JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jerry Freeman on July 25, 2020, 04:39:53 AM
-
Forum trolls
One visit to any Kennedy assassination forum (take your pick) where discussions about the case continue ad nauseam tells you all you need to know about the state of affairs fifty-plus-years after the fact:
The same questions asked over and over again (and answered over and over again).
Discussions that begin innocently enough; then quickly disintegrate into name-calling.
A *wasteland of supposition, innuendo, and myth that is accepted as fact
A demonstrative left-leaning bias that excludes any individual person or thought that dares to challenge the left-leaning status quo
And perhaps the most important observation:
Not one single, verifiable new fact about the assassination has ever been revealed on one of these forums. Not one!
That fact, and that fact alone, has kept me from participating in most of those forums. Simply put, there’s nothing new to learn; and as such, for serious researchers (perhaps more old-school than new), those forums are a colossal waste of time.
Now, of course, there are a few exceptions – forums where logic and reason tend to rule and where an honest effort is made to disseminate true facts – but these forums are far and few between.
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2019/11/
"A demonstrative left-leaning bias that excludes any individual person or thought that dares to challenge the left-leaning status quo"
That was a surprising line to me. I have viewed the Trump Supporters thread and it looks to me like it is the liberal lefties who support the official story and the conservatives who vote for a cover up. Of course there are exceptions.
Dale...if you ever find this thread---Not all questions are answered, several are just ignored.
Not one single, verifiable new fact about the assassination has ever been revealed on one of these forums. Not one!
That is absolutely not true.
This thread... https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2264.0.html demonstrates that Johnny Brewer and Julia Postal were lying and Dale Myers failed to research these lies.
The *wasteland are the apologetic rags that purport that the Warren Commission got it right when they rubber stamped the Dallas Police comedy of errors. Automatically ruled out in the assault on JFK were Johnson, Hoover, the military brass who wanted him out.. & the southern big business guys who wished to do without him.
A wasteland of supposition, innuendo, and myth that is accepted as fact
Accepted as fact is because Oswald did it... a single bullet blew through two people and was miraculously found in amazingly near perfect condition. Because Oswald did it all alone---it just had to be.
The Warren Commission Report wished to demonstrate that Oswald was a murderous cad so they set out to blast him as a wife beater
Read this thread and see that it was staged... https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,907.0.html
It has been demonstrated on this forum that it was doubtful that Oswald even had a rifle so how could he have shot into General Walkers house with a rifle he didn't even have? https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1189.0.html
forums where logic and reason tend to rule and where an honest effort is made to disseminate true facts –
However if someone claims---cover up...well, they are just not being logical or reasonable.
-
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2019/11/
That was a surprising line to me. I have viewed the Trump Supporters thread and it looks to me like it is the liberal lefties who support the official story and the conservatives who vote for a cover up. Of course there are exceptions.
Dale...if you ever find this thread---Not all questions are answered, several are just ignored. That is absolutely not true.
This thread... https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2264.0.html demonstrates that Johnny Brewer and Julia Postal were lying and Dale Myers failed to research these lies.
The *wasteland are the apologetic rags that purport that the Warren Commission got it right when they rubber stamped the Dallas Police comedy of errors. Automatically ruled out in the assault on JFK were Johnson, Hoover, the military brass who wanted him out.. & the southern big business guys who wished to do without him.Accepted as fact is because Oswald did it... a single bullet blew through two people and was miraculously found in amazingly near perfect condition. Because Oswald did it all alone---it just had to be.
The Warren Commission Report wished to demonstrate that Oswald was a murderous cad so they set out to blast him as a wife beater
Read this thread and see that it was staged... https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,907.0.html
It has been demonstrated on this forum that it was doubtful that Oswald even had a rifle so how could he have shot into General Walkers house with a rifle he didn't even have? https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1189.0.htmlHowever if someone claims---cover up...well, they are just not being logical or reasonable.
Jerry why don’t you conduct a poll?
-
A quote from the original post on “Back to the movies with Julia Postal”
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2264.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2264.0.html)
. . .
Second..Postal said that her boss [John Callahan] jumped into his car and chases the police ???
I have noted in the past that it was never reported that Mr Callahan ever returned to his theater that was invaded by law enforcement authorities from all over Dallas. Does that strike anyone else as odd? At least extremely curious? What ever happened to Mr Callahan?
. . .
Yes, this is very strange. A theater manager drives off after the police. Then the police come and swarm over the theater. But the theater manager doesn’t immediately return. How could this be? How could a theater manager run a theater without strong psychic powers? Even if he was blocks away, he would know the police and arrived at his theater and he should return immediately. Very strange.
Mrs. Postal never mention Mr. Callahan ever returning to the theater. And never mentioned that he never returned, either. I guess we should assume he never did, at least, not on that day.
And Mr. Callahan went after the police without Mrs. Postal telling him a man snuck into his theater. Or maybe she did tell him but she did not mention this to the commission. She was not asked so we really don’t know if she told him or not. Or maybe Mr. Callahan also saw a man sneak into his theater and in the wake of the Presidential assassination decided not to confront to man himself but on his own initiative decided to fetch the police himself. There are multiple innocent explanations.
But why should these other explanations even be considered when the truth is obvious? The shoe salesmen, the theater managers and their employees of Dallas were all in on the conspiracy. It didn’t matter where Oswald ran to, he was trapped by lying enemies everywhere. How can Dale Myers be so blind to the obvious truth?
Mr. Freeman, I can assure you that Dale Myers would learn nothing new from reading your post. It would only confirm his opinion about most of the posts on these forums.
-
Mr. Freeman, I can assure you that Dale Myers would learn nothing new from reading your post. It would only confirm his opinion about most of the posts on these forums.
It is nice that you are a spokesperson for Dale Myers.
What about the statement in that Movies thread https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2264.0.html [read ALL the posts]..that Johnny Brewer claimed to have heard that a policeman was shot in Central Oak Cliff on the radio and then saw Oswald cowering by his store as police cars were racing around---but it is demonstrated with all the Dallas radio tapes of that afternoon that no such announcement of a shooting was made until [almost] 2 PM---10 minutes after Oswald was arrested in that theater. Some of the guys here don't even have Tippit shot until "about 1:30" ---the same time it was announced on the radio? A time warp? 20 minutes of time was crammed into a 5 minute bag?
Brewer had a chance to be a hero. Someone must have pointed the way for him and he fetched like a dog....the only scenario I can think of. Who else was in that shoe store with Johnny Brewer?
-
It is nice that you are a spokesperson for Dale Myers.
What about the statement in that Movies thread https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2264.0.html [read ALL the posts]..that Johnny Brewer claimed to have heard that a policeman was shot in Central Oak Cliff on the radio and then saw Oswald cowering by his store as police cars were racing around---but it is demonstrated with all the Dallas radio tapes of that afternoon that no such announcement of a shooting was made until [almost] 2 PM---10 minutes after Oswald was arrested in that theater. Some of the guys here don't even have Tippit shot until "about 1:30" ---the same time it was announced on the radio? A time warp? 20 minutes of time was crammed into a 5 minute bag?
Brewer had a chance to be a hero. Someone must have pointed the way for him and he fetched like a dog....the only scenario I can think of. Who else was in that shoe store with Johnny Brewer?
Could have been a pirate radio. Or maybe he misremembered and it was a person who said it passing his store and not the radio. Brewer seems like a genuine person, i don't think he'd lie intentionally.
-
Could have been a pirate radio. Or maybe he misremembered and it was a person who said it passing his store and not the radio. Brewer seems like a genuine person, i don't think he'd lie intentionally.
Mr Down: do you have any evidence of a "pirate radio" station operating in Dallas at that time?
More importantly, why did Dale Myers ever investigate who was in the store with Brewer when he "spotted " Oswald? That's a research failure on his part.
-
It is nice that you are a spokesperson for Dale Myers.
I am not a spokesperson for Dale Myers, just a fan of his.
What about the statement in that Movies thread https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2264.0.html [read ALL the posts]..that Johnny Brewer claimed to have heard that a policeman was shot in Central Oak Cliff on the radio and then saw Oswald cowering by his store as police cars were racing around---but it is demonstrated with all the Dallas radio tapes of that afternoon that no such announcement of a shooting was made until [almost] 2 PM---10 minutes after Oswald was arrested in that theater. Some of the guys here don't even have Tippit shot until "about 1:30" ---the same time it was announced on the radio? A time warp? 20 minutes of time was crammed into a 5 minute bag?
You are ignoring the common problems with people’s memories. The most probable explanation is that the actual order of events in time are:
1. Mr. Brewer hears over the radio that the President was shot while in Dealey Plaza.
2. Mr. Brewer sees a man behaving in a suspicious manner, ducking into his shoe store briefly, with loud police cars passing by.
3. Mr. Brewer sees the same man ducking into a theater, again with loud police cars approaching.
4. He soon heard that a policeman was shot within the last hour and within a mile of the theater.
And by several months later, by March of 1964, confused “Hearing about the President being shot or shot at” with “Hearing that a Policeman was shot”. Honest witnesses make mistakes like this all the time.
Dealey Plaza was, by road, just within 3 miles of the Texas Theater, and the shoe store. Plenty close enough to rise the suspicions of a casual witness to anyone acting suspiciously just over an hour after the Dealey Plaza shooting.
How many honest mistakes do we have in this case?
How many shots were there? Two? Three? Four?
What directions were the shots from? Some say all from the front? Others all from the back?
What did the limousine do during the shooting? Slow down? Stop? Maintain a steady pace?
Do we have to assume that many of these witnesses are lying? Many witnesses are simply mistaken.
If there is one lesson a student of this event should know, and there is no excuse for not knowing, is how unreliable witness’s memories are. You can’t just lump all witness’s who remember some detail wrong as liars, members of the conspiracy to murder or cover up the murder of the President.
You reach out for the wild explanations, “time warp”, “all liars who were part of the conspiracy or coverup”, and ignore the simplest and most probable explanation, honest witness error.
I still think that Dale Myers has nothing to learn from your posts.
Brewer had a chance to be a hero. Someone must have pointed the way for him and he fetched like a dog....the only scenario I can think of. Who else was in that shoe store with Johnny Brewer?
Who else was in the store with Mr. Brewer? No doubt fellow conspirators, who would support his story. 😊
Mr. Brewer is a hero of these events. Not as big a hero as Officer Tippit or Officer McDonald, but a hero never-the-less. Of course, some CTers hate the true heroes because they besmirch the reputation of their true hero, Oswald.
-
Mr Elliot: who were the people with Brewer in the shoe store?
Also, the radio broadcast story is patently false, but still promulgated by Mr Brewer.
-
You are ignoring the common problems with people’s memories. The most probable explanation is that the actual order of events in time are:
[Joe Elliot makes up his own order of events in spite of Johnny Brewer's testimony and his later in life of even polishing the yarn even more.]Dealey Plaza was, by road, just within 3 miles of the Texas Theater, and the shoe store. Plenty close enough to rise the suspicions of a casual witness to anyone acting suspiciously just over an hour after the Dealey Plaza shooting.
Then by that token--- between the Oswald room and the Tippit shooting there should have been at least someone else who saw a fugitive acting suspiciously.
