How Do LNers Deal With Givens?

[Dan O'meara]

You start with the silly assumption that the time estimates given by various witnesses are spot on accurate. Why would anyone assume such a thing. People don't mentally time stamp things they observe. Why the hell would they? If somebody says something happened at ABOUT 12:15, that could mean 12:10 or 12:20 or sometime in between or outside of those times. To be fair, it is a common practice in the discussion of JFKA for people to accept estimates as fixed times. I've also seen LNs do this as well. I've probably done it myself a few times over the years. The simple fact is that if so-and-so said something happened at about 12:15, we really don't know what time that event happened.

Furthermore, even if these time estimates were spot on accurate, it would not preclude Oswald having fired the shots at 12:30. If Oswald was on the first floor at 12:00 and BRW was on the 6th floor until 12:15, that still leaves the 6th floor all to Oswald for 15 minutes prior to JFK's arrival in Dealey Plaza. Plenty of time to assemble the rifle if he hadn't assembled it already and stack the boxes that formed the rifle rest.

This entire thread is much ado about nothing. I guess after over six decades of futility in trying to find real evidence of a conspiracy, the CTs are getting desperate to find something of significance. Instead they kept coming up with nothingburgers.

You start with the silly assumption that the time estimates given by various witnesses are spot on accurate.

I haven't started with this assumption at all. That's a strawman argument you've invented because you simply cannot provide any kind of coherent counter-argument.
If, as you say, I've started with such an assumption, please point everyone to the post where I've done so.

The rest of your post is utter drivel, as usual.
The usual ranting with nothing to back it up.

Do you deny the WC omitted the elevator race from the final report. Or the testimony of Piper. Or the testimony of Rowland?
Can you argue against my point that the WC deliberately created a false narrative by ignoring all this evidence in favour of the fabrication involving Givens returning to the 6th floor?
Can you do it using evidence rather than your usual bluster?
Can you get involved in a genuine debate?

It can be demonstrated, without any reasonable doubt, that the WC manipulated testimonial evidence in order to create a false narrative.
This is not a conspiracy. It's a simple fact
And I've not even got to the good stuff yet - the testimonies and statements of the six first responders on the scene who place Bonnie Ray's lunch remains on top of the Sniper's Nest.

As you have already revealed, you have no idea where Oswald was in the minutes leading up to the assassination.
When we look objectively at the testimonial evidence the WC left out of it's report concerning this time, a narrative emerges that calls into question the assumptions that you, and every other Nutter, have made about the shooting.

Furthermore, even if these time estimates were spot on accurate, it would not preclude Oswald having fired the shots at 12:30. If Oswald was on the first floor at 12:00 and BRW was on the 6th floor until 12:15, that still leaves the 6th floor all to Oswald for 15 minutes prior to JFK's arrival in Dealey Plaza


Present the evidence for BRW arriving on the 6th floor so late rather than just blurt it out in desperation.
Use your brain to construct an argument and let's have a debate.

[John Corbett]

You start with the silly assumption that the time estimates given by various witnesses are spot on accurate.

I haven't started with this assumption at all. That's a strawman argument you've invented because you simply cannot provide any kind of coherent counter-argument.
If, as you say, I've started with such an assumption, please point everyone to the post where I've done so.

I guess you're not bright enough to figure out that when you draw conclusions based on time estimates witnesses have given, you are assuming that those estimates are accurate. If those estimates are off by even a little, your whole argument collapses like a cheap lawn chair. [/quote]

The rest of your post is utter drivel, as usual.
The usual ranting with nothing to back it up.

Do you deny the WC omitted the elevator race from the final report. Or the testimony of Piper. Or the testimony of Rowland?
Can you argue against my point that the WC deliberately created a false narrative by ignoring all this evidence in favour of the fabrication involving Givens returning to the 6th floor?
Can you do it using evidence rather than your usual bluster?
Can you get involved in a genuine debate? [/quote]

The WC left a lot of irrelevant things out of their final report for reasons already stated. They did provide the 26 volumes of testimony for anal people such as yourself who want to pick the fly$hit out of the pepper. 

It can be demonstrated, without any reasonable doubt, that the WC manipulated testimonial evidence in order to create a false narrative.
This is not a conspiracy. It's a simple fact
And I've not even got to the good stuff yet - the testimonies and statements of the six first responders on the scene who place Bonnie Ray's lunch remains on top of the Sniper's Nest.

Gee, i'd hate to think that the crap you've presented so far was the good stuff.

As you have already revealed, you have no idea where Oswald was in the minutes leading up to the assassination.

Nor do I need to know. i know where he was at 12:30. He was blowing JFK's brains out.

When we look objectively at the testimonial evidence the WC left out of it's report concerning this time, a narrative emerges that calls into question the assumptions that you, and every other Nutter, have made about the shooting.

Furthermore, even if these time estimates were spot on accurate, it would not preclude Oswald having fired the shots at 12:30. If Oswald was on the first floor at 12:00 and BRW was on the 6th floor until 12:15, that still leaves the 6th floor all to Oswald for 15 minutes prior to JFK's arrival in Dealey Plaza


Present the evidence for BRW arriving on the 6th floor so late rather than just blurt it out in desperation.
Use your brain to construct an argument and let's have a debate.

It is truly laughable that there are people in this world who think the WCR should have contained every word of testimony given over the course of a 9 month long investigation.

[Dan O'meara]

I guess you're not bright enough to figure out that when you draw conclusions based on time estimates witnesses have given, you are assuming that those estimates are accurate. If those estimates are off by even a little, your whole argument collapses like a cheap lawn chair.

