The bus transfer

[Mitch Todd]

Stay ignorant... and gullible!

I'm not the one whose stopped discussing the realities of the case. That's you. Then again, your 'facts' been shown to be phantoms that have evaporated under the cold light of day.

[Mitch Todd]

You have nothing to offer and never did.
You can't make the facts go away by attacking me no matter how you try.
I have brought up plenty of "realities of the case" and "facts" in numerous threads but you ignored them so therefore you don't recall any of them.
You seem to be the one who has been sidetracked lately.

You've "brought up" a few factoids that demonstrate your shallow understanding of the issues involved. Where I've chosen to correct your understanding with a more complete picture of the evidence, you've been able to put up no resistance. At best, you try to bring up some non-sequitur or change the subject. Other than that, once the mystery of your shibboleths are stripped away to reveal the cornpone carnie behind the curtain, you have nothing left.

[Martin Weidmann]

There are three witnesses involved in Oswald's entry into the Texas Theatre: Julia Postal, Johnny Calvin Brewer, and Butch Burroughs. Burroughs original testimony is consistent with the statements of Postal and Brewer; however, Burrough's latter ramblings contradict theirs. That makes his later statements the odd man out, and thus the version that should be discarded.

That makes his later statements the odd man out, and thus the version that should be discarded.

So, the majority is always right? Is that what you are saying?

[Mitch Todd]

That makes his later statements the odd man out, and thus the version that should be discarded.

So, the majority is always right? Is that what you are saying?

I'll put it to you the way I put it to Mondo:

You have a guy who gives out one story soon after the fact. 2-3 decades later, he starts telling a very different, more involved (and jucier) story about the same event. You know that the other witnesses to the same event told a story that was consistent with the guy's first story, but contradicts his later one. The question to you is, which of the guy's two stories do you choose as most likely to be correct?

[Martin Weidmann]

I'll put it to you the way I put it to Mondo:

You have a guy who gives out one story soon after the fact. 2-3 decades later, he starts telling a very different, more involved (and jucier) story about the same event. You know that the other witnesses to the same event told a story that was consistent with the guy's first story, but contradicts his later one. The question to you is, which of the guy's two stories do you choose as most likely to be correct?

Well, if you are used to jumping to conclusions, then of course you are right. Burroughs' later version does differ from his original one.

But there's also another way of looking at things. Life's experiences have taught me that where humans are involved things sometimes get very complicated very quickly. For one thing, it hardly ever happens that a witness to an event will instantly tell you the whole story of what they saw in a concise manner. They normally forget details, which they will remember (differently) later, or leave out things they consider not to be relevant, even though they may actually be extremely relevant. Time is also a factor, as people caught up in a stressful situation, when it happens, may well tell a different story, from their original one, when they had a possibility to take a step back and quietly process the information. Obviously, this doesn't mean that their memory improves with time and there will always be bad actors who purposely change their story, but to simply dismiss later recollections is not credible is once again the same as jumping to conclusions.

The mere fact that Burroughs later recalled things that Postal and/or Brewer never confirmed doesn't automatically mean that Burroughs' recollections are false. And even if his earlier statements are similar to those of Postal and/or Brewer (which is a judgment call by itself) that still doesn't mean that he told the entire story soon after the fact.

[Jerry Freeman]

Johnny Brewers story also changed through the years.
Even his original version was bogus.

[Martin Weidmann]

You tried to claim that Bowley broke the DPD timeline. I demonstrated how the two are still consistent. Your response was to emulate a nine-year old. Good job!

The fact that Bowley said that his watch could be five minutes off, doesn't mean it was.

Btw where did you get that quote from Bowley? I haven't seen or read that anywhere, so I would be interested to know where it came from.