender, white male about thirty years old, five feet ten inches—matches Oswald fairly closely, and had to have been the basis for the description of the man sent out over police radio just fifteen minutes after the shooting.
"Bud" just likes to type in place of debate.
> > This is an outright lie on Bugliosi's part. Bugliosi knows quite well that Howard Brennen refused to identify Oswald,
>
> And Ben knows quite well that he did.
Bud
Jan 31, 2017, 3:27:01 PM1/31/17
to
>
> > > This is an outright lie on Bugliosi's part. Bugliosi knows quite well that Howard Brennen refused to identify Oswald,
> >
> > And Ben knows quite well that he did.
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."
David Von Pein
Jan 31, 2017, 3:48:19 PM1/31/17
to
David Von Pein
Jan 31, 2017, 3:51:22 PM1/31/17
to
More of the silly things CTers believe re: Howard Brennan....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-491.html
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-491.html
Bud
Jan 31, 2017, 3:52:40 PM1/31/17
to
David Von Pein
Jan 31, 2017, 3:52:51 PM1/31/17
to
And, incredibly, we've now got some CT kooks who think Brennan NEVER EVEN SAW OSWALD IN A POLICE LINEUP AT ALL. ~~El-Oh-El Break~~ ....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-36.html
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-36.html
Ben Holmes
Jan 31, 2017, 8:10:26 PM1/31/17
to
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 12:52:51 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> And, incredibly, we've now got some CT kooks who think Brennan NEVER EVEN SAW OSWALD IN A POLICE LINEUP AT ALL. ~~El-Oh-El Break~~ ....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-36.html
Citing David Von Molester's site for anything is sure sign that you're a coward.
> And, incredibly, we've now got some CT kooks who think Brennan NEVER EVEN SAW OSWALD IN A POLICE LINEUP AT ALL. ~~El-Oh-El Break~~ ....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-36.html
An HONEST person would simply cite the relevant DPD files...
David Von Pein
Feb 1, 2017, 1:45:52 PM2/1/17
to
"Virtually all of [Vincent] Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case." -- DVP; Jan. 25, 2017
Ben Holmes
Feb 1, 2017, 3:00:44 PM2/1/17
to
On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:45:52 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> "Virtually all of [Vincent] Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case." -- DVP; Jan. 25, 2017
Nonsense.
> "Virtually all of [Vincent] Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case." -- DVP; Jan. 25, 2017
If the individual elements are garbage, they don't add up in the aggregate to be something more.
Bud
Feb 1, 2017, 3:08:13 PM2/1/17
to
https://www.legalstudies.com/legal-investigation-an-important-part-of-building-a-case/
Ben Holmes
Feb 1, 2017, 5:48:11 PM2/1/17
to
(11) Howard Brennan saw Lee Harvey Oswald fire the third shot that killed the President.
It's true that months later, Brennan claimed that he really HAD identified Oswald, but was afraid for his family that other conspirators would harm them if he identified Oswald - but this really makes no sense... because Brennan made the effort to come forward. He also described the assassin wearing light colored clothing - Oswald, of course, wore dark clothing.
It's more reasonable to accept that Brennan was pressured in the intervening months to identify Oswald.
Bud
Feb 1, 2017, 6:00:15 PM2/1/17
to
On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 5:48:11 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:08:13 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 3:00:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:45:52 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > "Virtually all of [Vincent] Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case." -- DVP; Jan. 25, 2017
> > >
> > > Nonsense.
> > >
> > > If the individual elements are garbage, they don't add up in the aggregate to be something more.
> >
> > "When handling criminal cases, you need to have enough evidence to identify a suspect and make sure they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This requires analysis of facts, reconstruction of the scene of the crime, taking witness statements and others. You will need a keen eye for relevant information from various sources. You need to connect the dots to build a strong case against a suspect."
> >
> > https://www.legalstudies.com/legal-investigation-an-important-part-of-building-a-case/
>
> Here it is again:
>
> (11) Howard Brennan saw Lee Harvey Oswald fire the third shot that killed the President.
>
> This is an outright lie on Bugliosi's part.
How can it be a lie on Bugliosi`s part, its what the witness said.
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:08:13 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 3:00:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:45:52 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > "Virtually all of [Vincent] Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case." -- DVP; Jan. 25, 2017
> > >
> > > Nonsense.
> > >
> > > If the individual elements are garbage, they don't add up in the aggregate to be something more.
> >
> > "When handling criminal cases, you need to have enough evidence to identify a suspect and make sure they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This requires analysis of facts, reconstruction of the scene of the crime, taking witness statements and others. You will need a keen eye for relevant information from various sources. You need to connect the dots to build a strong case against a suspect."
