The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate
How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
John Corbett:
i don't even know where to start regarding Dan O''Meara's latest post in this thread. I can't even follow his reasoning or see any evidence he applied any reasoning at all. It's one of the dumbest post I've read on this forum. It shows no logic or common sense. I don't see how anything Givens had to say, whether true or false, does anything to either strengthen or weaken the case against Oswald. What the hell difference does it make whether or not Givens saw Oswald on the 6th floor 35 minutes before the shooting? Can anybody explain this nonsense to me?
Maybe I'm the idiot for responding to it in the first place.
Jarrett Smith:
--- Quote from: Dan O'meara on September 03, 2026, 10:43:02 AM ---One of the more blatant fabrications of the Warren Commission Sham was the introduction of Charles Givens' fictional account of going back up to the 6th floor and seeing Oswald coming from the southeast corner.
How do LNers deal with this fabrication? How do they explain it away?
And this was no trivial detail.
It was one of the key pieces of evidence the Sham offered up in the conclusions of its final report placing Oswald at the scene of the crime.
"Fingerprint and palmprint evidence establishes that Oswald handled two of the four cartons next to the window and also handled a paper bag which was found near the cartons. Oswald was seen in the vicinity of the southeast corner of the sixth floor approximately 35 minutes before the assassination and no one could be found who saw Oswald anywhere else in the building until after the shooting. An eyewitness to the shooting immediately provided a description of the man in the window which was similar to Oswald's actual appearance. This witness identified Oswald in a lineup as the man most nearly resembling the man he saw and later identified Oswald as the man he observed. Oswald's known actions in the building immediately after the assassination are consistent with his having been at the southeast corner window of the sixth floor at 12:30 p.m. On the basis of these findings the Commission has concluded that. Oswald, at the time of the assassination, was present at the window from which the shots were fired."[WC Report pg156]
--- End quote ---
Another Fairy tale. There is zero proof Oswald was in that window. Givens was a fraud.
Dan O'meara:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on September 03, 2026, 06:06:37 PM ---i don't even know where to start regarding Dan O''Meara's latest post in this thread. I can't even follow his reasoning or see any evidence he applied any reasoning at all. It's one of the dumbest post I've read on this forum. It shows no logic or common sense. I don't see how anything Givens had to say, whether true or false, does anything to either strengthen or weaken the case against Oswald. What the hell difference does it make whether or not Givens saw Oswald on the 6th floor 35 minutes before the shooting? Can anybody explain this nonsense to me?
Maybe I'm the idiot for responding to it in the first place.
--- End quote ---
Maybe I'm the idiot for responding to it in the first place.
Maybe you were an idiot before responding to it.
Maybe that's why you can't follow the reasoning.
Maybe that's why you don't know what difference it makes if the Warren Commission Sham fabricated testimony.
What, exactly, is it you need explaining to you? Should I use smaller words or type more slowly?
As usual, you don't have the first clue about this issue yet you feel you have the authority to come wading in. A true Nutter trait.
As usual I will steer you to resources where you can actually learn something before you reveal the true depths of your ignorance. Start off with "The Curious Testimony of Mr Givens by Sylvia Meagher".
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Meagher%20Sylvia%20Clips/New%20Wave%201975%20Articles%20Mss/New%20Wave%2003.pdf
Then get into Pat Speer's analysis here:
https://www.patspeer.com/chapter4-pinning-the-tale-on-the-oswald
Scroll down to "Step 4: The 4-8-64 Testimony of Charles Givens".
Enjoy.
Can anybody explain this nonsense to me?
Maybe some of your fellow Nutters would like to have a go Thumb1:
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Dan O'meara on September 03, 2026, 11:41:18 PM ---
Maybe I'm the idiot for responding to it in the first place.
Maybe you were an idiot before responding to it.
Maybe that's why you can't follow the reasoning.
Maybe that's why you don't know what difference it makes if the Warren Commission Sham fabricated testimony.
What, exactly, is it you need explaining to you? Should I use smaller words or type more slowly?
As usual, you don't have the first clue about this issue yet you feel you have the authority to come wading in. A true Nutter trait.
As usual I will steer you to resources where you can actually learn something before you reveal the true depths of your ignorance. Start off with "The Curious Testimony of Mr Givens by Sylvia Meagher".
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Meagher%20Sylvia%20Clips/New%20Wave%201975%20Articles%20Mss/New%20Wave%2003.pdf
Then get into Pat Speer's analysis here:
https://www.patspeer.com/chapter4-pinning-the-tale-on-the-oswald
Scroll down to "Step 4: The 4-8-64 Testimony of Charles Givens".
Enjoy.
Can anybody explain this nonsense to me?
Maybe some of your fellow Nutters would like to have a go Thumb1:
--- End quote ---
If you've convinced yourself that the WC fabricated Givens story, you really have gone off the rails. Givens couldn't have been less important to the WC's case against Oswald. All he contributed was that he saw Oswald on the 6th floor 35 minutes before the shooting. Why does that even matter? You could go from any location in the TSBD to any other location in the TSBD in less than 5 minutes, so why would it be at all important to the WC to establish that Oswald was seen on the 6th floor 35 minutes before the shooting? This is a big nothing burger.
I do have one thing to thank you for. I'd heard the name Pat Speer for years but never had any reason to check out his work. I checked out the link you posted and I now know that Pat Speer is a real moron. His opening paragraph that Oswald needed to be an experienced sniper in order to have taken out JFK. The longest shot was only 88 yards and he missed with his first shot. Killing JFK at that distance didn't require any high level of skill. An experienced sniper could have made the kill shot at 4 times that range. I'd be embarrassed to let people know I was a disciple of Pat Speer.
Dan O'meara:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on September 04, 2026, 12:19:58 AM ---If you've convinced yourself that the WC fabricated Givens story, you really have gone off the rails. Givens couldn't have been less important to the WC's case against Oswald. All he contributed was that he saw Oswald on the 6th floor 35 minutes before the shooting. Why does that even matter? You could go from any location in the TSBD to any other location in the TSBD in less than 5 minutes, so why would it be at all important to the WC to establish that Oswald was seen on the 6th floor 35 minutes before the shooting? This is a big nothing burger.
--- End quote ---
Do some actual research.
You can start with the links I gave you.
You too will be convinced that the Givens story is a fabrication.
And if you think that the WC Sham fabricating testimony is a nothing burger...
Meanwhile - ROLL UP, ROLL UP NUTTERS. LET'S HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. DON'T LEAVE POOR OLD CORBETT FLAPPING AROUND ON HIS OWN!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version