JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Who do you believe?
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Wesley Johnson on March 09, 2018, 08:11:02 PM ---
Martin, you edited your previous post and added the remark about Sanders after I quoted it. Was that intentional or just an afterthought? Okay, I get it, you just have questions about the evidence against Oswald. It just seems like you debate mainly as a "devil's advocate" from the CT side. Is there any evidence at all against Oswald that you do believe to be true? Just curious. By the way, I just look at statements by witnesses like Arnold, Sanders or whomever and weigh it in the balance of the whole situation. Arnold's statements, as well as Oswald's, concerning where he was at lunchtime are just not supported by other witnesses that day.
--- End quote ---
Martin, you edited your previous post and added the remark about Sanders after I quoted it. Was that intentional or just an afterthought?
I accidentally posted the message before it was finished and then added the rest.
It just seems like you debate mainly as a "devil's advocate" from the CT side.
Really? And it isn't obvious to you why?
Is there any evidence at all against Oswald that you do believe to be true?
Actually, I believe most of the evidence brought against Oswald to be true, but there is a difference between evidence and proof and factual information can sometimes be presented in different ways, depending upon what one wants to prove. What one calls evidence of guilt is considered by someone else to be pure speculation.
By the way, I just look at statements by witnesses like Arnold, Sanders or whomever and weigh it in the balance of the whole situation.
Sure you do....and the "whole situation" would be the official narrative, right?
So, in Arnold's case you give more weight to her possibly getting the time wrong, some 15 years after the fact, than her consistency throughout the years in saying she saw Oswald just prior to the shooting? And in Sanders' case you take away from her statement something she did not actually say and incorrectly claim it doesn't support what Arnold said?
Arnold's statements, as well as Oswald's, concerning where he was at lunchtime are just not supported by other witnesses that day.
There you go again.... Pray tell, who would you expect to support Arnold's statement, when she alone happened to see Oswald? You don't expect others to support Brennan, right? So, why change the rules for Arnold?
And, as far as Oswald himself is concerned, since you don't know with any kind of certainty what he actually said verbatim, how can you even conclude that there was no support for his claim. Norman and Jarman were asked if they had eaten lunch with Oswald and they denied it, that's true, but what if that was the wrong question to ask? What if they were asked instead if it was possible that Oswald saw them "walking through the room" on the first floor just prior to the shooting?
Wesley Johnson:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on March 09, 2018, 10:45:15 PM ---Martin, you edited your previous post and added the remark about Sanders after I quoted it. Was that intentional or just an afterthought?
I accidentally posted the message before it was finished and then added the rest.
It just seems like you debate mainly as a "devil's advocate" from the CT side.
Really? And it isn't obvious to you why?
By the way, I just look at statements by witnesses like Arnold, Sanders or whomever and weigh it in the balance of the whole situation.
Sure you do....and the "whole situation" would be the official narrative, right?
So, in Arnold's case you give more weight to her possibly getting the time wrong, some 15 years after the fact, than her consistency in saying she saw Oswald just prior to the shooting? And in Sanders' case you take away from her statement something she did not actually say and incorrectly claim it doesn't support what Arnold said?
Arnold's statements, as well as Oswald's, concerning where he was at lunchtime are just not supported by other witnesses that day.
There you go again.... First of all, who would you expect to support Arnold's statement, when she alone happened to see Oswald? And, as far as Oswald himself is concerned, since you don't know with any kind of certainty what he said verbatim, how can you even conclude that there was no support for his claim. Norman and Jarman were asked if they had eaten lunch with Oswald and they denied it, that's true, but what if that was the wrong question to ask? What if they were asked instead if it was possible that Oswald saw them "walking through the room" on the first floor just prior to the shooting?
--- End quote ---
Name a witness that supports Arnold or Oswald's statements of where Oswald had lunch. I've read the statements by Captain Will Fritz and he stated that when asked "Oswald said he had lunch on the first floor".
"What if they were asked instead if it was possible that Oswald saw them "walking through the room" on the first floor just prior to the shooting?"
Seriously? What if they were asked "could Oswald have been in the toilet when they came through?" what if they were asked "could Carolyn Arnold have been on the first floor when they walked through?" what if they were asked "Could Micky Mantle have been in the room when they walked through?" You can attempt to twist and spin it however you like Martin, I stand by my question "name any witness that can support Oswald's and Arnold's statements concerning where Oswald was during lunch." Have you read the documents concerning Oswald's interrogation and studied the films of the man while in custody? If he was being framed and a "patsy" as he claimed, he sure didn't act like it. I would have been screaming my head off every chance I got for a lawyer and telling Captain Fritz I was innocent. Oswald did not do that Martin. On the contrary he was confrontational the whole time. He told lie after lie.
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Wesley Johnson on March 09, 2018, 11:15:26 PM ---
Name a witness that supports Arnold or Oswald's statements of where Oswald had lunch. I've read the statements by Captain Will Fritz and he stated that when asked "Oswald said he had lunch on the first floor".
"What if they were asked instead if it was possible that Oswald saw them "walking through the room" on the first floor just prior to the shooting?"
Seriously? What if they were asked "could Oswald have been in the toilet when they came through?" what if they were asked "could Carolyn Arnold have been on the first floor when they walked through?" what if they were asked "Could Micky Mantle have been in the room when they walked through?" You can attempt to twist and spin it however you like Martin, I stand by my question "name any witness that can support Oswald's and Arnold's statements concerning where Oswald was during lunch." Have you read the documents concerning Oswald's interrogation and studied the films of the man while in custody? If he was being framed and a "patsy" as he claimed, he sure didn't act like it. I would have been screaming my head off every chance I got for a lawyer and telling Captain Fritz I was innocent. Oswald did not do that Martin. On the contrary he was confrontational the whole time. He told lie after lie.