> >
> > https://www.legalstudies.com/legal-investigation-an-important-part-of-building-a-case/
>
> Here it is again:
>
> (11) Howard Brennan saw Lee Harvey Oswald fire the third shot that killed the President.
>
> This is an outright lie on Bugliosi's part.
>Bugliosi knows quite well that Howard Brennen refused to identify Oswald, and indeed, described an assassin that CANNOT match Oswald.
>
> It's true that months later, Brennan claimed that he really HAD identified Oswald, but was afraid for his family that other conspirators would harm them if he identified Oswald - but this really makes no sense... because Brennan made the effort to come forward. He also described the assassin wearing light colored clothing - Oswald, of course, wore dark clothing.
>
> It's more reasonable to accept that Brennan was pressured in the intervening months to identify Oswald.
>
> The Internet's foremost defender of Vincent Bugliosi meanwhile continues to illustrate that he can't defend Bugliosi against a knowledgeable critic.
David Von Pein
Feb 1, 2017, 6:33:01 PM2/1/17
to
The individual items being considered are then PLACED TOGETHER IN A BUNDLE (instead of being kept isolated from one another, which is what CTers always do), and then the WHOLE SUM TOTAL of those individual elements are weighed to reach a final conclusion.
That's exactly what Vincent Bugliosi does in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his book "Reclaiming History", and only a biased conspiracy-giddy person who is bent on exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald would have a desire to start up 53 separate forum threads in order to isolate each of Mr. Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence in an effort to try and trash each of those fifty-three items.
It's only by ISOLATING each of those 53 things individually that a conspiracy theorist can have a prayer at pretending Lee Oswald was innocent of killing either John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit.
But when those 53 things are PACKAGED TOGETHER as one unit, Oswald's guilt is undeniable. And there's NOTHING a conspiracy nut like Ben Holmes can do about it.
David Von Pein
Feb 1, 2017, 6:56:30 PM2/1/17
to
Jason Burke
Feb 1, 2017, 7:35:30 PM2/1/17
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 1, 2017, 7:46:04 PM2/1/17
to
On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 3:00:15 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 5:48:11 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:08:13 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 3:00:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:45:52 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > "Virtually all of [Vincent] Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case." -- DVP; Jan. 25, 2017
> > > >
> > > > Nonsense.
> > > >
> > > > If the individual elements are garbage, they don't add up in the aggregate to be something more.
> > >
> > > "When handling criminal cases, you need to have enough evidence to identify a suspect and make sure they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This requires analysis of facts, reconstruction of the scene of the crime, taking witness statements and others. You will need a keen eye for relevant information from various sources. You need to connect the dots to build a strong case against a suspect."
> > >
> > > https://www.legalstudies.com/legal-investigation-an-important-part-of-building-a-case/
> >
> > Here it is again:
> >
> > (11) Howard Brennan saw Lee Harvey Oswald fire the third shot that killed the President.
> >
> > This is an outright lie on Bugliosi's part.
>
> How can it be a lie on Bugliosi`s part, its what the witness said.
You're lying again, "Bud"...
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 5:48:11 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:08:13 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 3:00:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:45:52 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > "Virtually all of [Vincent] Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case." -- DVP; Jan. 25, 2017
> > > >
> > > > Nonsense.
> > > >
> > > > If the individual elements are garbage, they don't add up in the aggregate to be something more.
> > >
> > > "When handling criminal cases, you need to have enough evidence to identify a suspect and make sure they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This requires analysis of facts, reconstruction of the scene of the crime, taking witness statements and others. You will need a keen eye for relevant information from various sources. You need to connect the dots to build a strong case against a suspect."
> > >
> > > https://www.legalstudies.com/legal-investigation-an-important-part-of-building-a-case/
> >
> > Here it is again:
> >
> > (11) Howard Brennan saw Lee Harvey Oswald fire the third shot that killed the President.
> >
> > This is an outright lie on Bugliosi's part.
>
> How can it be a lie on Bugliosi`s part, its what the witness said.
> >Bugliosi knows quite well that Howard Brennen refused to identify Oswald, and indeed, described an assassin that CANNOT match Oswald.
> >
> > It's true that months later, Brennan claimed that he really HAD identified Oswald, but was afraid for his family that other conspirators would harm them if he identified Oswald - but this really makes no sense... because Brennan made the effort to come forward. He also described the assassin wearing light colored clothing - Oswald, of course, wore dark clothing.
> >
> > It's more reasonable to accept that Brennan was pressured in the intervening months to identify Oswald.
> >
> > The Internet's foremost defender of Vincent Bugliosi meanwhile continues to illustrate that he can't defend Bugliosi against a knowledgeable critic.