If there is one lesson a student of this event should know, and there is no excuse for not knowing
Can someone else interpret that?
Of course, some CTers hate the true heroes because they besmirch the reputation of their true hero, Oswald.
A really unnecessarily callus statement...showing the type of maturity Dale Myers spoke of...
Forum trolls---- Discussions that begin innocently enough; then quickly disintegrate into...[whatever]those forums are a colossal waste of time.
Mr Elliot: who were the people with Brewer in the shoe store?***
Also, the radio broadcast story is patently false, but still promulgated by Mr Brewer.
At 1:30 CST the entire planet was waiting to hear news of the presidents condition...6 minutes later the public announcement came on all radio stations.
It was yet another 20 minutes before the policeman was announced shot and a while later after that before he was reported killed.
A link here***Elliot doesn't seem to care anyway-------------------
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16235&search=two_men+from+IBM+JCB#relPageId=9&tab=page
-
Here is that whole interview with Johnny Brewer.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16235&search=two_men+from+IBM+JCB#relPageId=8&tab=page
-
What a raging hypocrite. Myers is one of the worst offenders of namecalling to anyone who dares to question one of his pronouncements.
Recently on Facebook, Myers claimed that the Seaport Traders order was received on March 13. When I asked him to substantiate that, he cited Michaelis’s testimony. When I pointed out that *nowhere* does Michaelis say that, he just doubled down and insisted that he was right.
So, you’re right, Joe. Myers has nothing to learn. Like most of his fellow evangelists, he thinks he has all the answers already.
-
Mr Elliot: who were the people with Brewer in the shoe store?
Also, the radio broadcast story is patently false, but still promulgated by Mr Brewer.
Mr. Tonkowhich
I don’t know if anyone else was in the shoe store. Mr. Freeman brought up the question but did not provide any answer. Go ask him.
Lots of stories that people tell are false. Often because people’s memories are unreliable.
And what motive does Mr. Brewer have to lie and say he was alert because he heard a policeman was shot when he could have said he was alert because he heard the President was shot?
-
[Joe Elliot makes up his own order of events in spite of Johnny Brewer's testimony and his later in life of even polishing the yarn even more.]
Making up my own order of events? Aren’t we all in agreement that the following events happened in the following order: 1. Brewer hears that the President had been shot. 2. Brewer sees Oswald duck into his store. 3. Brewer sees Oswald duck into a theater. 4. Brewer hears that a police officer had been shot?
Am I “making up a scenario”? That Mr. Brewer confused the announcement about the President with the announcement about Officer Tippit. Yes. As are you, that he must have been lying.
You push the notion that when Mr. Brewer said he heard over the radio that a policeman was shot, he was lying.
I, on the other hand, am suggesting that he was mistaken. Because witnesses are often mistaken.
Why is one hypothesis “speculating” while another isn’t?
You never seem to have even considered the hypothesis that Mr. Brewer might have been mistaken. You should have at least brought up that possibility and state the reasons why you reject that hypothesis. By failing to do so, you give the impression that you don’t consider obvious alternatives, until they are pointed out to you.
Could I be wrong? Yes. But why would Mr. Brewer lie? Surely, he must have heard over the radio that the President had been shot. Does his saying he heard a policeman was shot, and that was why noticed that Oswald ducking into buildings make him sound more heroic than to say it was the announcement about the President that made him more alert?
Then by that token--- between the Oswald room and the Tippit shooting there should have been at least someone else who saw a fugitive acting suspiciously.
I don’t think there were any police cars with sirens on driving pass Oswald until after the Officer Tippit shooting. So, I don’t know why he would be ducking into buildings between his boarding house and the Officer Tippit shooting site.
If there is one lesson a student of this event should know, and there is no excuse for not knowing
Can someone else interpret that?
You truncated my statement to make it seem incoherent. It would be like I quoted you as saying “Can someone else that?” instead of “Can someone else interpret that?”.
Let’s look at my original sentence.
If there is one lesson a student of this event should know, and there is no excuse for not knowing, is how unreliable witness’s memories are. You can’t just lump all witness’s who remember some detail wrong as liars, members of the conspiracy to murder or cover up the murder of the President.
Let me explain this so that maybe even you can understand. There is one thing that everyone should be able to figure out. It is that witness’s memories are unreliable. We know this because so many of the Dealey Plaza witnesses disagree with each other. There is no other reasonable explanation. I guess one can say that a lot of witnesses lied just for the hell of it, but I don’t see how that speculation is more likely to be true. We should expect this to be true of witnesses at Dealey Plaza. And of witnesses elsewhere, like in a shoe store. People’s memories are just unreliable.
Of course, some CTers hate the true heroes because they besmirch the reputation of their true hero, Oswald.
A really unnecessarily callus statement...showing the type of maturity Dale Myers spoke of...
More callus than calling Mr. Brewer a liar without at least bringing up the possibility that he remembered some of the details wrong, just like many other witnesses?
At 1:30 CST the entire planet was waiting to hear news of the presidents condition...6 minutes later the public announcement came on all radio stations.
It was yet another 20 minutes before the policeman was announced shot and a while later after that before he was reported killed.
Not the entire planet. Oswald wasn’t.
Yes, but how does all this tell us that Mr. Brewer’s false statement made three months later was a lie and not an honest mistake. And what would be the reason for him to lie?
If one believes that three shots were actually fired, how does a witness statement that only two shots were fired make him a liar? How do we know the witness couldn’t have been mistaken?
A link here***Elliot doesn't seem to care anyway-------------------
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16235&search=two_men+from+IBM+JCB#relPageId=9&tab=page
If a memory can be mistaken after 3 months, it can even more likely to be mistaken after 30 years. None of us helps us determine if Mr. Brewer was lying or mistaken.
-
1) Brewer hears Kennedy has been shot
2) Brewer hears that a patrolman has been shot
3) Brewer hears sirens
4) Brewer sees a man duck into his lobby
What would you do if you were in Brewer's shoes?
;)
-
1) Brewer hears Kennedy has been shot
2) Brewer hears that a patrolman has been shot
3) Brewer hears sirens
4) Brewer sees a man duck into his lobby
Brewer has nothing to lie about: Ask yourself: What would you do if you were in Brewer's shoes?
;)
I'd say Brewer had a police radio. In other words, illegally listening in on police communications. Lots of peopel do this.
That was the "radio" he heard the report on that a police officer had been shot.
-
I'd say Brewer had a police radio. In other words, illegally listening in on police communications. Lots of peopel do this.
That was the "radio" he heard the report on that a police officer had been shot.
illegally listening in on police communications.
Not according to "Richard Smith"
-
CTers always make a big deal about motive. And motive is important. They often falsely claim that Oswald had no motive. But he did. Many people have murdered famous people. To become historically significant, maybe famous. But in some cases, being historically significant is good enough, and they don’t mind, or can’t avoid, being captured. But in some cases, they would like to escape, maybe get to a foreign country, before claiming their fame.
After murdering President Lincoln, Booth tried to escape. Before proclaiming his act, making himself a historically significant person, Booth tried to stay anonymous and escape, to get to a foreign country where he would be safe. He was deluded. The South was not about to become a foreign country. It was about to surrender. If by some miracle he makes it to Mexico, with a broken leg, there is no hope there. No country in the world was going to harbor the murderer of President Lincoln.
So, there is historical precedent for someone to murder a President, to stay hidden, to stay anonymous, at least until they get over the border.
But now, its time for CTers to step up. To show that they are logically consistent. And answer the question: What is the motive for Mr. Brewer to lie?
He could give Statement 1:
I heard that the President was shot. This made me extra alert. So, when I saw a man act suspiciously and sneak first into my shoe store, as police cars with sirens approached, and then a couple of minutes later sneak into a theater, again, as police cars with sirens approached, I decided to check this out.
Or he could give Statement 2:
I heard that a police officer was shot. This made me extra alert. So, when I saw a man act suspiciously and sneak first into my shoe store, as police cars with sirens approached, and then a couple of minutes later sneak into a theater, again, as police cars with sirens approached, I decided to check this out.
Question 1:
What is Mr. Brewer’s motive for lying? How does Statement 2 serve him better than Statement 1?
My guess is that, as usual, CTers will dodge this question.
If there is no motive, then the logical conclusion is that Mr. Brewer was not lying. That he mis-remembered a detail, like so many of our other witnesses.
-
Mr. Tonkowhich
I don’t know if anyone else was in the shoe store. Mr. Freeman brought up the question but did not provide any answer. Go ask him.
Lots of stories that people tell are false. Often because people’s memories are unreliable.
And what motive does Mr. Brewer have to lie and say he was alert because he heard a policeman was shot when he could have said he was alert because he heard the President was shot?
Mr. Elliot: it's Tonkovich
Who were the other people in the show store?
The FBI made no effort to identify them?
As to Mr. Brewer's motivation? That's what we're trying to find out.
He heard nothing on the radio about the Tippit shooting. Because there had been no such broadcast at that time. Who cares about the falsehoods in his testimony?
Why was he suspicious of Oswald? Why play junior G-man?
-
Mr. Elliot: it's Tonkovich
Mr. Tonkovich: It’s Elliott. With two ‘l’s and two ‘t’s.
Who were the other people in the show store?
The FBI made no effort to identify them?
What other people? Do we have any record of other people in the store at that time, besides Mr. Brewer and Oswald?
I assume Mr. Brewer probably took a few seconds to lock up his shop before following Oswald into the theater. Did he lock up some other people in his shop over the next few minutes while he did this?
As to Mr. Brewer's motivation? That's what we're trying to find out.
No. That is what you have not been able to figure out. You can’t even think of a possible motive for Mr. Brewer to lie.
He heard nothing on the radio about the Tippit shooting. Because there had been no such broadcast at that time. Who cares about the falsehoods in his testimony?
I don’t care about false testimony. I don’t care about a witness saying there was only two shots fired at Dealey Plaza. I don’t care about a witness saying the limousine stopped when we know from the film evidence that this statement is false. I only care if someone can provide some sort of motive for the lie. If that can be done, then maybe the false testimony is a lie, not a false memory. But until someone can come up with a plausible motive, I’m going to chalk it up to the usual “false memories” problem which is so common with witnesses.
You can briefly check out the following website on “false memories”:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/False_memory#:~:text=False%20memory%20refers%20to%20cases,memory%20in%20question%20is%20wrong. (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/False_memory#:~:text=False%20memory%20refers%20to%20cases,memory%20in%20question%20is%20wrong.)
Why was he suspicious of Oswald? Why play junior G-man?
He saw Oswald duck into his store and then duck into a theater within a couple of minutes. Both times with police cars approaching with sirens.
Lot’s of people played junior G-man. We had a car salesman pursue Oswald just after Officer Tippit was shot. We have a mob of people who, went they saw a lot of police cars converge on the Texas theater, assume it had something to do with the assassination. One man wanted the police to allow him to enter the theater and search with a shotgun. There is nothing unusual about Mr. Brewer’s actions. Many others were acting as “junior G-men’.
-
Mr. Elliott:
Mr Brewer mentioned that there other people in the store. IBM employees.