The rest of your post is utter drivel, as usual.
The usual ranting with nothing to back it up.

Do you deny the WC omitted the elevator race from the final report. Or the testimony of Piper. Or the testimony of Rowland?
Can you argue against my point that the WC deliberately created a false narrative by ignoring all this evidence in favour of the fabrication involving Givens returning to the 6th floor?
Can you do it using evidence rather than your usual bluster?
Can you get involved in a genuine debate?

The WC left a lot of irrelevant things out of their final report for reasons already stated. They did provide the 26 volumes of testimony for anal people such as yourself who want to pick the fly$hit out of the pepper. 
Gee, i'd hate to think that the crap you've presented so far was the good stuff.
Nor do I need to know. i know where he was at 12:30. He was blowing JFK's brains out.
It is truly laughable that there are people in this world who think the WCR should have contained every word of testimony given over the course of a 9 month long investigation.

Not a single argument presented.
Not a single scrap of evidence provided on which to base any kind of counter-argument.
Just the maniacal rantings of a rabid zealot.

When you try to engage with this issue you just look buffoonish and are forced to question your precious WC narrative - "We also don't know where Oswald was during the time BRW was at the window".
And when that doesn't work you resort to the sort of fabrication the WC would be proud of - " If Oswald was on the first floor at 12:00 and BRW was on the 6th floor until 12:15"

So, here's a challenge for you. Rather than spew your endless Oswald-Did-It routine (and you accuse me of starting off with an assumption! ), let's have a rational discussion about any detail of the argument I'm putting forward. Pick a specific detail, any detail, and let's debate rationally.
What do you say?

[John Corbett]

Not a single argument presented.
Not a single scrap of evidence provided on which to base any kind of counter-argument.
Just the maniacal rantings of a rabid zealot.

When you try to engage with this issue you just look buffoonish and are forced to question your precious WC narrative - "We also don't know where Oswald was during the time BRW was at the window".

Can you explain how anyone could know that or why it is even important to know that? Of course you can't. There is ample evidence  that Oswald was in the sniper's nest at 12:30 firing the shots that killed JFK. The fact you think it is important to know where Oswald was in the minutes leading up to the assassination reveals just how dumb you rare.

And when that doesn't work you resort to the sort of fabrication the WC would be proud of - " If Oswald was on the first floor at 12:00 and BRW was on the 6th floor until 12:15"

So, here's a challenge for you. Rather than spew your endless Oswald-Did-It routine (and you accuse me of starting off with an assumption! ), let's have a rational discussion about any detail of the argument I'm putting forward. Pick a specific detail, any detail, and let's debate rationally.
What do you say?

Nobody could have a rational debate with someone as stupid as you. You think the most trivial things are important while ignoring the compelling evidence that Oswald was the assassin. That is not an assumption. An assumption is a belief made in lieu of evidence, such as all theories that anyone except Oswald took part in the crime. The fact that you obsess over trivialities such as a supposed elevator race prior to the assassination reveals just how clueless you are. You focus on all the dumb stuff while ignoring what is important. Sorry, just being honest.

[Dan O'meara]

Can you explain how anyone could know that or why it is even important to know that? Of course you can't. There is ample evidence  that Oswald was in the sniper's nest at 12:30 firing the shots that killed JFK. The fact you think it is important to know where Oswald was in the minutes leading up to the assassination reveals just how dumb you rare.

The is zero credible evidence that Oswald was in the SN at 12:30. Zero.
You are so dumb you don't know the difference between a fact and a theory.
Talking about your dumbness...let me spoon feed to you exactly what is going on in this thread.
I am demonstrating a specific pattern of evidential fabrication, manipulation and omission by the Warren Commission, designed to create a false narrative that placed Oswald all alone on the 6th floor after everyone else went down to lunch.
The fact you don't think it's important that the Sham would do such a thing just shows what a rabid Nutter you are.

On top of the testimonies of Williams, Givens, Lovelady, Arce and Piper the Sham had to 'ignore', was the testimony of Arnold Rowland who observed a man with a scoped, high-powered rifle on the 6th floor. This testimony should have been the centrepiece of the Sham's narrative regarding Oswald's movements leading up to the assassination. Instead it was quietly dropped in a most devious fashion but not because of the man with the rifle. The problem with Arnold's testimony was the black male he reported seeing in the SN window who disappeared a few minutes before the motorcade arrived in Dealey Plaza. It was also notable what Rowland didn't see. His gaze constantly returned to the 6th floor as he scanned the windows looking for the man with the rifle and what he didn't see was BRW sat at the third set of windows along. Instead he saw a black man in the SN window.

Nobody could have a rational debate with someone as stupid as you. You think the most trivial things are important while ignoring the compelling evidence that Oswald was the assassin. That is not an assumption. An assumption is a belief made in lieu of evidence, such as all theories that anyone except Oswald took part in the crime. The fact that you obsess over trivialities such as a supposed elevator race prior to the assassination reveals just how clueless you are. You focus on all the dumb stuff while ignoring what is important. Sorry, just being honest.

I didn't expect for a second that you would actually engage in any kind of rational debate.
That would require far more knowledge about the evidence than you possess, not to mention a bit of backbone.
All you've done is misrepresent and insult. You have offered nothing and will continue to do so.
You really should run along.

[John Corbett]

The is zero credible evidence that Oswald was in the SN at 12:30. Zero.

I suppose you could make a dumber statement, but it is hard to imagine how.

[Dan O'meara]

I suppose you could make a dumber statement, but it is hard to imagine how.

Present a single piece of credible evidence that places Oswald in the SN at 12:30pm.