>
> Ben can`t refute Bugliosi and can`t support ideas in general. I wonder why he even bothers coming here.
Bud
Feb 1, 2017, 8:02:24 PM2/1/17
to
On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 7:46:04 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 3:00:15 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 5:48:11 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:08:13 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 3:00:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:45:52 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > "Virtually all of [Vincent] Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case." -- DVP; Jan. 25, 2017
> > > > >
> > > > > Nonsense.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the individual elements are garbage, they don't add up in the aggregate to be something more.
> > > >
> > > > "When handling criminal cases, you need to have enough evidence to identify a suspect and make sure they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This requires analysis of facts, reconstruction of the scene of the crime, taking witness statements and others. You will need a keen eye for relevant information from various sources. You need to connect the dots to build a strong case against a suspect."
> > > >
> > > > https://www.legalstudies.com/legal-investigation-an-important-part-of-building-a-case/
> > >
> > > Here it is again:
> > >
> > > (11) Howard Brennan saw Lee Harvey Oswald fire the third shot that killed the President.
> > >
> > > This is an outright lie on Bugliosi's part.
> >
> > How can it be a lie on Bugliosi`s part, its what the witness said.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud"...
You need to educate yourself about what Brennan testified to.
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 3:00:15 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 5:48:11 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:08:13 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 3:00:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:45:52 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > "Virtually all of [Vincent] Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case." -- DVP; Jan. 25, 2017
> > > > >
> > > > > Nonsense.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the individual elements are garbage, they don't add up in the aggregate to be something more.
> > > >
> > > > "When handling criminal cases, you need to have enough evidence to identify a suspect and make sure they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This requires analysis of facts, reconstruction of the scene of the crime, taking witness statements and others. You will need a keen eye for relevant information from various sources. You need to connect the dots to build a strong case against a suspect."
> > > >
> > > > https://www.legalstudies.com/legal-investigation-an-important-part-of-building-a-case/
> > >
> > > Here it is again:
> > >
> > > (11) Howard Brennan saw Lee Harvey Oswald fire the third shot that killed the President.
> > >
> > > This is an outright lie on Bugliosi's part.
> >
> > How can it be a lie on Bugliosi`s part, its what the witness said.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud"...
>
>
> > >Bugliosi knows quite well that Howard Brennen refused to identify Oswald, and indeed, described an assassin that CANNOT match Oswald.
> > >
> > > It's true that months later, Brennan claimed that he really HAD identified Oswald, but was afraid for his family that other conspirators would harm them if he identified Oswald - but this really makes no sense... because Brennan made the effort to come forward. He also described the assassin wearing light colored clothing - Oswald, of course, wore dark clothing.
> > >
> > > It's more reasonable to accept that Brennan was pressured in the intervening months to identify Oswald.
> > >
> > > The Internet's foremost defender of Vincent Bugliosi meanwhile continues to illustrate that he can't defend Bugliosi against a knowledgeable critic.
> >
> > Ben can`t refute Bugliosi and can`t support ideas in general. I wonder why he even bothers coming here.
>
> I've stated many times before - my primary purpose is to prove that there's no such thing as an "honest" believer.
You hope to accomplish this by constantly lying?
>
> > >Bugliosi knows quite well that Howard Brennen refused to identify Oswald, and indeed, described an assassin that CANNOT match Oswald.
> > >
> > > It's true that months later, Brennan claimed that he really HAD identified Oswald, but was afraid for his family that other conspirators would harm them if he identified Oswald - but this really makes no sense... because Brennan made the effort to come forward. He also described the assassin wearing light colored clothing - Oswald, of course, wore dark clothing.
> > >
> > > It's more reasonable to accept that Brennan was pressured in the intervening months to identify Oswald.
> > >
> > > The Internet's foremost defender of Vincent Bugliosi meanwhile continues to illustrate that he can't defend Bugliosi against a knowledgeable critic.
> >
> > Ben can`t refute Bugliosi and can`t support ideas in general. I wonder why he even bothers coming here.
>
> I've stated many times before - my primary purpose is to prove that there's no such thing as an "honest" believer.
Ben Holmes
Feb 1, 2017, 8:19:06 PM2/1/17
to
On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 5:02:24 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 7:46:04 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 3:00:15 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 5:48:11 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:08:13 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 3:00:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:45:52 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > > "Virtually all of [Vincent] Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case." -- DVP; Jan. 25, 2017
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nonsense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the individual elements are garbage, they don't add up in the aggregate to be something more.
> > > > >
> > > > > "When handling criminal cases, you need to have enough evidence to identify a suspect and make sure they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This requires analysis of facts, reconstruction of the scene of the crime, taking witness statements and others. You will need a keen eye for relevant information from various sources. You need to connect the dots to build a strong case against a suspect."