"We were listening to the transistor radio...".
-
Mr. Tonkovich: It’s Elliott. With two ‘l’s and two ‘t’s.
What other people? Do we have any record of other people in the store at that time, besides Mr. Brewer and Oswald?
I assume Mr. Brewer probably took a few seconds to lock up his shop before following Oswald into the theater. Did he lock up some other people in his shop over the next few minutes while he did this?
No. That is what you have not been able to figure out. You can’t even think of a possible motive for Mr. Brewer to lie.
I don’t care about false testimony. I don’t care about a witness saying there was only two shots fired at Dealey Plaza. I don’t care about a witness saying the limousine stopped when we know from the film evidence that this statement is false. I only care if someone can provide some sort of motive for the lie. If that can be done, then maybe the false testimony is a lie, not a false memory. But until someone can come up with a plausible motive, I’m going to chalk it up to the usual “false memories” problem which is so common with witnesses.
You can briefly check out the following website on “false memories”:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/False_memory#:~:text=False%20memory%20refers%20to%20cases,memory%20in%20question%20is%20wrong. (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/False_memory#:~:text=False%20memory%20refers%20to%20cases,memory%20in%20question%20is%20wrong.)
He saw Oswald duck into his store and then duck into a theater within a couple of minutes. Both times with police cars approaching with sirens.
Lot’s of people played junior G-man. We had a car salesman pursue Oswald just after Officer Tippit was shot. We have a mob of people who, went they saw a lot of police cars converge on the Texas theater, assume it had something to do with the assassination. One man wanted the police to allow him to enter the theater and search with a shotgun. There is nothing unusual about Mr. Brewer’s actions. Many others were acting as “junior G-men’.
'He saw Oswald duck into his store and then duck into a theater'
A kind of 'duckduckgo'
(Techies will get it)
And I've asked people before to tell us what they would do if they were in Brewer's shoes.
;)
-
Mr. Tonkowhich I don’t know if anyone else was in the shoe store. Mr. Freeman brought up the question but did not provide any answer. Go ask him.
The answer was provided in reply # 9. I suppose links that are provided are just glanced at [if that much] Stop deliberately mis-spelling names.
-
What other people? Do we have any record of other people in the store at that time, besides Mr. Brewer and Oswald?
I assume Mr. Brewer probably took a few seconds to lock up his shop before following Oswald into the theater. Did he lock up some other people in his shop over the next few minutes while he did this?
The answer was provided in reply # 9. I suppose links that are provided are just glanced at [if that much]
Mr. Elliott:
Mr Brewer mentioned that there other people in the store. IBM employees.
"We were listening to the transistor radio...".
Mr Brewer mentioned that there other people in the store? IBM employees. Ah. Mr. Brewer mentioned that there were other people in the store, who were IBM employees. Now I understand.
I’m not interested in 30-year-old memories. CTers are so desperate to discredit Mr. Brewer that they don’t stick to the most reliable (but not infallible) memories of 3 months after the event, but go to statements made 30 years after the event. I wish CTers would be more honest, and state up front, that they are commenting on statements made 30 years after the event and not sticking to the earliest testimony, which is available. If Mr. Brewer goes to a nursing home, I suspect they will try to get more statements from him and bring them up on this forum.
But, ok, let’s look at the 30-year-old memories. He recalls two friends from IBM visiting the store. The president had just been assassinated, but they decided not to watch events on TV but decided to listen on the radio down at the shoe shop with their friend. This sounds unlikely. So, I suspect it is a false memory. He didn’t recall them being there in 1964 but in 1994 he does. It sounds like a false memory. The kind honest (and dishonest) people generate all the time over the years.
And again, the question you always keep avoiding. Both Mr. Freeman and Mr. Tonkovich.
Question 1:
What is Mr. Brewer’s motive for lying?
Does it make him sound more heroic that he was chatting with two friends from IBM during the hour he helped track down Oswald? More heroic that it was the announcement of a shooting of a police officer and not that of the President that made him more alert and caused him to focus on Oswald? I don’t see how.
Who were the other people in the show store?
The FBI made no effort to identify them?
I have to agree with you on this point. The failure of the FBI to even try to identify these witnesses is inexcusable. Any competent investigating body would have hired a psychic who would have informed them that thirty years later, the Mr. Brewer would remember a couple of other witnesses who were with him. And this would have allowed them to check Mr. Brewer’s story. And if they re-interview the witnesses 30 years later, they may have discovered that the three of them were listening to John Denver singing “Country Roads” over the radio when Oswald ducked into the store.
Stop deliberately mis-spelling names.
Mr. Tonkovich misspelled my name. Its ok for CTers to misspell LNers names but not vice versa.
-
'He saw Oswald duck into his store and then duck into a theater'
A kind of 'duckduckgo'
(Techies will get it)
And I've asked people before to tell us what they would do if they were in Brewer's shoes.
;)
I don’t know what other people do when they suddenly find themselves in someone else’s shoes but I find it best to change shoes immediately, because they are either too tight or too loose. Plus, there is an old Twilight Zone program called “Dead Man’s Shoes” which shows what can happen if you don’t follow this advice.
Its obvious what Mr. Brewer should have done. Write down, as soon as possible, with all the details, everything that happened from the time he first saw Oswald to the time Oswald was taken out of his sight in the theater. That way, he could avoid (maybe) being called a liar down through the years. You’re are taking a chance if you don’t do this and just rely on memory.
And most importantly of all, take the time to pick out for himself some steel toed boots before leaving the shop so he can really kick Oswald in the butt when he finds him. Now that would have been heroic.
-
Mr. Elliott:
Brewer's WC testimony mentions " we were listening to the transistor...".
Who is we?
His testimony: February 1964.
-
He could give Statement 1:
I heard that the President was shot. This made me extra alert. So, when I saw a man act suspiciously and sneak first into my shoe store, as police cars with sirens approached, and then a couple of minutes later sneak into a theater, again, as police cars with sirens approached, I decided to check this out.
Or he could give Statement 2:
I heard that a police officer was shot. This made me extra alert. So, when I saw a man act suspiciously and sneak first into my shoe store, as police cars with sirens approached, and then a couple of minutes later sneak into a theater, again, as police cars with sirens approached, I decided to check this out.
I think it makes a great deal of difference. Seeing a guy who “looks funny” when you’ve heard that a policeman was just shot in Oak Cliff, is very different from seeing a guy “look funny” an hour after (and miles away from where) the president was shot.
But I agree with your overall point. Just because somebody says something that isn’t true, that doesn’t mean he is lying. I’ve been trying to get Mr. O’meara to understand that distinction.
-
Mr. Elliott:
Brewer's WC testimony mentions " we were listening to the transistor...".
Who is we?
His testimony: February 1964.
Yes. But let’s look at his statements made in chronological order. The earliest statements have to be considered the most reliable, although false memories can crop up very quickly.
Two weeks later:
December 6, 1963 Affidavit:
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339626/m1/1/ (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339626/m1/1/)
No mention of “we” hearing the radio. Only “I”. Does say he heard the President had been shot. Also says he heard a police officer had been shot. This cannot be, but false memories can certainly develop in 2 weeks. Said he followed Oswald a bit out on the street. And Saw him duck into the theater.
Only problem: Remembering hearing the radio report of an officer being shot.
Four months later:
April 2, 1964 Warren Commission testimony.
https://www.jdtippit.com/brewer_nov.htm (https://www.jdtippit.com/brewer_nov.htm)
Now, as is typical with memories, problems start to crop up:
He now refers to “we”, not “I”, heard on the radio, the news about the President and the police officer. Even so, he doesn’t say that “we” were there the whole time. “We” heard the reports.
“We listened to all the events”. What does that mean? All the events up to 1:10? All the events up to the time Oswald entered the store? All the events up to the time Oswald was arrested? All the events up to the time Ruby shot Oswald two days later? We can’t tell. It could be that if others where there, they soon left to hunt up a TV set while Mr. Brewer had to stay in the shop. There is no discussion about Mr. Brewer interacting with the “others”, asking what they thought of that strange man, asking them to come with him to the theater to check the exits. Asking them to step out of the store while he temporally locked up. So, I suspect if there were others there, they had left by the time Oswald showed up. It doesn’t make sense that Mr. Brewer would forget all about them and not interact with them in some way if they were still there.
33 years later:
November 25, 1996 interview.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16235&search=two_men+from+IBM+JCB#relPageId=8&tab=page (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16235&search=two_men+from+IBM+JCB#relPageId=8&tab=page)
Now all sorts of problems occur with his story.
33 years later he remembers not only listening to the radio by the station, KLIF. Happens to be the same station Julie Postal said she was listening to in her 1964 testimony.
And now, not only are there others, but there were two other men in the shop when Oswald showed up. They were friends who worked for IBM. They were in there to just in there just to kill time and lounge around. The President had just been shot, but instead of hunting up a TV set, which they could do but Mr. Brewer could not, they decided instead to lounge around and kill time. And again, he does not bring up any interaction with them except when prompted by the interviewer, he responds with “Oh yes, I think I said something. “Said something”. Not asking them to come with him to the theater to watch exits. Not asking them to step out of the store while he locked up. Just said “something” and didn’t interact with them again.
He walked up to the theater booth and said ‘Julie, did you sell a ticket?’. Julie. Julie worked a block away. But he knew her before November 22, 1963? I don’t think he mentioned that in any of his earlier statements. Now Mr. Brewer was 22 years old. I don’t see Julie Postal’s age, but in her Warren Commission testimony she said she graduated from high school in California and returned to Texas, and had been working at the Texas Theater for 11, 14 or 15 years. I don’t think it’s likely that Mr. Brewer was on a first name basis with Julie before November 22, 1963.
In addition, he remembered telling Butch Burroughs “Butch, come on with me’. Butch. I think it was even less likely that Mr. Brewer was on a first name basis with Butch Burroughs.
And not only did Mr. Brewer know “Julie” and “Butch” by there first names, he also knew Oswald. Oswald bought a two-eyelet, crepe-soled shoe, model 8110, size eight and a half, sometime before the assassination. Even thirty years later Mr. Brewer has an amazing memory for all his customers and their shoes. Oswald was very fastidious and meticulous. None of this was mentioned in 1963 or 1964 but by 1996 Mr. Brewer remembered a lot about this customer he met once and sold a pair of shoes to.
All this looks like a classic case of “False Memories”. The witness starts to incorporate information he learned later into his memory. He knows “Julie”. He knows “Butch”. He knows Oswald. Hell, he may remember selling shoes to Jack Ruby by now.
There is no reason for him to make up these lies. To say he was on a first name basis with “Julie”, with “Butch”. To say he sold a pair of shoes to Oswald.
A minor problem two weeks later. More problems four months later. A host of problems 33 years later. Classic signs of false memories cropping up over time.
-
I think it makes a great deal of difference. Seeing a guy who “looks funny” when you’ve heard that a policeman was just shot in Oak Cliff, is very different from seeing a guy “look funny” an hour after (and miles away from where) the president was shot.
But I agree with your overall point. Just because somebody says something that isn’t true, that doesn’t mean he is lying. I’ve been trying to get Mr. O’meara to understand that distinction.
