How Do LNers Deal With Givens?

[Dan O'meara]

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.

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 

[John Corbett]

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 

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]

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.

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!

[John Corbett]

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!

Pat Speer is an idiot and anyone who believes him must be as well.

It wouldn't surprise me if the other LNs already know what an idiot you are and not worth the time it takes to respond to your moronic posts.

[Dan O'meara]

Pat Speer is an idiot and anyone who believes him must be as well.

It wouldn't surprise me if the other LNs already know what an idiot you are and not worth the time it takes to respond to your moronic posts.

 
Do some research and stop making a fool out of yourself.

[John Corbett]

Another Fairy tale. There is zero proof Oswald was in that window. Givens was a fraud.

You're nuts. 'nuff said.

[Dan O'meara]

Returning to the conclusion of the WC Report:



"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]

The report states that " no one could be found who saw Oswald anywhere else in the building until after the shooting.". This is an out-and-out lie. A deliberate falsehood. The last person to see Oswald was Eddie Piper. His testimony was deliberately omitted and replaced with the fabricated Givens story.
On the day of the assassination Piper began work at 10:00am and broke for lunch at 12:00. In his WC testimony Piper states that as he was breaking for lunch he spoke to Oswald He is asked twice what time this happened:

Mr. BALL. And, did you see Oswald that morning?
Mr. PIPER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. PIPER. Down on the first floor filling orders.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see him again that day?
Mr. PIPER. You mean all day-the rest of the day?
Mr. BALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. PIPER. No.
Mr. BALL. Was that the last time you saw him?
Mr. PIPER. Just at 12 o’clock.
Mr. BALL. Where were you at 12 o’clock?
Mr. PIPER. Down on the first floor.

Mr. BALL.  What time was it that you spoke to Oswald and said you thought you would have your lunch?
Mr. PIPER. Just about 12 o’clock.

Why would the WC use Givens' clearly fake story yet deliberately omit Piper's testimony?