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.legalstudies.com/legal-investigation-an-important-part-of-building-a-case/
> > > >
> > > > Here it is again:
> > > >
> > > > (11) Howard Brennan saw Lee Harvey Oswald fire the third shot that killed the President.
> > > >
> > > > This is an outright lie on Bugliosi's part.
> > >
> > > How can it be a lie on Bugliosi`s part, its what the witness said.
> >
> >
> > You're lying again, "Bud"...
>
> You need to educate yourself about what Brennan testified to.
I know his testimony better than you do.
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 7:46:04 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 3:00:15 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 5:48:11 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:08:13 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 3:00:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:45:52 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > > "Virtually all of [Vincent] Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case." -- DVP; Jan. 25, 2017
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nonsense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the individual elements are garbage, they don't add up in the aggregate to be something more.
> > > > >
> > > > > "When handling criminal cases, you need to have enough evidence to identify a suspect and make sure they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This requires analysis of facts, reconstruction of the scene of the crime, taking witness statements and others. You will need a keen eye for relevant information from various sources. You need to connect the dots to build a strong case against a suspect."
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.legalstudies.com/legal-investigation-an-important-part-of-building-a-case/
> > > >
> > > > Here it is again:
> > > >
> > > > (11) Howard Brennan saw Lee Harvey Oswald fire the third shot that killed the President.
> > > >
> > > > This is an outright lie on Bugliosi's part.
> > >
> > > How can it be a lie on Bugliosi`s part, its what the witness said.
> >
> >
> > You're lying again, "Bud"...
>
> You need to educate yourself about what Brennan testified to.
I also know things about his life that you don't know.
Bud
Feb 1, 2017, 8:37:25 PM2/1/17
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 2, 2017, 9:44:09 AM2/2/17
to
Why don't *YOU* explain your knowledge of the intimidation that Brennan underwent for some time before his testimony. Just tell us what was happening.
If you can, then you'd show that you *DO* know the facts on this issue as well as I do.
But I can already predict that you won't answer the question.
Bud
Feb 2, 2017, 10:53:14 AM2/2/17
to
> If you can, then you'd show that you *DO* know the facts on this issue as well as I do.
And it is stupid to think that your retarded reading of the evidence will be the same as my reasonable reading of the evidence. What your challenge actually is is for me to find in the evidence where a retard sees evidence of Brennan being intimidated. And of course just being taken to the police station might be intimidating to some witnesses, making the concept even more obscure.
> But I can already predict that you won't answer the question.
Ben Holmes
Feb 2, 2017, 11:38:09 AM2/2/17
to
An honest searcher for the truth would be highly interested in the intimidation of critical witnesses.
Bud
Feb 2, 2017, 11:57:26 AM2/2/17
to
> An honest searcher for the truth would be highly interested in the intimidation of critical witnesses.
Ben Holmes
Feb 3, 2017, 9:53:26 AM2/3/17
to
Knowledgeable critics already know what I'm speaking about, and interested lurkers can simply read Brennan's book.
> > An honest searcher for the truth would be highly interested in the intimidation of critical witnesses.
>
> Why should I care about the empty claims of a conspiracy hobbyists? Until you can back up that Brennan was intimidated it just becomes one more of the many things you claim but don`t (or can`t) support.
The claim was *YOURS* that I didn't know Brennan's testimony. I proved by your non-answer that I not only know his testimony, but I know circumstances of intimidation that you pretend not to know.
Bud
Feb 3, 2017, 2:28:37 PM2/3/17
to
> Knowledgeable critics already know what I'm speaking about, and interested lurkers can simply read Brennan's book.
>
> > > An honest searcher for the truth would be highly interested in the intimidation of critical witnesses.
> >
> > Why should I care about the empty claims of a conspiracy hobbyists? Until you can back up that Brennan was intimidated it just becomes one more of the many things you claim but don`t (or can`t) support.
>
> You can run, "Bud" - but you can't hide in a public forum!!!
>
> The claim was *YOURS* that I didn't know Brennan's testimony.
"(11) Howard Brennan saw Lee Harvey Oswald fire the third shot that killed the President."
"This is an outright lie on Bugliosi's part."
"How can it be a lie on Bugliosi`s part, its what the witness said."
"You're lying again, "Bud"..."
I replied...
"You need to educate yourself about what Brennan testified to."
"I know his testimony better than you do."
Ben Holmes
Feb 3, 2017, 3:05:44 PM2/3/17
to
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:28:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:53:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Actually, I've already made my point. I know far more about Brennan and his testimony than you do.
>
> I know enough. I know he said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. Do you know that much?
What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:53:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Actually, I've already made my point. I know far more about Brennan and his testimony than you do.