I think hearing:
The President had been shot, 66 minutes earlier, 3 miles away.
Might carry as much weight, or even more weight, then hearing:
A police officer had been shot 21 minutes earlier, half a mile away.
But it is, of course, a matter of opinion.
-
He walked up to the theater booth and said ‘Julie, did you sell a ticket?’. Julie. Julie worked a block away. But he knew her before November 22, 1963? I don’t think he mentioned that in any of his earlier statements. Now Mr. Brewer was 22 years old. I don’t see Julie Postal’s age, but in her Warren Commission testimony she said she graduated from high school in California and returned to Texas, and had been working at the Texas Theater for 11, 14 or 15 years. I don’t think it’s likely that Mr. Brewer was on a first name basis with Julie before November 22, 1963.
Just because they weren’t the same age? They worked just down the block from each other!
Since we’re doing “likely” arguments again, I do t think it’s “likely” that he would be so familiar toward somebody he didn’t know.
-
Yes. But let’s look at his statements made in chronological order. The earliest statements have to be considered the most reliable, although false memories can crop up very quickly.
Do you really want to play that card? I happy to see where it gets us, are you?
-
Just because they weren’t the same age? They worked just down the block from each other!
Since we’re doing “likely” arguments again, I do t think it’s “likely” that he would be so familiar toward somebody he didn’t know.
Probability arguments definitely make sense. Certainly, in this case.
Mr. Brewer was about 7 years younger than Ms. Postal. Mr. Brewer was a tall handsome man with a steady job. It doesn’t sound too likely that they would get to know each other. If they were the same age, it would be more likely. And I get the feeling that Mr. Brewer would probably not get on a first name basis with Butch.
Mr. Brewer knew Julie and Butch. Knew both on a first name basis. Did the Butch act as the ‘chaperone’ for Johnny and Julie on their dates? Or was there something, how shall I say it, a little less conventional about the relationship among the three? To me this all sounds pretty unlikely.
It all boils down to this:
33-year-old memories are suspect.
33-year-old memories that it appears did not exist 2 weeks or 4 months after the event, but do appear by 33 years later, are very suspect.
And new 33-year-old memories that just popped up and sound fishy are very, very, suspect.
And in general, at lot of these new 33-year old memories that just popped up seem fishy.
Mr. Brewer was with two IBM employees. It was a Friday, 6 days before Thanksgiving, when I would think they would be at work but they were just hanging out at a shoe store, lounging around and killing time. Mr. Brewer remembers them being there but doesn’t remember any interaction with them. Asking them if they thought that young man was acting strange. Asking them to come with him to check out this suspicious man. Doesn’t even remember asking them to leave the store so he can lock up for a bit and check out this mystery at the theater.
And he suddenly, years later, remembers that he did see Oswald before. That he sold Oswald a pair of shoes. He now even remembers exactly the model numbers of the shoes. Yeah.
33-year-old memories that just popped up need to seem plausible to be accepted as possibly real memories and not false memories that even honest people will develop over time. These memories do not seem real. There is no obvious reason why they should be lies. None of these memories got him an extra $ 20,000 or do anything for him. They sound like false memories.
-
Probability arguments definitely make sense. Certainly, in this case.
Sure they do. To you. You love “probability arguments” — aka conjecture.
Mr. Brewer knew Julie and Butch. Knew both on a first name basis. Did the Butch act as the ‘chaperone’ for Johnny and Julie on their dates? Or was there something, how shall I say it, a little less conventional about the relationship among the three? To me this all sounds pretty unlikely.
::) Nobody claimed they dated.
Mr. Brewer was with two IBM employees. It was a Friday, 6 days before Thanksgiving, when I would think they would be at work but they were just hanging out at a shoe store, lounging around and killing time.
I agree the “IBM men” hanging out at a shoe store is weird.
Mr. Brewer remembers them being there but doesn’t remember any interaction with them. Asking them if they thought that young man was acting strange. Asking them to come with him to check out this suspicious man. Doesn’t even remember asking them to leave the store so he can lock up for a bit and check out this mystery at the theater.
You didn’t read the interview, did you?
They locked up for him while he was gone. Which is even weirder.
-
Sure they do. To you. You love “probability arguments” — aka conjecture.
::) Nobody claimed they dated.
Still, it is a coincidence that the people he already knew on a first name basis who worked within a block of him would just happen to figure prominently in the events that lead to Oswald’s capture, and whose names he would definitely learn of afterwards.
I agree the “IBM men” hanging out at a shoe store is weird.
You didn’t read the interview, did you?
They locked up for him while he was gone. Which is even weirder.
I did not read the 33 year old statements carefully because they were made so long after the event. Just glanced through them enough to find a few new and unlikely events that serve no purpose. Unlikely to have happened. And Mr. Brewer gains nothing to make them up and lie. They sound like classic honest false memories.
-
If a memory can be mistaken after 3 months..
I did not read the 33 year old statements carefully because they were made so long after the event.
But Joe Elliott's conjecture 57 years later clarifies everything :D
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Johnny Calvin Brewer w/m/22 of 512 N. Lancaster, Apt. 102, WH1 4793. Bus: 213 W. Jefferson, Hardy Shoe Store who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Friday November 22, 1963 I was at work at Hardy's Shoe Store, 213 West Jefferson. I had heard on the radio that the President had been shot, also that a policeman had been shot in Oak Cliff. About 1:30 pm I saw a man standing in the lobby of the shoe store. This man was wearing a brown sport shirt. He also acted as if he was scared.
-
What Brewer "heard" had morphed into this.....
Brewer, a manager at a shoe store located about 90 steps from the Oak Cliff neighborhood theater, was listening to news reports about the president's assassination when he heard reports that a Dallas police officer, J.D. Tippit, had just been killed a few blocks away.
Johnny Calvin Brewer, man who helped catch JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, honored by Dallas police
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2011/11/johnny-calvin-brewer-man-who-helped.html
The truth is like the last rain...gone now.
-
Probability arguments definitely make sense. Certainly, in this case.
Mr. Brewer was about 7 years younger than Ms. Postal. Mr. Brewer was a tall handsome man with a steady job. It doesn’t sound too likely that they would get to know each other. If they were the same age, it would be more likely. And I get the feeling that Mr. Brewer would probably not get on a first name basis with Butch.
Mr. Brewer knew Julie and Butch. Knew both on a first name basis. Did the Butch act as the ‘chaperone’ for Johnny and Julie on their dates? Or was there something, how shall I say it, a little less conventional about the relationship among the three? To me this all sounds pretty unlikely.
It all boils down to this:
33-year-old memories are suspect.
33-year-old memories that it appears did not exist 2 weeks or 4 months after the event, but do appear by 33 years later, are very suspect.
And new 33-year-old memories that just popped up and sound fishy are very, very, suspect.
And in general, at lot of these new 33-year old memories that just popped up seem fishy.
Mr. Brewer was with two IBM employees. It was a Friday, 6 days before Thanksgiving, when I would think they would be at work but they were just hanging out at a shoe store, lounging around and killing time. Mr. Brewer remembers them being there but doesn’t remember any interaction with them. Asking them if they thought that young man was acting strange. Asking them to come with him to check out this suspicious man. Doesn’t even remember asking them to leave the store so he can lock up for a bit and check out this mystery at the theater.
And he suddenly, years later, remembers that he did see Oswald before. That he sold Oswald a pair of shoes. He now even remembers exactly the model numbers of the shoes. Yeah.
33-year-old memories that just popped up need to seem plausible to be accepted as possibly real memories and not false memories that even honest people will develop over time. These memories do not seem real. There is no obvious reason why they should be lies. None of these memories got him an extra $ 20,000 or do anything for him. They sound like false memories.
Moving past " probability" arguments - which don't "definitively"make sense - and on to the crux of this whole episode, Brewer had no reason to follow Oswald. No radio broadcast of Tippit's death.
Also, Brewer could not see the theater entrance from inside his shop, or even outside of his shop.
So his rationale for approaching Ms. Postal was entirely unfounded.
-
Moving past " probability" arguments - which don't "definitively"make sense - and on to the crux of this whole episode, Brewer had no reason to follow Oswald. No radio broadcast of Tippit's death.
Also, Brewer could not see the theater entrance from inside his shop, or even outside of his shop.
So his rationale for approaching Ms. Postal was entirely unfounded.
Brewer didn't need to have news of the Tippit shooting. And he already knew that the entrance to the theater was inset from the street.
-
But Joe Elliott's conjecture 57 years later clarifies everything :D
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Johnny Calvin Brewer w/m/22 of 512 N. Lancaster, Apt. 102, WH1 4793. Bus: 213 W. Jefferson, Hardy Shoe Store who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Friday November 22, 1963 I was at work at Hardy's Shoe Store, 213 West Jefferson. I had heard on the radio that the President had been shot, also that a policeman had been shot in Oak Cliff. About 1:30 pm I saw a man standing in the lobby of the shoe store. This man was wearing a brown sport shirt. He also acted as if he was scared.
Mr. Freeman’s quote makes it appear that Mr. Brewer signed an affidavit on November 22, 1963, and stated, in part, “that he heard on the radio that a policeman was shot”.
However, when one looks at the affidavit:
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339626/m1/1/ (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339626/m1/1/)
It is clear that he is talking about the events of November 22, 1963, but is making this statement before a Notary Public on December 6, 1963, as can be seen at the bottom of the document. Two full weeks after the assassination. As far as I know, this is his earliest statement about hearing over the radio that a policeman had been shot.
Many witnesses interviewed the same day were already confused, 2 or 3 shots, about the direction of the shots, about the limousine coming to a stop, and a host of other details, it is not surprising the Mr. Brewer might get jumbled up in his memory about hearing about the President and hearing about the police officer getting shot.
It doesn’t matter if I bring up the claim that memories are unreliable, and become more unreliable over time, the same day, 2 weeks later or 56 years later (its not yet November), it is still a valid claim. Memories age. Valid points do not.
And how is your implied conjecture, that memories are always reliable, therefore Mr. Brewer is lying less of a conjecture than mine that memories are unreliable and become more unreliable over time?
-
Moving past " probability" arguments - which don't "definitively"make sense - and on to the crux of this whole episode, Brewer had no reason to follow Oswald. No radio broadcast of Tippit's death.
Also, Brewer could not see the theater entrance from inside his shop, or even outside of his shop.
So his rationale for approaching Ms. Postal was entirely unfounded.
Doesn’t need to hear that a policeman had been shot. Hearing that the President had been shot, just 3 miles away, just about an hour before, is reason enough to be alert for suspicious behavior.
I assume he could see Oswald disappear, likely, as Bill Chapman said, into the entrance ‘hall’ that leads to the theater doors. He doesn’t need to see Oswald go through the doors to infer that he had likely snuck into the theater. In any case, it doesn’t hurt to go check it out and when he finds that Oswald is not indeed not in the ‘hall’, he knows he must have passed through the doors.
I get the impression that CTers are annoyed with Mr. Brewer. Why couldn’t he have just minded his own business.
