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.
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?
Well, I did. For whatever you thought that exercise proved.
> 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.
Yes, that we look at information in the correct context. Human beings are fallible, so a conspiracy hobbyist will treat them as infallible. They start with an erroneous presumption and proceed from there.