>
> I know enough. I know he said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. Do you know that much?
Bud
Feb 3, 2017, 3:13:28 PM2/3/17
to
Lets say three people rob a bank. They are caught, and all three deny the crime. Later, one decides to cooperate and rat on the other two. What carries more weight, his initial denial or the incriminating information he provided after?
Ben Holmes
Feb 3, 2017, 5:02:09 PM2/3/17
to
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:13:28 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:05:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:28:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:53:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >
> > > > Actually, I've already made my point. I know far more about Brennan and his testimony than you do.
> > >
> > > I know enough. I know he said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. Do you know that much?
> >
> > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
>
> Actually it is always best to look at information in the proper context.
What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
If you aren't honest enough to give the right answer, *THEN* try to make your argument...
> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:05:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:28:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:53:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >
> > > > Actually, I've already made my point. I know far more about Brennan and his testimony than you do.
> > >
> > > I know enough. I know he said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. Do you know that much?
> >
> > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
>
> Actually it is always best to look at information in the proper context.
What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
Bud
Feb 3, 2017, 5:38:41 PM2/3/17
to
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 5:02:09 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:13:28 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:05:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:28:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:53:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Actually, I've already made my point. I know far more about Brennan and his testimony than you do.
> > > >
> > > > I know enough. I know he said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. Do you know that much?
> > >
> > > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> >
> > Actually it is always best to look at information in the proper context.
>
> What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
In the case of contradictions caused by mistakes of memory by a witness it is generally better to go with earlier statements. When a witnesses admits to purposely giving false information and then gives accurate information it is best to go with the accurate information.
> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:13:28 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:05:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:28:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:53:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Actually, I've already made my point. I know far more about Brennan and his testimony than you do.
> > > >
> > > > I know enough. I know he said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. Do you know that much?
> > >
> > > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> >
> > Actually it is always best to look at information in the proper context.
>
> What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> If you aren't honest enough to give the right answer, *THEN* try to make your argument...
Ben Holmes
Feb 3, 2017, 6:04:38 PM2/3/17
to
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 2:38:41 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 5:02:09 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:13:28 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:05:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:28:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:53:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Actually, I've already made my point. I know far more about Brennan and his testimony than you do.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know enough. I know he said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. Do you know that much?
> > > >
> > > > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> > >
> > > Actually it is always best to look at information in the proper context.
> >
> > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
>
> In the case of contradictions caused by mistakes of memory by a witness it is generally better to go with earlier statements. When a witnesses admits to purposely giving false information and then gives accurate information it is best to go with the accurate information.
And who is it that proved that the initial information was "false?"
> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 5:02:09 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:13:28 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:05:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:28:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:53:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Actually, I've already made my point. I know far more about Brennan and his testimony than you do.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know enough. I know he said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. Do you know that much?
> > > >
> > > > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> > >
> > > Actually it is always best to look at information in the proper context.
> >
> > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
>
> In the case of contradictions caused by mistakes of memory by a witness it is generally better to go with earlier statements. When a witnesses admits to purposely giving false information and then gives accurate information it is best to go with the accurate information.
Who is it that has intentionally evaded the fact that the witness was physically & mentally intimidated in the months before his testimony?
> > If you aren't honest enough to give the right answer, *THEN* try to make your argument...
>
> I gave the right answer. It depends of the context.
Certainly not the actual evidence in this case...
Brennan is a provable liar... you just decide which lie to believe, is all. And there is no known instance of a believer, when faced with contradictory evidence, choosing to accept that which fails to support his faith.
Not a one.
Bud
Feb 3, 2017, 7:44:51 PM2/3/17
to
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 6:04:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 2:38:41 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 5:02:09 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:13:28 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:05:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:28:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:53:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, I've already made my point. I know far more about Brennan and his testimony than you do.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know enough. I know he said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. Do you know that much?
> > > > >
> > > > > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> > > >
> > > > Actually it is always best to look at information in the proper context.
> > >
> > > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> >
> > In the case of contradictions caused by mistakes of memory by a witness it is generally better to go with earlier statements. When a witnesses admits to purposely giving false information and then gives accurate information it is best to go with the accurate information.
>
> And who is it that proved that the initial information was "false?"
Who was it that proved that Brennan was telling the truth at the line-up about not being able to identify Oswald?
> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 2:38:41 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 5:02:09 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:13:28 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:05:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:28:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:53:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, I've already made my point. I know far more about Brennan and his testimony than you do.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know enough. I know he said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. Do you know that much?
> > > > >
> > > > > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> > > >
> > > > Actually it is always best to look at information in the proper context.