-
It is clear that he is talking about the events of November 22, 1963, but is making this statement before a Notary Public on December 6, 1963, as can be seen at the bottom of the document. Two full weeks after the assassination. As far as I know, this is his earliest statement about hearing over the radio that a policeman had been shot.
If you can find any statement from Brewer or Postal prior to December 4, I’d be interested in seeing it. The question becomes, why did it take them that long to get statements from Brewer and Postal?
-
I assume he could see Oswald disappear, likely, as Bill Chapman said, into the entrance ‘hall’ that leads to the theater doors. He doesn’t need to see Oswald go through the doors to infer that he had likely snuck into the theater. In any case, it doesn’t hurt to go check it out and when he finds that Oswald is not indeed not in the ‘hall’, he knows he must have passed through the doors.
No he doesn’t. Because he wasn’t watching the front of the theatre for the entire time.
-
It is clear that he is talking about the events of November 22, 1963, but is making this statement before a Notary Public on December 6, 1963,
So what? Brewer repeated his claim..Mr. BREWER - Well, they kept reconstructing what had happened and what they had heard, and they talked about it in general. There wasn't too much to talk about. They didn't have all the facts, and just repeated them mostly. And they said a patrolman had been shot in Oak Cliff.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer_j.htm
Didn't sound very confused to me. To say otherwise is just unfounded speculation.
And how is your implied conjecture that memories are always reliable---
I didn't ever write that and you know it. You just added those words out of the blue.
Besides, why is a memory only reliable when it supports the official story?
-
Doesn’t need to hear that a policeman had been shot. Hearing that the President had been shot, just 3 miles away, just about an hour before, is reason enough to be alert for suspicious behavior.
I assume he could see Oswald disappear, likely, as Bill Chapman said, into the entrance ‘hall’ that leads to the theater doors. He doesn’t need to see Oswald go through the doors to infer that he had likely snuck into the theater. In any case, it doesn’t hurt to go check it out and when he finds that Oswald is not indeed not in the ‘hall’, he knows he must have passed through the doors.
I get the impression that CTers are annoyed with Mr. Brewer. Why couldn’t he have just minded his own business.
'He doesn’t need to see Oswald go through the doors to infer that he had likely snuck into the theater'
Tell that to a CTer and see how far you get
-
Probability arguments definitely make sense. Certainly, in this case.
Mr. Brewer was about 7 years younger than Ms. Postal. Mr. Brewer was a tall handsome man with a steady job. It doesn’t sound too likely that they would get to know each other. If they were the same age, it would be more likely. And I get the feeling that Mr. Brewer would probably not get on a first name basis with Butch.
Mr. Brewer knew Julie and Butch. Knew both on a first name basis. Did the Butch act as the ‘chaperone’ for Johnny and Julie on their dates? Or was there something, how shall I say it, a little less conventional about the relationship among the three? To me this all sounds pretty unlikely.
It all boils down to this:
33-year-old memories are suspect.
33-year-old memories that it appears did not exist 2 weeks or 4 months after the event, but do appear by 33 years later, are very suspect.
And new 33-year-old memories that just popped up and sound fishy are very, very, suspect.
And in general, at lot of these new 33-year old memories that just popped up seem fishy.
Mr. Brewer was with two IBM employees. It was a Friday, 6 days before Thanksgiving, when I would think they would be at work but they were just hanging out at a shoe store, lounging around and killing time. Mr. Brewer remembers them being there but doesn’t remember any interaction with them. Asking them if they thought that young man was acting strange. Asking them to come with him to check out this suspicious man. Doesn’t even remember asking them to leave the store so he can lock up for a bit and check out this mystery at the theater.
And he suddenly, years later, remembers that he did see Oswald before. That he sold Oswald a pair of shoes. He now even remembers exactly the model numbers of the shoes. Yeah.
33-year-old memories that just popped up need to seem plausible to be accepted as possibly real memories and not false memories that even honest people will develop over time. These memories do not seem real. There is no obvious reason why they should be lies. None of these memories got him an extra $ 20,000 or do anything for him. They sound like false memories.
'Mr. Brewer was about 7 years younger than Ms. Postal. Mr. Brewer was a tall handsome man with a steady job. It doesn’t sound too likely that they would get to know each other. If they were the same age, it would be more likely. And I get the feeling that Mr. Brewer would probably not get on a first name basis with Butch'.
BS, Joe. Maybe she would turn out to be a cougar ;)
-
So what? Brewer repeated his claim.. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer_j.htm
Once one has false memory, it tends to stick. He could have a false memory two weeks later, four months later, and 33 months later. It doesn’t matter if he repeats the same story one hundred times it can still be a false memory.
Didn't sound very confused to me. To say otherwise is just unfounded speculation.
No, it doesn’t sound confused at all. If we only go by what he is saying. But because we know he could not have heard (I assume) a broadcast over the radio within 21 minutes of the shooting, he is either confused about the order of events, or lying. However, no one has explained what his motive for lying would be. Why tell a lie “I was alerted by the report of a policeman shooting” when he could tell the truth “I was alerted by the report of the President being shot”. People generally don’t lie without a reason. I am not going to believe he lied unless someone can come up with a plausible reason.
So, it is reasonable to assume that he was confused about when he first heard about the shooting of the policeman. He may have remembered this being broadcast over the radio a couple of hours later but a couple of days later forget when he heard it.
I didn't ever write that and you know it. You just added those words out of the blue.
Ok, what is your position? Can false memories occur? Can they form after 2 weeks? After they form, do they tend to remain permanent?
In Mr. Brewer’s case, I would assume that people have tried to tell him he is mistaken. But this would be impossible to prove to him, without him listening to a recording of every radio station he might have been listening to. So, without proof, he would probably say “Well, that’s what I remember”. False memories seem just as real as true ones.
Besides, why is a memory only reliable when it supports the official story?
Memory is unreliable. That is why I prefer to go with film and physical evidence.
Finally, someone could say “Mr. Smith said there were only two shots fired at the President. I think he is lying”. Well, to get me to accept that Mr. Smith is lying, you would have to give me a reasonable motive. Why would he lie when he really knew there are 3 shots fired? Without some motive for lying, I’m always going to chalk it up to it being a false memory.
-
'He doesn’t need to see Oswald go through the doors to infer that he had likely snuck into the theater'
Tell that to a CTer and see how far you get
Maybe it’s a difference in the way CTers think.
If a tree falls in the forest, but nobody hears it, does it make a sound?
If Oswald enters a theater, but nobody sees him go through the doors, did he really enter the theater?
If Oswald carries a long package toward the TSBD, but nobody sees him enter the building with it, did he really enter the building with a long package?
-
'Mr. Brewer was about 7 years younger than Ms. Postal. Mr. Brewer was a tall handsome man with a steady job. It doesn’t sound too likely that they would get to know each other. If they were the same age, it would be more likely. And I get the feeling that Mr. Brewer would probably not get on a first name basis with Butch'.
BS, Joe. Maybe she would turn out to be a cougar ;)
If she was, I bet Mr. Brewer would remember that. There are certain events that do not become false memories.
-
Probability arguments definitely make sense. Certainly, in this case.
Mr. Brewer was about 7 years younger than Ms. Postal. Mr. Brewer was a tall handsome man with a steady job. It doesn’t sound too likely that they would get to know each other. If they were the same age, it would be more likely. And I get the feeling that Mr. Brewer would probably not get on a first name basis with Butch.
Mr. Brewer knew Julie and Butch. Knew both on a first name basis. Did the Butch act as the ‘chaperone’ for Johnny and Julie on their dates? Or was there something, how shall I say it, a little less conventional about the relationship among the three? To me this all sounds pretty unlikely.
It all boils down to this:
33-year-old memories are suspect.
33-year-old memories that it appears did not exist 2 weeks or 4 months after the event, but do appear by 33 years later, are very suspect.
And new 33-year-old memories that just popped up and sound fishy are very, very, suspect.
And in general, at lot of these new 33-year old memories that just popped up seem fishy.
Mr. Brewer was with two IBM employees. It was a Friday, 6 days before Thanksgiving, when I would think they would be at work but they were just hanging out at a shoe store, lounging around and killing time. Mr. Brewer remembers them being there but doesn’t remember any interaction with them. Asking them if they thought that young man was acting strange. Asking them to come with him to check out this suspicious man. Doesn’t even remember asking them to leave the store so he can lock up for a bit and check out this mystery at the theater.
And he suddenly, years later, remembers that he did see Oswald before. That he sold Oswald a pair of shoes. He now even remembers exactly the model numbers of the shoes. Yeah.
33-year-old memories that just popped up need to seem plausible to be accepted as possibly real memories and not false memories that even honest people will develop over time. These memories do not seem real. There is no obvious reason why they should be lies. None of these memories got him an extra $ 20,000 or do anything for him. They sound like false memories.
Probability arguments definitely make sense. Certainly, in this case.
No they don't. Probability arguments are subjective, just like assumptions....
With sufficient probability arguments and assumptions you can arrive at any desired conclusion.
-
If you want to get some idea of the many problems with Dale Myers' research, I suggest you read my critique of his book With Malice:
"Did Oswald Shoot Tippit? A Review of Dale Myers' Book With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit"
https://miketgriffith.com/files/malice.htm
-
in a few days and a couple of years, it'll be sixty..... thinkin' about savin' your precious posts? be terrible if they...... might go away.....
-
If you want to get some idea of the many problems with Dale Myers' research, I suggest you read my critique of his book With Malice: "Did Oswald Shoot Tippit? A Review of Dale Myers' Book With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit"
https://miketgriffith.com/files/malice.htm
From those comments--------
Myers is noticeably harder on witnesses whose accounts contradict his views than he is on witnesses whose accounts he likes.
That is exactly what this thread purports.
What Myers did is the same as all the other official story apologists...Take some absurd theory-- tear it apart and then proclaim... See? it doesn't work! Therefore the Warren Commission was correct--Oswald did it all alone.
-
Myers is a brilliant opportunist.
As a researcher: fail.
-
Maybe it’s a difference in the way CTers think.
If a tree falls in the forest, but nobody hears it, does it make a sound?
If Oswald enters a theater, but nobody sees him go through the doors, did he really enter the theater?
If Oswald carries a long package toward the TSBD, but nobody sees him enter the building with it, did he really enter the building with a long package?
It’s the difference between fact and assumption. Something that “Oswald did it” devotees like to blur.
-
Brewer had no reason to follow Oswald. No radio broadcast of Tippit's death.
Also, Brewer could not see the theater entrance from inside his shop, or even outside of his shop.
So his rationale for approaching Ms. Postal was entirely unfounded.
Huh, maybe it's time to learn the evidence! The President was shot just a few miles away and right outside on Jefferson, Police were racing back and forth with sirens blaring and Brewer sees someone who looks scared and was obviously avoiding the Police, you don't need to be Einstein to connect the dots. Should Brewer have been a coward and just ignored Oswald, is that what Tonkovich would have done?
Mr. BALL. Now, did you see anybody go in the theatre well, did you see any activity on the street?
Mrs. POSTAL. Now, yes, sir; just about the time we opened, my employer had stayed and took the tickets because we change pictures on Thursday and want to do anything, he----and about this time I heard the sirens----police was racing back and forth.
