Who do you believe?

[Martin Weidmann]

They likely left the front of the TSBD closer to 12.25.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,162.0.html

Works for me, Colin... I was writing from memory.

I just noticed I got the Arnold time wrong by one hour as well....Imagine her seeing him one hour after the shooting. Anyway, it's corrected now.

[Colin Crow]

Works for me, Colin... I was writing from memory.

I just noticed I got the Arnold time wrong by one hour as well....Imagine her seeing him one hour after the shooting. Anyway, it's corrected now.

No worries Martin.....the WR report got the time wrong by much later I think.....but then memory can be a bitch.

[Wesley Johnson]

Read again;

Jarman and Norman were actually outside the building to watch the motorcade pass by. Some ten minutes before the cars arrived they decided that they would get a better view from the 5th floor, so they went along Houston street to the back of the building and entered the shipping department, where they could have been observed by somebody in the Domino room. "

The only one talking about 90 seconds post shots is you.

You wanted to know who to believe; Oswald (saying he was on the 1st floor) or Arnold (saying she believed she saw him on the 2nd floor at 12.25 pm). I have given you a scenario where both Oswald and Arnold can be believed. It seems that's not the answer you wanted to get.

Martin I simply asked who you believe Oswald or Arnold. You are the one who originally put the 90 seconds in. I understand that you are trying to say that Oswald could have seen Jarman and Norman coming in 10 minutes before. But that is not supported by anyone. Oswald claimed he had lunch on the first floor and told Capt. Fritz that. Depending on who you talk to on here you might get variations of his exact wording, whether he said, "I had lunch with Junior, Jarman, a black guy, a black man, a black, whatever", he told Fritz he had lunch on the first floor and no one else supports that. Now let's look at Arnold's statements in a contextual way  , In 1978, fifteen years after the assassination Carolyn Arnold told the Dallas Morning News that around 12:25 pm she saw Oswald sitting having his lunch in the second floor lunchroom. In the same month she told author Anthony Summers that "she went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment and she saw Oswald there, alone and having lunch", Instead of 12:25 pm that she told Dallas Morning News, she told Summers she saw Oswald, "about a quarter of an hour before the assassination about 12:15 pm, it may have been a little later" Why in a month period fifteen years after does she give the News a 12:30 pm time and then give Summers a 12:15 pm or later time? Doesn't sound like a very convincing witness to me. Why did she give the FBI four days after the statement that she saw Oswald a few minutes before 12:15 and not in the lunchroom? She contends the FBI mis quoted her, but on March 18, 1964 she gave the FBI a signed statement that "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time the president was shot". A very weak witness that is disputed by several others witnesses including Pauline Sanders. 

[Wesley Johnson]

One doesn't exclude the other. Arnold said that she saw LHO at 12:25 p.m. and LHO said that he was on the first floor at 12:30 p.m. at the time of the assassination. It doesn't take more than 5 minutes to go down one flight of stairs.

Now, cite your evidence for showing that LHO was on the sixth floor as the WC claimed.