> > >
> > > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> >
> > In the case of contradictions caused by mistakes of memory by a witness it is generally better to go with earlier statements. When a witnesses admits to purposely giving false information and then gives accurate information it is best to go with the accurate information.
>
> And who is it that proved that the initial information was "false?"
The call for "proof" is a phony one often employed by conspiracy folk (gonna tone down the "retard" stuff). The real criteria should be what is reasonable to believe. The conspiracy folk try to play it up that it is unlikely that what Brennan told the WC was truthful, but they offer things that are much more extraordinary with scant evidence.
> Who is it that has intentionally evaded the fact that the witness was physically & mentally intimidated in the months before his testimony?
> > > If you aren't honest enough to give the right answer, *THEN* try to make your argument...
> >
> > I gave the right answer. It depends of the context.
>
> Who is it that decided the context?
> Certainly not the actual evidence in this case...
>
> Brennan is a provable liar...
>you just decide which lie to believe, is all. And there is no known instance of a believer, when faced with contradictory evidence, choosing to accept that which fails to support his faith.
> Not a one.
Ben Holmes
Feb 3, 2017, 8:04:05 PM2/3/17
to
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 4:44:51 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 6:04:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 2:38:41 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 5:02:09 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:13:28 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:05:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:28:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:53:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Actually, I've already made my point. I know far more about Brennan and his testimony than you do.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I know enough. I know he said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. Do you know that much?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually it is always best to look at information in the proper context.
> > > >
> > > > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> > >
> > > In the case of contradictions caused by mistakes of memory by a witness it is generally better to go with earlier statements. When a witnesses admits to purposely giving false information and then gives accurate information it is best to go with the accurate information.
> >
> > And who is it that proved that the initial information was "false?"
>
> Who was it that proved that Brennan was telling the truth at the line-up about not being able to identify Oswald?
Cite for this line-up.
> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 6:04:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 2:38:41 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 5:02:09 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:13:28 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:05:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:28:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:53:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Actually, I've already made my point. I know far more about Brennan and his testimony than you do.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I know enough. I know he said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. Do you know that much?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually it is always best to look at information in the proper context.
> > > >
> > > > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> > >
> > > In the case of contradictions caused by mistakes of memory by a witness it is generally better to go with earlier statements. When a witnesses admits to purposely giving false information and then gives accurate information it is best to go with the accurate information.
> >
> > And who is it that proved that the initial information was "false?"
>
> Who was it that proved that Brennan was telling the truth at the line-up about not being able to identify Oswald?
But you won't... believers often like to simply assume things... speculate about evidence...
Bud
Feb 4, 2017, 6:43:03 AM2/4/17
to
> But you won't... believers often like to simply assume things... speculate about evidence...
Ben Holmes
Feb 4, 2017, 2:07:26 PM2/4/17
to
> > But you won't... believers often like to simply assume things... speculate about evidence...
>
> Calling witnesses who don`t support your faith liars again?
Can't read?
And of course, it's a FACT that believers absolutely REFUSE to accept what eyewitnesses state. Whether it's because they believe them to be liars, or mistaken, or whatever - matters quite little.
I've said it many times before, you can't name a SINGLE eyewitness whom you accept completely in their 1963-1964 statements of what they saw and heard.
NOT A SINGLE NAME!
And that fact tells the true story of your faith.
Bud
Feb 4, 2017, 4:05:48 PM2/4/17
to
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 2:07:26 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 3:43:03 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 8:04:05 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 4:44:51 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 6:04:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 2:38:41 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 5:02:09 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:13:28 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:05:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:28:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:53:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I've already made my point. I know far more about Brennan and his testimony than you do.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I know enough. I know he said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. Do you know that much?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Actually it is always best to look at information in the proper context.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the case of contradictions caused by mistakes of memory by a witness it is generally better to go with earlier statements. When a witnesses admits to purposely giving false information and then gives accurate information it is best to go with the accurate information.
> > > > >
> > > > > And who is it that proved that the initial information was "false?"
> > > >
> > > > Who was it that proved that Brennan was telling the truth at the line-up about not being able to identify Oswald?
> > >
> > >
> > > Cite for this line-up.
> >
> > You are the person who claims knowledge of Brennan`s testimony.
>
>
> Yep... you just made yet another claim that you can't back up.
I can`t back up that Brennan said he viewed a line-up? How stupid do you have to be to think that one person in the whole Plaza sees the gunman that killed the President and that witness doesn`t attend a line-up with the main suspect in it. You really have no business looking into these things a all.
> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 3:43:03 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 8:04:05 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 4:44:51 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 6:04:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 2:38:41 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 5:02:09 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:13:28 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:05:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:28:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:53:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I've already made my point. I know far more about Brennan and his testimony than you do.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I know enough. I know he said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. Do you know that much?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Actually it is always best to look at information in the proper context.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the case of contradictions caused by mistakes of memory by a witness it is generally better to go with earlier statements. When a witnesses admits to purposely giving false information and then gives accurate information it is best to go with the accurate information.
