Seems you are incapable of responding when your claims are proven incorrect. I just posted the proof that Brennan did not take position as early as you claimed.....also your offering of the 6th floor motorcade timeline that was proven incorrect. I provided the primary source, something that took me about 2 minutes to find on the web. Decker's call about Main from the police transcripts. You simply ignore those offerings and now you cherrypick Norman's 12.15 call as if it is gospel and impacts in any way on the timing analysis. Yet you think the same witness made up the memory of a Main Street call. Do you trust the guy or not.....or simply when he can be used in a pathetic attempt to nullify every other indicator that places them leaving much later.
You still refuse to agree or disagree with the notion that Jarman and Norman supported Williams first day statement. Seems when your "beliefs" are challenged and you are unable to mount anything like a sound foundation for you them and your "thoughts". They simply have the Oswald did it alone, Rowland was some sort of deluded clairvoyant and Craig the bald-faced liar, filter applied.
I prefer to live in the world where corroborated facts form the basis of meaningful debate. The ironic thing is my analysis does nothing to disprove the LN scenario. At least in a previous discussion John Mytton attempted to understand the ramifications of the assembled evidence and eventually concluded that Williams likely saw Oswald in the SN and was on the 6th floor after 12.25.
I visit this forum, (in the now apparently forlorn hope), to learn more about the topic, discuss and debate. I now hold no hope of any such meaningful outcomes eventuating with interactions with you, or any of your ilk.
I shall leave you in a state of bliss, with your religious LN convictions intact.
1) You have not proven the ambulance picked up the man with the epileptic fit before he sat on the retaining wall. The fact is the opposite. Brennan's own testimony describes him watching the man having an epileptic fit before he moves to the retaining wall and he doesn't even acknowledge seeing him being picked up by the ambulance. Them could be the others he saw before the ambulance arrived.
2)The motorcade timeline of it arriving at Main St. shows that it occurred before the 12:22 timestamp and I'll go with the 6th Floor Museum timeline of 12:21 with full confidence that they are much better equipped to determine the timeline than you or I.
3)You provide no evidence of how Norman could possibly have heard that the motorcade was at Main St. at either 12:21 or 12:22. yet cavalierly dismiss Norman's 12/4 statement to the SS that he went upstairs at 12:15
4) IMO, you have formed a theory and use only that information which will conform to that theory disregarding evidence and common sense which would test that theory i.e..we can a difference of opinion on a matter which, as you said, does nothing to disprove that there was a sniper at the SN. To continuously haggle over a timeline of which has zero effect on an outcome may be your interpretation of engaging in meaningful research but I just see it as a temporary diversion into an interesting topic worth of only limited discussion.
5) Since you like to flaunt living in a world were evidence is important in a discussion it's really surprising that you would even entertain the possibility that both Arnold Rowland and Roger Craig could be used to corroborate anything other than they're just a couple of liars.
6)IMO, John Mytton is a rational person with a great amount of knowledge on this subject but it doesn't mean that his decision to agree in whole or in part with your theory plays any part on how I arrive at my conclusions. Bringing John into the discussion might put a feather in your cap and be used in an attempt to bolster your credentials but it's completely meaningless when it comes to how I analyze the subject. Now if you were to bring up an expert on a particular field like Haag, Larry Sturdivan, Dr. Michael Baden..etc to bolster your argument then I would take their views and conclusions very seriously. No offense John but I didn't bring you into this debate.
7) I don't believe for a minute that you're presence in this forum is for the purpose stated. IMO, you are just like the other (or most) of the CTers who are only interested in letting the unwashed know that from the cloud you inhabit everything can be seen clear as daylight and that the unwashed are stuck on the ground, walking through the muck and unable to be enlightened by your superior intellect and vision.