Mr. BELIN - All right, you saw a man going into what you referred to as this lobby area?
Mr. BREWER - Yes; and he stood there with his back to the street.
Mr. BELIN - When did he go in now? What did you hear at the time that he stepped into this lobby area?
Mr. BREWER - I heard the police cars coming up Jefferson, and he stepped in, and the police made a U-turn and went back down East Jefferson.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember the sirens going away?
Mr. BREWER - Yes; the sirens were going away. I presume back to where the officer had been shot, because it was back down that way. And when they turned and left, Oswald looked over his shoulder and turned around and walked up West Jefferson towards the theatre.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Sx0mZR8m/Oswald-Brewer.gif)
JohnM
-
Brewer didn’t say “scared” or “avoiding the police” in his testimony.
Nice fictional video though.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/Sx0mZR8m/Oswald-Brewer.gif)
Oh, c'mon John: Oswald said he didn't do it, so it must be true.
-
Brewer didn’t say “scared” or “avoiding the police” in his testimony.
Nice fictional video though.
He also acted as if he was scared.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer1.htm
And another stupid word game, I never "quoted" Brewer as saying Oswald was "avoiding the police" but as I said it's obvious from Brewer's words that Oswald was avoiding the police, and history shows that observant Brewer obviously thought likewise and followed the man up the street, the man who turned out to be a double murderer.
Btw where does your suspicions of Brewer lead, what are you trying to prove?
JohnM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/Sx0mZR8m/Oswald-Brewer.gif)
Oh, c'mon John: Oswald said he didn't do it, so it must be true.
Yeah, these CT's believe a proven double murderer's words but for some reason the completely innocent Brewer and Postal were up to their eyeballs in some unseen and still unproven conspiracy.
JohnM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/Sx0mZR8m/Oswald-Brewer.gif)
Oh, c'mon John: Oswald said he didn't do it, so it must be true.
Vince Bugliosi said he did do it, so it must be true.
-
Yeah, these CT's believe a proven double murderer's words but for some reason the completely innocent Brewer and Postal were up to their eyeballs in some unseen and still unproven conspiracy.
JohnM
There is no reason to doubt Brewer and Postal but this doesn't mean Oswald was the assassin. He was involved in the assassination of the President. Why shouldn't he look suspicious?
To imagine Oswald was completely innocent is as ridiculous as to imagine he did it all alone.
-
He also acted as if he was scared.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer1.htm
I said “in his testimony”.
And another stupid word game, I never "quoted" Brewer as saying Oswald was "avoiding the police" but as I said it's obvious from Brewer's words that Oswald was avoiding the police,
Another stupid biased conjecture being called “obvious”.
and history shows that observant Brewer obviously thought likewise and followed the man up the street, the man who turned out to be a double murderer.
“Turned out to be”. LOL.
Btw where does your suspicions of Brewer lead,
Brewer “obviously” invented the radio report, the “acted scared”, and the sneaking into the theater assumption after the fact in order to rationalize his following and arranging for a police call on somebody who was doing nothing wrong.
-
Seeing a guy in the window doing what Brewer testified to doesn't need cop cars, sirens, news of a cop being shot— or even news of an assassination to cause anybody with a pulse to step out the door and at least watch where the guy was going.
Whether he looked funny or not.
-
Yeah, these CT's believe a proven double murderer's words but for some reason the completely innocent Brewer and Postal were up to their eyeballs in some unseen and still unproven conspiracy.
Who said that Brewer and Postal were up to their eyeballs in any conspiracy?
“Proven double murderer”. LOL.
-
I said “in his testimony”.
Another stupid biased conjecture being called “obvious”.
“Turned out to be”. LOL.
Brewer “obviously” invented the radio report, the “acted scared”, and the sneaking into the theater assumption after the fact in order to rationalize his following and arranging for a police call on somebody who was doing nothing wrong.
I said “in his testimony”.
My quote came months before Brewer's testimony.
Another stupid biased conjecture being called “obvious”.
Huh, what idiotic logic, Brewer acted on what he saw and he was there, and you weren't.
Brewer “obviously” invented the radio report, the “acted scared”, and the sneaking into the theater assumption after the fact in order to rationalize his following and arranging for a police call on somebody who was doing nothing wrong.
This isn't difficult, Brewer had a suspicion and acted on it and trying to throw Brewer under a bus so you can perpetuate some crazy half-arsed unproven conspiracy is just a bad reflection on you.
JohnM
-
Who said that Brewer and Postal were up to their eyeballs in any conspiracy?
Thumb1:
Exactly, Brewer and Postal actions were just that of concerned citizens.
JohnM
-
My quote came months before Brewer's testimony.
So what?
Huh, what idiotic logic, Brewer acted on what he saw and he was there, and you weren't.
The stupid biased conjecture is yours, not Brewer’s.
This isn't difficult, Brewer had a suspicion and acted on it and trying to throw Brewer under a bus so you can perpetuate some crazy half-arsed unproven conspiracy is just a bad reflection on you.
I’m not perpetuating some crazy half-arsed unproven conspiracy. You can’t get anything right, can you?
-
Exactly, Brewer and Postal actions were just that of concerned citizens.
Yet another crazy half-arsed “Mytton” strawman bites the dust.
-
So what?
The stupid biased conjecture is yours, not Brewer’s.
I’m not perpetuating some crazy half-arsed unproven conspiracy. You can’t get anything right, can you?
:D :D :D
JohnM
-
Yet another “Mytton” strawman bites the dust.
Your paranoia is absolutely bizarre.
JohnM
-
Probability arguments definitely make sense. Certainly, in this case.
No they don't. Probability arguments are subjective, just like assumptions....
With sufficient probability arguments and assumptions you can arrive at any desired conclusion.
Probability arguments do make sense. For instance, I do not believe that Mr. Brewer heard on his radio in the shop, before he saw Oswald, because it is unlikely. Not absolutely impossible, just improbable.
Oswald arrived at the shoe shop about 21 minutes after the shooting of Officer Tippit. Are there possible ways a commercial broadcast of this news could have taken place before then?
Yes, the police dispatcher could have taken the time to call a local radio statement to let them know that this is happened. It this likely? In my mind, no. The dispatcher was busy calling in ambulances, and policemen to the area of the Officer Tippit shooting. And then coordinated search efforts of police officers in the area to find the shooter. And within the next half hour, he met with success. He successfully directed the search efforts of the other policemen in search of the shooter of his friend, Officer Tippit, who he knew almost immediately had been killed. Helped in no small part by Mr. Brewer, but the dispatcher did his job and did it well. He, nor any other police officer is going stop and take the time to call a radio station. So, it probably didn’t happen.
But if the dispatcher or some other police officer did take the time, we probably would have heard about it. From that police officer. From some radio announcer who would almost certain have heard of Mr. Brewer’s statement that he heard this broadcast, and would step forward and say “Mr. Brewer, could have heard this, because we got a scoop and broadcast it by 1:30”. But no such claim has ever been made. So, it probably didn’t happen.
Or another possibility. Let’s say the Mr. Brewer was not listening to police broadcasts, which he never claimed, but some radio station employee was. He did so in the hopes of scooping the other radio stations. He could learn within a few minutes of the officer shooting in the Oak Cliff area and get that report on the air within 21 minutes easily. But again, after 56 years, no one has stepped forward to say this happened, to say that “My initiative allowed us to scoop the other radio stations and broadcast this news 10 minutes after the murder”. So, it probably didn’t happen.
Question:
Do these ‘probability’ arguments make sense? Am I being logical to conclude that such an early radio broadcast was never made?
Now, if my ‘probability’ arguments were directed by reaching a desired conclusion, shouldn’t I have concluded that such a broadcast probably did take place? News stations are very competitive so surely some radio station in the Dallas area would have been prepared to monitor the police radio frequencies so they could scoop the others. But, in my view, this probably didn’t happen. If I had concluded it probably did, I could not only argue that Mr. Brewer was not only honest, but had an unusually good memory to everything that had happened, at least, if he is interviewed within a couple of weeks.
-
I have changed my mind about Johnny Brewer’s initial statement of December 6, 1963, as can been seen in the following link:
My Re-Evaluation of Johnny Brewer’s Initial Report of December 6, 1963
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2665.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2665.0.html)
-
Vince Bugliosi said he did do it, so it must be true.
I take a knee to no man.
-
I now see no problems with Johnny Brewer’s affidavit of December 6, 1963.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339626/m1/1/ (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339626/m1/1/)
We now know that there was a broadcast on NBC News, probably soon repeated by all the radio stations, that an officer had by shot. In his statement he does refer to ‘Julie’ and ‘Butch’ but by December 6 he would have known the names of Julie Postal and Butch Burroughs, even if he didn’t know their names on November 22. But unlike his 1996 interview, he does not say that he said:
“Julie, did you sell a ticket?” or “Butch, come on with me.”. So, it is possible that he did not learn their names until after the arrest of Oswald.
It now looks like Mr. Brewer gave accurate information and did not withhold any information, except, perhaps, what a great cougar Julie Postal was in bed. Well, I hope Johnny and Julie got something for their efforts. He may have been honest even about that as well but Mary Rattan may have decided to leave this out of the official affidavit. Notary Publics can be just prudes.
-
I now see no problems with Johnny Brewer’s affidavit of December 6, 1963.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339626/m1/1/ (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339626/m1/1/)
We now know that there was a broadcast on NBC News, probably soon repeated by all the radio stations, that an officer had by shot. In his statement he does refer to ‘Julie’ and ‘Butch’ but by December 6 he would have known the names of Julie Postal and Butch Burroughs, even if he didn’t know their names on November 22. But unlike his 1996 interview, he does not say that he said:
“Julie, did you sell a ticket?” or “Butch, come on with me.”. So, it is possible that he did not learn their names until after the arrest of Oswald.
It now looks like Mr. Brewer gave accurate information and did not withhold any information, except, perhaps, what a great cougar Julie Postal was in bed. Well, I hope Johnny and Julie got something for their efforts. He may have been honest even about that as well but Mary Rattan may have decided to leave this out of the official affidavit. Notary Publics can be just prudes.
Note how Brewer says 'scared' at the beginning of his affidavit, then 'nervous' near the end. No big deal to most people; we get the idea. But law enforcement can take that one change in wording and make it look like you're lying.
Watch this and see what I mean.
It's fascinating.
Don't talk to the police
-
Note how Brewer says 'scared' at the beginning of his affidavit, then 'nervous' near the end. No big deal to most people; we get the idea. But law enforcement can take that one change in wording and make it look like you're lying.
Watch this and see what I mean.
It's fascinating.
Don't talk to the police
Holy cow. The CTers are right. Mr. Brewer should have never said anything to the police. It’s amazing he wasn’t convicted. :)
DA: Mr. Brewer, you say you are innocent. But how did you know a police officer was killed. How did you know he was shot?
Mr. Brewer: I heard it announced on the radio. I heard it just before Oswald showed up.
DA: You Honor, may I call a police officer to the stand.
. . .
DA: Officer Smith, was there any announcement of the shooting of Officer Tippit.
Officer Smith: No, there wasn’t. The media was not informed. There is no way such an announcement could have been made.