> > > > >
> > > > > And who is it that proved that the initial information was "false?"
> > > >
> > > > Who was it that proved that Brennan was telling the truth at the line-up about not being able to identify Oswald?
> > >
> > >
> > > Cite for this line-up.
> >
> > You are the person who claims knowledge of Brennan`s testimony.
>
>
> Yep... you just made yet another claim that you can't back up.
But to stop you useless protesting...
Mr. BELIN. Is there anything else, sir, now up to the time you got down to the Dallas Police Station?
Mr. BRENNAN. On Friday evening, you are speaking of?
Mr. BELIN. Yes.
Mr. BRENNAN. No.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
What happened when you got down to the Dallas Police Station?
Mr. BRENNAN. Mr. Patterson, if I am correct in the Secret Service that picked me up, directed me to go to the fourth floor, a certain room on that floor.
After a short discussion on Brennan`s eyesight they resume...
Mr. BELIN. Now, taking you down to the Dallas Police Station, I believe you said you talked to Captain Fritz. And then what happened?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I was just more or less introduced to him in Mr. Sorrels' room, and they told me they were going to conduct a lineup and wanted me to view it, which I did.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember how many people were in the lineup?
Mr. BRENNAN. No; I don't. A possibility seven more or less one.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Did you see anyone in the lineup you recognized?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
>
> > > But you won't... believers often like to simply assume things... speculate about evidence...
> >
> > Calling witnesses who don`t support your faith liars again?
>
> The reference was to YOU ... I stated "But you won't... believers often like to simply assume things... speculate about evidence..."
>
> Can't read?
> And of course, it's a FACT that believers absolutely REFUSE to accept what eyewitnesses state. Whether it's because they believe them to be liars, or mistaken, or whatever - matters quite little.
>
> I've said it many times before, you can't name a SINGLE eyewitness whom you accept completely in their 1963-1964 statements of what they saw and heard.
>
> NOT A SINGLE NAME!
>
> And that fact tells the true story of your faith.
Ben Holmes
Feb 4, 2017, 5:20:58 PM2/4/17
to
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 1:05:48 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 2:07:26 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 3:43:03 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 8:04:05 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 4:44:51 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 6:04:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 2:38:41 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 5:02:09 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:13:28 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:05:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:28:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:53:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I've already made my point. I know far more about Brennan and his testimony than you do.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I know enough. I know he said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. Do you know that much?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Actually it is always best to look at information in the proper context.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the case of contradictions caused by mistakes of memory by a witness it is generally better to go with earlier statements. When a witnesses admits to purposely giving false information and then gives accurate information it is best to go with the accurate information.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And who is it that proved that the initial information was "false?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Who was it that proved that Brennan was telling the truth at the line-up about not being able to identify Oswald?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cite for this line-up.
> > >
> > > You are the person who claims knowledge of Brennan`s testimony.
> >
> >
> > Yep... you just made yet another claim that you can't back up.
>
> I can`t back up that Brennan said he viewed a line-up?
Still no cite for the line-up...
> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 2:07:26 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 3:43:03 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 8:04:05 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 4:44:51 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 6:04:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 2:38:41 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 5:02:09 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:13:28 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:05:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:28:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:53:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I've already made my point. I know far more about Brennan and his testimony than you do.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I know enough. I know he said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. Do you know that much?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Actually it is always best to look at information in the proper context.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What is generally considered more credible when two statements contradict each other... the earliest? Or the latest?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the case of contradictions caused by mistakes of memory by a witness it is generally better to go with earlier statements. When a witnesses admits to purposely giving false information and then gives accurate information it is best to go with the accurate information.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And who is it that proved that the initial information was "false?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Who was it that proved that Brennan was telling the truth at the line-up about not being able to identify Oswald?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cite for this line-up.
> > >
> > > You are the person who claims knowledge of Brennan`s testimony.
> >
> >
> > Yep... you just made yet another claim that you can't back up.
>
> I can`t back up that Brennan said he viewed a line-up?
Bud
Feb 4, 2017, 5:43:46 PM2/4/17
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 4, 2017, 6:21:17 PM2/4/17
to
They were all documented by the DPD.
Yet you can't cite it.
How amusing!!!
You lose!
Bud
Feb 4, 2017, 6:56:14 PM2/4/17
to
> They were all documented by the DPD.
>
> Yet you can't cite it.
> How amusing!!!
>
> You lose!