No, You CT'ers are always claiming one or the other. Now did Oswald have lunch in the second floor lunchroom or on the first floor? I'll give you the same response I gave Martin: I understand that you are trying to say that Oswald could have seen Jarman and Norman coming in 10 minutes before. But that is not supported by anyone. Oswald claimed he had lunch on the first floor and told Capt. Fritz that. Depending on who you talk to on here you might get variations of his exact wording, whether he said, "I had lunch with Junior, Jarman, a black guy, a black man, a black, whatever", he told Fritz he had lunch on the first floor and no one else supports that. Now let's look at Arnold's statements in a contextual way  , In 1978, fifteen years after the assassination Carolyn Arnold told the Dallas Morning News that around 12:25 pm she saw Oswald sitting having his lunch in the second floor lunchroom. In the same month she told author Anthony Summers that "she went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment and she saw Oswald there, alone and having lunch", Instead of 12:25 pm that she told Dallas Morning News, she told Summers she saw Oswald, "about a quarter of an hour before the assassination about 12:15 pm, it may have been a little later" Why in a month period fifteen years after does she give the News a 12:30 pm time and then give Summers a 12:15 pm or later time? Doesn't sound like a very convincing witness to me. Why did she give the FBI four days after the statement that she saw Oswald a few minutes before 12:15 and not in the lunchroom? She contends the FBI mis quoted her, but on March 18, 1964 she gave the FBI a signed statement that "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time the president was shot". A very weak witness that is disputed by several others witnesses including Pauline Sanders.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin I simply asked who you believe Oswald or Arnold. You are the one who originally put the 90 seconds in. I understand that you are trying to say that Oswald could have seen Jarman and Norman coming in 10 minutes before. But that is not supported by anyone. Oswald claimed he had lunch on the first floor and told Capt. Fritz that. Depending on who you talk to on here you might get variations of his exact wording, whether he said, "I had lunch with Junior, Jarman, a black guy, a black man, a black, whatever", he told Fritz he had lunch on the first floor and no one else supports that. Now let's look at Arnold's statements in a contextual way  , In 1978, fifteen years after the assassination Carolyn Arnold told the Dallas Morning News that around 12:25 pm she saw Oswald sitting having his lunch in the second floor lunchroom. In the same month she told author Anthony Summers that "she went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment and she saw Oswald there, alone and having lunch", Instead of 12:25 pm that she told Dallas Morning News, she told Summers she saw Oswald, "about a quarter of an hour before the assassination about 12:15 pm, it may have been a little later" Why in a month period fifteen years after does she give the News a 12:30 pm time and then give Summers a 12:15 pm or later time? Doesn't sound like a very convincing witness to me. Why did she give the FBI four days after the statement that she saw Oswald a few minutes before 12:15 and not in the lunchroom? She contends the FBI mis quoted her, but on March 18, 1964 she gave the FBI a signed statement that "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time the president was shot". A very weak witness that is disputed by several others witnesses including Pauline Sanders.

You are the one who originally put the 90 seconds in.

Yes, but only because the Truly/Baker meeting confirms that Oswald was on the 2nd floor at that time. Arnold said she saw him on the same floor a few minutes earlier

I understand that you are trying to say that Oswald could have seen Jarman and Norman coming in 10 minutes before.

I'm not trying. I said it.

that is not supported by anyone.

And Oswald at the 6th floor window is not supported by anyone either, yet you believe Brennan.

Oswald claimed he had lunch on the first floor and told Capt. Fritz that. Depending on who you talk to on here you might get variations of his exact wording, whether he said, "I had lunch with Junior, Jarman, a black guy, a black man, a black, whatever", he told Fritz he had lunch on the first floor and no one else supports that.

The problem is that we don't know what Oswald really said. There are only conflicting third party accounts. So, let's not assume to know what Oswald really said and then proceed to call it a lie, shall we?


D, In 1978, fifteen years after the assassination Carolyn Arnold told the Dallas Morning News that around 12:25 pm she saw Oswald sitting having his lunch in the second floor lunchroom. In the same month she told author Anthony Summers that "she went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment and she saw Oswald there, alone and having lunch", Instead of 12:25 pm that she told Dallas Morning News, she told Summers she saw Oswald, "about a quarter of an hour before the assassination about 12:15 pm, it may have been a little later" Why in a month period fifteen years after does she give the News a 12:30 pm time and then give Summers a 12:15 pm or later time?

It seems to me that all you've got it third party information and nothing from Arnold directly. Regardless of the minor time differences, her story is still the same; she saw Oswald on the second floor just minutes prior to the shooting.

Doesn't sound like a very convincing witness to me.

No surprise there. Why deal with the elephant in the room that is her seeing Oswald when you can concentrate on minor differences in times which she may or may not have given herself?

Why did she give the FBI four days after the statement that she saw Oswald a few minutes before 12:15 and not in the lunchroom?

Again, you reply on what an FBI agent wrote in a report that she never saw or signed. How do you know for sure this is exactly what she told the agent?

She contends the FBI mis quoted her,

So Arnold herself says the FBI misquoted her, yet you go with what the FBI report says anyway.

but on March 18, 1964 she gave the FBI a signed statement that "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time the president was shot".

This is just about the weakest argument you can make.... In March 64 the FBI was instructed to ask all TSBD employees if they had seen Oswald at the time the President was shot and of course nobody, including Arnold did. But that does not make her statement about seeing him a few minutes earlier any less truthful

A very weak witness that is disputed by several others witnesses including Pauline Sanders.

Pauline Sanders never disputed that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald. Sanders claimed that she left the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12.20. If Oswald came up from the 1st floor at around 12.25 and Arnold saw him on the 2nd floor shortly after that, Sanders wouldn't have been able to see either or even know about it as she was already out of the building by then.