. . .
DA: You said you did not shoot the officer yourself. But if this is true, how did you know a police officer was killed? How did you know that he was not only killed, but murdered? How did you know that he was not only murdered but shot to death?
Mr. Brewer: As I said, I heard it over the radio.
DA: But we already know that no such announcement could have been made. Do you have a recording of this alleged radio broadcast?
-
Holy cow. The CTers are right. Mr. Brewer should have never said anything to the police. It’s amazing he wasn’t convicted. :)
DA: Mr. Brewer, you say you are innocent. But how did you know a police officer was killed. How did you know he was shot?
Mr. Brewer: I heard it announced on the radio. I heard it just before Oswald showed up.
DA: You Honor, may I call a police officer to the stand.
. . .
DA: Officer Smith, was there any announcement of the shooting of Officer Tippit.
Officer Smith: No, there wasn’t. The media was not informed. There is no way such an announcement could have been made.
. . .
DA: You said you did not shoot the officer yourself. But if this is true, how did you know a police officer was killed? How did you know that he was not only killed, but murdered? How did you know that he was not only murdered but shot to death?
Mr. Brewer: As I said, I heard it over the radio.
DA: But we already know that no such announcement could have been made. Do you have a recording of this alleged radio broadcast?
The video I posted relates to people who have been arrested for something. Go to 7:59 for 10 top reasons why, if arrested, one should claim the 5th and say nothing. Oswald would have been better off saying nothing.
-
Holy cow. The CTers are right. Mr. Brewer should have never said anything to the police. It’s amazing he wasn’t convicted. :)
DA: Mr. Brewer, you say you are innocent. But how did you know a police officer was killed. How did you know he was shot?
Mr. Brewer: I heard it announced on the radio. I heard it just before Oswald showed up.
DA: You Honor, may I call a police officer to the stand.
. . .
DA: Officer Smith, was there any announcement of the shooting of Officer Tippit.
Officer Smith: No, there wasn’t. The media was not informed. There is no way such an announcement could have been made.
. . .
DA: You said you did not shoot the officer yourself. But if this is true, how did you know a police officer was killed? How did you know that he was not only killed, but murdered? How did you know that he was not only murdered but shot to death?
Mr. Brewer: As I said, I heard it over the radio.
DA: But we already know that no such announcement could have been made. Do you have a recording of this alleged radio broadcast?
Mr. Elliott:
No one here, except you, has promoted such a bizarre, over the top scenario.
Is there something wrong with questioning the story Mr. Brewer relates?
If you read the original affadavits of Brewer and Postal, you will see that their accounts of the whole scenario do not match up. They conflict, especially Brewer's remarks about Ms Postal.
P.S. Those affadavits make for good reading. :)
-
Mr. Elliott:
No one here, except you, has promoted such a bizarre, over the top scenario.
This scenario was an obvious joke.
Is there something wrong with questioning the story Mr. Brewer relates?
If you read the original affadavits of Brewer and Postal, you will see that their accounts of the whole scenario do not match up. They conflict, especially Brewer's remarks about Ms Postal.
P.S. Those affadavits make for good reading. :)
The accounts agree pretty closely.
-
This scenario was an obvious joke.
The accounts agree pretty closely.
Ah, the fallacious reductio ad absurdum.
( Mr Elliott is quite transparent.)
-
We now know that there was a broadcast on NBC News, probably soon repeated by all the radio stations, that an officer had by shot.
Must be a false memory.
-
This scenario was an obvious joke.
The accounts agree pretty closely.
'This scenario was an obvious joke.'
Not necessarily 'obviously'. Watch me post an 'Onion' spoof one of these days and see how the nuttier members here take it seriously.
The less-nutty CT veterans here will pretend to take an LN spoof seriously in an attempt to make the poster look even nuttier than themselves.
;D
-
'This scenario was an obvious joke.'
Not necessarily 'obviously'. Watch me post an 'Onion' spoof one of these days and see how the nuttier members here take it seriously.
The less-nutty CT veterans here will pretend to take an LN spoof seriously in an attempt to make the poster look even nuttier than even themselves.
;D
Are they capable of being honest? I just don’t get their thinking.
-
What a raging hypocrite. Myers is one of the worst offenders of namecalling to anyone who dares to question one of his pronouncements.
Recently on Facebook, Myers claimed that the Seaport Traders order was received on March 13. When I asked him to substantiate that, he cited Michaelis’s testimony. When I pointed out that *nowhere* does Michaelis say that, he just doubled down and insisted that he was right.
So, you’re right, Joe. Myers has nothing to learn. Like most of his fellow evangelists, he thinks he has all the answers already.
No.
Michaelis doesn't have to literally pronounce that the order was received on the 13th. Just read his testimony and if you use your common sense, you'll conclude that they did in fact receive the order on that date.
Iacoletti isn't really interested in finding the truth. However, if any of you have questions about the issue of what date the order for the revolver was received, ask me and I'll elaborate.
-
Maybe it’s a difference in the way CTers think.
If a tree falls in the forest, but nobody hears it, does it make a sound?
If Oswald enters a theater, but nobody sees him go through the doors, did he really enter the theater?
If Oswald carries a long package toward the TSBD, but nobody sees him enter the building with it, did he really enter the building with a long package?
If Oswald carries a long package toward the TSBD, but nobody sees him enter the building with it, did he really enter the building with a long package?
To add... Buell Frazier did say, in his affidavit, that when Oswald entered the back door (at the loading dock), he (Oswald) still had the package under his arm.
-
Are they capable of being honest? I just don’t get their thinking.
If someone sincerely believes what they are saying, then they are in fact being honest.
-
No.
Michaelis doesn't have to literally pronounce that the order was received on the 13th. Just read his testimony and if you use your common sense, you'll conclude that they did in fact receive the order on that date.
Iacoletti isn't really interested in finding the truth. However, if any of you have questions about the issue of what date the order for the revolver was received, ask me and I'll elaborate.
Iacoletti takes the 'angel' out of 'evangelist'
-
Why Tippit Would Have Stopped "Oswald" and the Alleged Change in Direction
According to Myers, as the assailant approached the corner of 10th and Patton, he saw Tippit's car coming up the street in his direction and therefore suddenly spun around and started walking in the opposite direction, which made Tippit suspicious of him (pp. 64-65). Myers cites William Scoggins' Warren Commission (WC) testimony, which does in fact imply a change in direction. However, Scoggins initially said nothing about any change in direction. When he was interviewed by the Secret Service on 12/2/63, he said,
I noticed a man walking west on 10th Street. . . . The man walking west on 10th Street stopped at a point just about directly in line with the front bumper of the police cruiser.
And just a second or two after the man stopped near the car's front bumper, he began talking with Tippit. Not a word or hint about any change in direction.
https://miketgriffith.com/files/malice.htm
(https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/112219/JDT_112219_Fig1.jpg)
Dale Myers at the scene [according to him] of the Tippit shooting--- in 1985 (left) and 2019 (right).
The Tippit shooting was not right at the street corner.
-
No.
Michaelis doesn't have to literally pronounce that the order was received on the 13th. Just read his testimony and if you use your common sense, you'll conclude that they did in fact receive the order on that date.
"common sense" is what people claim when they don't have any actual evidence and want to pretend that conjecture is evidence.
No. Myers stated as a fact in his blog article that "Seaport Traders also received Oswald’s mail-order for the .38 caliber revolver on March 13, 1963". He was wrong to state this as a fact and his gigantic ego didn't allow him to admit it.
Iacoletti isn't really interested in finding the truth. However, if any of you have questions about the issue of what date the order for the revolver was received, ask me and I'll elaborate.
"Truth" is not defined as Bill Brown's (or Dale Myers') "common sense" assumptions.
-
To add... Buell Frazier did say, in his affidavit, that when Oswald entered the back door (at the loading dock), he (Oswald) still had the package under his arm.
Buell Frazier said in his interview with Tom Meros that by the time Oswald reached the door to the north annex, he could no longer see the package.
-
'This scenario was an obvious joke.'
Not necessarily 'obviously'. Watch me post an 'Onion' spoof one of these days and see how the nuttier members here take it seriously.
The less-nutty CT veterans here will pretend to take an LN spoof seriously in an attempt to make the poster look even nuttier than themselves.
;D
Mr Elliott is making a fallacious argument using " reductio ad absurdum".
Look it up, you might learn something.
-
Michaelis doesn't have to literally pronounce that the order was received on the 13th [March]. Just read his testimony and if you use your common sense, you'll conclude that they did in fact receive the order on that date.
Iacoletti isn't really interested in finding the truth. However, if any of you have questions about the issue of what date the order for the revolver was received, ask me and I'll elaborate.
The truth about what?
January 28, 1962: LHO orders a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver by mail. [Should be 1963]
March 9-10, 1963: LHO takes photographs of the home of General Edwin Walker, a right-wing activist.
[It was not proven that he actually took those pictures]
March 12, 1963: Ruth Paine visits Marina at the new apartment. Also that day, LHO orders a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.
March 20, 1963: The rifle and the revolver are shipped.
[On the same day? What are the odds?]
March 25, 1963: LHO picks up the weapons.
[Both guns arrive and are 'picked up the same day...What again are the odds?]
http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/chrono.htm
-
Mr Elliott is making a fallacious argument using " reductio ad absurdum".
Look it up, you might learn something.
Read my post again and see if you can get my point, Professor.
For further spoofs:
The Nobody Who Shot the Somebody Had Help
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2451.0.html#new
Click-Click
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2444.msg80740.html#msg80740
-
Read my post again and see if you can get my point, Professor.
For further spoofs:
The Nobody Who Shot the Somebody Had Help
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2451.0.html#new
Click-Click
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2444.msg80740.html#msg80740
Incoherent babble -- like everything Chapman posts. Notice how there are no responses?
-
Incoherent babble -- like everything Chapman posts. Notice how there are no responses?
You seem to be the one needing responses, gaslighter.
-
Read my post again and see if you can get my point, Professor.
For further spoofs:
The Nobody Who Shot the Somebody Had Help
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2451.0.html#new
Click-Click
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2444.msg80740.html#msg80740
Gee, there's not a lot of responses.
-
Gee, there's not a lot of responses.
Also few responses to my two 'Name Your Shooter' topics
-
Also few responses to my two 'Name Your Shooter' topics
So, you consistently post things that no one is interested in.
Ok. If you say so.
-
Also few responses to my two 'Name Your Shooter' topics
So, you consistently post things that no one is interested in.
Ok. If you say so.
Yes. It’s Bill Chapman’s fault that CTers dodge his questions.
-
Yes. It’s Bill Chapman’s fault that CTers dodge his questions.
What's a CTer?
His posts were not questions. Just diversions. Like yours. And your multiple threads on Johnny Brewer.
-
So, you consistently post things that no one is interested in.
Ok. If you say so.
1) So you're not interested in who shot JFK. Or in that the fact that no one can name a pinch-hitter for Oswald is what the low-response count informs.
2) So, you lot have no interest in the Oswald aliases, S&W pistol, residence on Beckley, and Tippit scene. Or in the Oswald porch goings-on or the TSBD Cuckoo's nest.