Ben Holmes
Feb 4, 2017, 10:29:54 PM2/4/17
to
Bud
Feb 5, 2017, 4:48:43 AM2/5/17
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 5, 2017, 10:58:05 AM2/5/17
to
You can't document it, you know it...
You lose!
Bud
Feb 5, 2017, 12:26:32 PM2/5/17
to
> You can't document it, you know it...
Ben Holmes
Feb 5, 2017, 3:22:07 PM2/5/17
to
> > You can't document it, you know it...
>
> Conspiracy retards have to call the witnesses liars. What they relate doesn`t support their faith.
And unlike believers, WHO REFUSE TO NAME EVEN A SINGLE WITNESS WHOM THEY BELIEVE COMPLETELY IN THEIR 1963-1964 STATEMENTS OF WHAT THEY SAW AND HEARD, I find no particular difficulty believing the majority of the witnesses.
"Bud" *STILL* refuses to name even a single eyewitness...
That fact tells the tale.
You lose!
Bud
Feb 5, 2017, 4:44:57 PM2/5/17
to
And then there is Sorrels...
Mr. SORRELS - I did not talk to Oswald again, and I was around there. When I contacted Washington, I was informed that Inspector Kelley was being directed to be there, and he would be there later on that evening, that they had caught him out on the road, and he would come there to help out.
I also got information to Captain Fritz that I had this witness, Brennan, that I had talked to, and that I would like very much for him to get a chance to see Oswald in a lineup. And Captain Fritz said that would be fine.
So I instructed Special Agent Patterson, I believe it was, after I had located Brennan---had quite a difficult time to locate him, because he wasn't at home. And they finally prevailed upon his wife to try to help me locate him, and she, as I recall it, said that she would see if she could locate him by phone. I called her, I believe, the second time and finally got a phone number and called him and told him we would like for him to come down and arrange for him to meet one of our agents to pick him up at the place there. And when they came down there with him, I got ahold of Captain Fritz and told him that the witness was there, Mr. Brennan.
He said, "I wish he would have been here a little sooner, we just got through with a lineup. But we will get another fixed up."
So I took Mr. Brennan, and we went to the assembly room, which is also where they have the lineup, and Mr. Brennan, upon arrival at the police station, said, "I don't know if I can do you any good or not, because I have seen the man that they have under arrest on television," and he said. "I just don't know whether I can identify him positively or not" because he said that the man on television was a bit disheveled and his shirt was open or something like that, and he said "The man I saw was not in that condition."
So when we got to the assembly room, Mr. Brennan said he would like to get quite a ways back, because he would like to get as close to the distance away from where he saw this man at the time that the shooting took place as he could.
And I said, "Well, we will get you clear on to the back and then we can move up forward."
They did bring Oswald in in a lineup.
He looked very carefully, and then we rooted him up closer and so forth, and he said, "I cannot positively say."
I said, "Well, is there anyone there that looks like him?"
He said, "Well, that second man from the left," who was Oswald--"he looks like him."
> shows simply your dishonesty, nothing more.
>
>
>
> > > You can't document it, you know it...
> >
> > Conspiracy retards have to call the witnesses liars. What they relate doesn`t support their faith.
>
> Brennan was PROVABLY a liar.
> And unlike believers, WHO REFUSE TO NAME EVEN A SINGLE WITNESS WHOM THEY BELIEVE COMPLETELY IN THEIR 1963-1964 STATEMENTS OF WHAT THEY SAW AND HEARD, I find no particular difficulty believing the majority of the witnesses.
>
> "Bud" *STILL* refuses to name even a single eyewitness...
Ben Holmes
Feb 5, 2017, 5:22:39 PM2/5/17
to
(Change of topic snipped)
You lose!
Bud
Feb 5, 2017, 5:37:20 PM2/5/17
to
"Which is why, of course, I added in sworn testimony to the Warren Commission. But you refuse even to accept sworn testimony as evidence.
You can't even provide a legal citation to the term "evidence" - because you know full well that sworn testimony *IS* considered evidence."
Now that same retard does not accept sworn testimony as evidence.
> (Change of topic snipped)
No change of topic. You asked me to cite for the line-up. I did just that, producing evidence that Brennan attended a line-up.
> You lose!
Ben Holmes
Feb 5, 2017, 5:57:25 PM2/5/17
to
Bud
Feb 6, 2017, 5:06:15 AM2/6/17
to
> The fact that you refuse to admit the truth in this case - that there's ZERO evidence that Brennan did what he claimed to have done shows simply your dishonesty, nothing more.
Ben Holmes
Feb 6, 2017, 9:39:19 AM2/6/17
to
You lost!
Bud
Feb 6, 2017, 12:53:04 PM2/6/17
to
> You lost!
0 new messages