--- End quote ---
Name a witness that supports Arnold or Oswald's statements of where Oswald had lunch.
Asking for information which you know does not exist, or at least is not included in the official narative, does not make your case any stronger. In fact, trying to shift the burden of proof only weakens your own arguments.
I've read the statements by Captain Will Fritz and he stated that when asked "Oswald said he had lunch on the first floor".
The problem is, that what Fritz says isn't always supported by what others who were present said in their reports. But in this case, if Oswald said he had his lunch on the first floor (in the Domino room) what do you think that proves?
On the one hand it only makes it more possible that he did indeed see Norman and Jarman enter the building, minutes before the shots being fired and on the other hand it does not rule out at all that, after he finished his lunch, Oswald went up to the 2nd floor lunchroom to get a drink. So, what is your point?
Remember, the man in the 6th floor window was first seen some 15 minutes prior to the shooting. The problem for you is that we know for a fact that Norman and Jarman entered the shipping room of the building anywhere between 12.20 and 12.25. If Oswald did in fact see them and/or if Carolyn Arnold did see Oswald some time between 12.20 (when Sanders said she was in the 2nd floor lunchroom) and 12.25 (when Arnold said she left the building to watch to motorcade) you've got Oswald on either the first or second floor at a time when the man seen in the 6th floor window was already in position!
Seriously? What if they were asked "could Oswald have been in the toilet when they came through?" what if they were asked "could Carolyn Arnold have been on the first floor when they walked through?"
Trying to ridicule a serious point is a weak strategy. The point I was making, which apparently went over your head, is that the quality of the answer by a witness is determined by the quality of the question asked. Ask the wrong question and you get a wrong answer. Failure to question Norman and Jarman more closely on this subject tells me that Fritz et all were not really interested in finding out anything that might support Oswald's claim.
You can attempt to twist and spin it however you like Martin, I stand by my question "name any witness that can support Oswald's and Arnold's statements concerning where Oswald was during lunch."
Name one person who can support Brennan's claim that it was Oswald who was shooting from the 6th floor window?
Name one person who can support Bledsoe's claim that Oswald was wearing the same shirt on the bus as he was arrested in?
Name one person who can support Roberts' claim that Oswald left the roominghouse zipping up a jacket?
See, how easy it is to ask such questions?
You seem to think (as many LNs do) that your position is correct unless you can be proven wrong. It doesn't work that way. There is no "winning by default". You need to prove your case... try and concentrate on that!
Have you read the documents concerning Oswald's interrogation and studied the films of the man while in custody?
Yes, I have read the reports and they contradict eachother too often to be considered accurate or sufficiently reliable. As for the fims of Oswald in custody, I don't really see what's there to study...
If he was being framed and a "patsy" as he claimed, he sure didn't act like it.
Really? How was he supposed to act?
I would have been screaming my head off every chance I got for a lawyer and telling Captain Fritz I was innocent.
You are not Oswald. Not everybody reacts and acts in the same way. Just because you would do something one way, doesn't mean that everybody else has to do it that way. Your argument is bogus. Besides, Oswald protested his innocence and he did ask for a lawyer several times.
Oswald did not do that Martin. On the contrary he was confrontational the whole time.
How in the world would you even know this for a fact? And what does that mean to you? Oswald did something different than you would do and thus he must be guilty, is that it? That's right out of the Salem playbook.
He told lie after lie.
We have already established that there is no verbatim account of what Oswald really said while in custody, yet you continue to claim he lied.... based on what, exactly?
Colin Crow:
--- Quote from: Wesley Johnson on March 09, 2018, 11:15:26 PM ---
Name a witness that supports Arnold or Oswald's statements of where Oswald had lunch. I've read the statements by Captain Will Fritz and he stated that when asked "Oswald said he had lunch on the first floor".
"What if they were asked instead if it was possible that Oswald saw them "walking through the room" on the first floor just prior to the shooting?"
Seriously? What if they were asked "could Oswald have been in the toilet when they came through?" what if they were asked "could Carolyn Arnold have been on the first floor when they walked through?" what if they were asked "Could Micky Mantle have been in the room when they walked through?" You can attempt to twist and spin it however you like Martin, I stand by my question "name any witness that can support Oswald's and Arnold's statements concerning where Oswald was during lunch." Have you read the documents concerning Oswald's interrogation and studied the films of the man while in custody? If he was being framed and a "patsy" as he claimed, he sure didn't act like it. I would have been screaming my head off every chance I got for a lawyer and telling Captain Fritz I was innocent. Oswald did not do that Martin. On the contrary he was confrontational the whole time. He told lie after lie.
--- End quote ---
And what would Oswald's motivation be for trying to provide an alibi that included co-workers who could easily deny his presence there. Does anyone think Fritz would not ask Jarman and Norman if Oswald was there? Perhaps that is not exactly what he said.....we will never know will we.
How could Oswald pick the only 2 co-workers that just happened to pass the domino room within 5 minutes of the shots? Was he Nostradamus? Perhaps he knew he would be killed on the Sunday and it didn?t matter what he said.
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on March 09, 2018, 10:45:15 PM ---
So, in Arnold's case you give more weight to her possibly getting the time wrong, some 15 years after the fact, than her consistency throughout the years in saying she saw Oswald just prior to the shooting? And in Sanders' case you take away from her statement something she did not actually say and incorrectly claim it doesn't support what Arnold said?
--- End quote ---
There was no consistency in her statements. Saying that she might have caught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald standing on the first floor at 12:25 is not the same as saying that she saw him in the second floor lunchroom at 12:15. Even her statements made in 1978 are not consistent with one another.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version