Ok. If you say so.
-
What's a CTer?
His posts were not questions. Just diversions. Like yours. And your multiple threads on Johnny Brewer.
It's not my fault when you frame the CTer failure to name a pinch-hitter for Oswald as 'diversions'.
-
1) So you're not interested in who shot JFK. And that no one can name a pinch-hitter for Oswald is what the low-response count informs me.
2) So, you lot have no interest in the Oswald aliases, S&W pistol, residence on Beckley, and Tippit scene. Or in the Oswald porch goings-on or the TSBD Cuckoo's nest.
Ok. If you say so.
No one is interested..in your , uh, "spoofs".
-
No one is interested..in your , uh, "spoofs".
Yeah, it's safer to be a Skeptic who constantly casts aspersions on virtually every facet of the official assassination investigation but doesn't have the required reasoning logic to know exactly what the heck they are trying to prove.
It's just question after question with a complete rejection of any reasonable answer which by definition in itself must lead somewhere but alas the hapless skeptic sticks to their safe zone, happy in the knowledge that they are achieving absolutely nothing.
JohnM
-
Yeah, it's safer to be a Skeptic who constantly casts aspersions on virtually every facet of the official assassination investigation but doesn't have the required reasoning logic to know exactly what the heck they are trying to prove.
It's just question after question with a complete rejection of any reasonable answer which by definition in itself must lead somewhere but alas the hapless skeptic sticks to their safe zone, happy in the knowledge that they are achieving absolutely nothing.
JohnM
Nailed it. Again.
I'm still waiting for even one of these self-appointed 'knowledge-advancers' to point out where I used any information that is not connected to the assassination in some way, be it Oswald aliases, rooming houses, weapons, porches, or the sniper's nest.
-
No one is interested..in your , uh, "spoofs".
Name your pinch-hitter.
What, too soon?
-
Yeah, it's safer to be a Skeptic who constantly casts aspersions on virtually every facet of the official assassination investigation but doesn't have the required reasoning logic to know exactly what the heck they are trying to prove.
It's just question after question with a complete rejection of any reasonable answer which by definition in itself must lead somewhere but alas the hapless skeptic sticks to their safe zone, happy in the knowledge that they are achieving absolutely nothing.
JohnM
"reasoning logic".
Not sure what that means.
Are you familiar with Mr West's survey work?
Are you aware of "Q1" and it's significance in relation to Kennedy's throat wound?
-
Yeah, it's safer to be a Skeptic who constantly casts aspersions on virtually every facet of the official assassination investigation but doesn't have the required reasoning logic to know exactly what the heck they are trying to prove.
It's just question after question with a complete rejection of any reasonable answer which by definition in itself must lead somewhere but alas the hapless skeptic sticks to their safe zone, happy in the knowledge that they are achieving absolutely nothing.
JohnM
This is a fancy way of saying “My unsubstantiated conclusion is automatically correct until you prove that something else happened”.
-
Anybody but Oswald: Should be easy to send in a pitch-hitter. Can't wait for the elimination rounds to extract a modern-day Casey-at-the bat. Oh, wait.. he struck out as well.
So far, nary an LOLer (aka LoveOnlyLee) Texas-leaguer, ground-rule-double, booted grounder, or called-third-strike passed ball to get anybody aboard.
Seems it's hard to score from out in left field.
-
Seems like Chapman’s incoherent ramblings are getting more and more incoherent every day.
-
Seems like Chapman’s incoherent ramblings are getting more and more incoherent every day.
Thanks so much for the indescribable joy and happiness I feel; knowing that you are reading what I post every day. Especially since you recently claimed that you don't care what I say.
-
I thought you weren't interested in what I say.
You must find me threatening.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
From Myers' book 'With Malice'
FBI agent Robert M. Barrett observed Dallas police handling a wallet at the Tippit murder scene shortly before Oswald's arrest at the Texas Theater six blocks away. Television news footage shot at the scene supports this basic fact.
Fifteen years later, while having dinner with fellow agent James Hosty, Barrett recalled that Dallas police Captain W.R. Westbrook asked him at the Tippit scene whether he knew a “Lee Harvey Oswald” or an “Alek Hidell?” While Barrett assumed the names were taken from identification in the wallet, he never saw the identification or handled the wallet. the only thing connecting Oswald to the wallet filmed at the Tippit shooting scene is Barrett's recollection that Captain Westbrook asked him about the names “Oswald” and “Hidell” while Barrett was at the scene.
I concluded in With Malice that it is more likely that Barrett was asked the questions about the names Oswald and Hidell back at City Hall after Oswald's arrest, not at the scene of Tippit’s murder. The only charitable explanation is that Barrett misremembered where he was when Westbrook asked him about the names Oswald and Hidell
Of course. Agent Barrett was in need of rest and that wallet event at the Tippit scene just never happened like he thought. We have the clairvoyant Dale Myers to thank for his postulation.
Why Tippit stopped Oswald---
No one can be one hundred percent certain of the exact reason Tippit stopped Oswald on Tenth Street. The Warren Commission speculated that the description of the suspect wanted in connection with Kennedy's murder, which was put out over the police radio, led to Tippit stopping Oswald. Conspiracy theorists questioned whether such a meager description ("white male, approximately 30, slender build, height five feet, ten inches, weight 165 pounds") would have led Tippit to focus on Oswald as opposed to any one of hundreds of other white males who fit that description.
In With Malice, I suggested the possibility that Oswald had been walking west on Tenth Street and upon seeing Tippit's approaching police car spun around and began walking east. Such an overtly suspicious action might have caused Tippit to stop Oswald and investigate.
My thesis was the result of a close examination of the detailed accounts of eyewitnesses Jimmy Burt, William A. Smith, Jack R. Tatum, Helen Markham, and William Scoggins. A sixth witness to Oswald's direction of travel was discovered among FBI files after publication of my book.
This sixth witness was William Lawrence Smith, a brick mason and foreman working at an apartment complex one block east of the Tippit shooting scene. Smith told the FBI that while walking to a café on Marsalis for lunch he passed a man he believed was Oswald heading west on Tenth.
Jimmy Burt and friend William A. “Bill” Smith (no relation to the brick mason) were standing across the street from the apartment complex at about the same time. Burt later said that he too saw Oswald walking west on Tenth.
About one minute later, Jack R. Tatum was driving along Tenth Street when he saw Officer Tippit stopping Oswald as he walked east along the sidewalk. Helen Markham also said that Tippit stopped Oswald as he was walking east.
So here were two groups of eyewitnesses claiming that Oswald was walking in two different directions prior to the shooting – the first group said he was walking west; the second group said he was walking east.
The testimony of William Scoggins, a cabdriver parked and eating lunch at the corner of Tenth and Patton, turned out to be the key to resolving the conflict.
According to Scoggins, Tippit drove across in front of his cab as he headed eastbound on Tenth Street. Scoggins watched as Tippit pulled to the curb 50 yards further down the street. It was then that Scoggins noticed Oswald standing on the sidewalk nearby, facing west.
Scoggins told the Warren Commission that he couldn't be certain of Oswald's direction of travel before Tippit stopped him because when he first saw him he was standing still on the sidewalk, facing west. This raises an interesting and very important question. If Oswald was walking east prior to the shooting, as the Warren Commission later claimed, why didn't Scoggins see him pass in front of his cab, just as he had seen Tippit do?
Scoggins' cab was parked at the corner of Tenth and Patton – 150 feet west of the shooting scene. The front bumper of the cab was nearly blocking the crosswalk along the path that Oswald would have taken had he been walking east. That means that Oswald's pant leg would have nearly brushed up against the front bumper of Scoggins’ cab as he passed in front of him.
How could Scoggins have missed such an event? By Scoggins own account, he was sitting in his cab eating lunch while observing the area. It seemed incredible that Scoggins could have missed seeing Oswald pass right in front of him if he were indeed walking east as early investigators believed.It becomes abundantly clear why Scoggins didn’t see Oswald cross in front of his cab when you realize that the two witnesses who observed Oswald walking eastbound – Markham and Tatum – only did so after noticing Tippit's squad car pulling to the curb some 150 feet east of where Scoggins’ cab was parked.
Given Scoggins’ testimony, there seems to be only one explanation as to what happened on Tenth Street – Oswald was walking west just as brick mason William Lawrence Smith and eyewitness Jimmy Burt observed, but changed direction and began walking east before he reached Scoggins' cab.
So according to Myers...Oswald was walking around in circles. Going west on 10th took him going back toward Beckley where he supposedly started! So where would he have been coming from? Where was he going? And then there is that walking all over the neighborhood problematic time element.
The cool calm and collected Oswald that Marion Baker confronted in the lunchroom became a shirking paranoid for no real reason. The claim that Oswald was suspected and then challenged by Tippit because he matched the description placed on the police radio was definitely a stretch.
About the time factor...cab driver Scoggins placed the time of the shots at after 1:25 PM. The ambulance was on the way before the policeman ever got shot? Why do you have to be a conspiracy theorist to question something? Is a defense attorney automatically a CT?
A statement to the FBI----
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=77
From Scoggin's testimony before the Commission https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/scoggins.htm
Mr. BELIN. Now, let me ask you this question. First of all, do you remember, or can you describe the man you saw on November 22 with the gun?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He was a medium-height fellow with, kind of a slender look, and approximately, I said 25, 26 years old, somewhere along there.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember the color of his hair?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes. It was light; let's see, was it light or not-medium brown, I would say.
Mr. BELIN. Pardon?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Medium brown, I would say--now, wait a minute. Now, medium brown or dark.
Mr. BELIN. Medium brown or dark hair?
Mr. BELIN. Had you seen any pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald in the newspapers prior to the time you went to the police station lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I think I saw one in the morning paper.
Someone he supposedly identified over four months earlier and Scoggins couldn't remember whether his hair was light or dark. But never mind that...the cops and the news folks had already identified Oswald for him.
Dale Myers supplies witnesses all over 10th St that noticed the suspect walking about before the shooting but not a single one observed a supposed traveler that started from 1026 Beckley until the sighting on 10th.
Scoggins stated that he saw Tippit "every day". David Belin didn't seem to care about that. Neither did Dale Myers apparently.
A Harold Weisberg article--- http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/S%20Disk/Scoggins%20William/Item%2001.pdf
-
Dale Myers wrote----
After nine months, entomologist and part-time conspiracy theorist Donald B. Thomas has finally weighed in on my 2007 research paper...
re The Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle
Mr Thomas stated---
“…The acoustical experts were told falsely that the murder weapon could be cycled in 1.6 sec, an error repeated by Myers…”
Myers reply---
The HSCA test fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle using the open iron sights rather than the rifle’s scope and found that it was possible for two shots to be fired within 1.66 seconds. [6]
Tuesday, September 21, 2021
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2021/09/
A very misleading statement. I would even add contemptible.
'A Carcano'...but not the 6th floor one.....but I guess any old Carcano would do.
Insinuated is that those bullets ever hit anything...moving and far away.
The HSCA merely rubber stamped the Warren Report which rubber stamped the FBI which in turn rubber stamped the Dallas police who in turn covered up for Jack Ruby.