You need to do better to make a convincing case.

[Wesley Johnson]

You are the one who originally put the 90 seconds in.

Yes, but only because the Truly/Baker meeting confirms that Oswald was on the 2nd floor at that time. Arnold said she saw him on the same floor a few minutes earlier

I understand that you are trying to say that Oswald could have seen Jarman and Norman coming in 10 minutes before.

I'm not trying. I said it.

that is not supported by anyone.

And Oswald at the 6th floor window is not supported by anyone either, yet you believe Brennan.

Oswald claimed he had lunch on the first floor and told Capt. Fritz that. Depending on who you talk to on here you might get variations of his exact wording, whether he said, "I had lunch with Junior, Jarman, a black guy, a black man, a black, whatever", he told Fritz he had lunch on the first floor and no one else supports that.

The problem is that we don't know what Oswald really said. There are only conflicting third party accounts. So, let's not assume to know what Oswald really said and then proceed to call it a lie, shall we?


D, In 1978, fifteen years after the assassination Carolyn Arnold told the Dallas Morning News that around 12:25 pm she saw Oswald sitting having his lunch in the second floor lunchroom. In the same month she told author Anthony Summers that "she went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment and she saw Oswald there, alone and having lunch", Instead of 12:25 pm that she told Dallas Morning News, she told Summers she saw Oswald, "about a quarter of an hour before the assassination about 12:15 pm, it may have been a little later" Why in a month period fifteen years after does she give the News a 12:30 pm time and then give Summers a 12:15 pm or later time?

It seems to me that all you've got it third party information and nothing from Arnold directly. Regardless of the minor time differences, her story is still the same; she saw Oswald on the second floor just minutes prior to the shooting.

Doesn't sound like a very convincing witness to me.

No surprise there. Why deal with the elephant in the room that is her seeing Oswald when you can concentrate on minor differences in times which she may or may not have given herself?

Why did she give the FBI four days after the statement that she saw Oswald a few minutes before 12:15 and not in the lunchroom? She contends the FBI mis quoted her, but on March 18, 1964 she gave the FBI a signed statement that "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time the president was shot". A very weak witness that is disputed by several others witnesses including Pauline Sanders.
[/b]

"I'm not trying. I said it"?

Come on Martin, a little picky there aren't you?  Let me ask you. Why is it, that you will believe Arnold but not Brennan? "yet you believe Brennan." and yet you believe Arnold? Very funny there Martin.
"So, let's not assume to know what Oswald really said and then proceed to call it a lie, shall we?

So, let's not assume to know what Arnold really said and then proceed to call it truth, shall we?

Very humorous Martin, all the CT'ers have is third party crap. Give me a break. Is there even one piece of evidence that you guys believe? By the way, you know what I believe, so, could you tell me which conspiracy theory you believe? Or do you just lump them all into one basket and then pick information from this one or that one depending on what part of the assassination you are debating? I truly would like to know. The one that really gets me is the "theory" that JFK was really not killed that day. What a hoot. Or how about "Jackie did it" , "the driver did it"!! I mean come on Martin. Do the CT'ers ever feel any embarrassment by some of these theories?   



 

[Martin Weidmann]

"I'm not trying. I said it"?

Come on Martin, a little picky there aren't you?  Let me ask you. Why is it, that you will believe Arnold but not Brennan? "yet you believe Brennan." and yet you believe Arnold? Very funny there Martin.

"So, let's not assume to know what Oswald really said and then proceed to call it a lie, shall we?

So, let's not assume to know what Arnold really said and then proceed to call it truth, shall we?

Very humorous Martin, all the CT'ers have is third party crap. Give me a break. Is there even one piece of evidence that you guys believe? By the way, you know what I believe, so, could you tell me which conspiracy theory you believe? Or do you just lump them all into one basket and then pick information from this one or that one depending on what part of the assassination you are debating? I truly would like to know. The one that really gets me is the "theory" that JFK was really not killed that day. What a hoot. Or how about "Jackie did it" , "the driver did it"!! I mean come on Martin. Do the CT'ers ever feel any embarrassment by some of these theories?   

Come on Martin, a little picky there aren't you?  Let me ask you. Why is it, that you will believe Arnold but not Brennan?  "yet you believe Brennan." and yet you believe Arnold? Very funny there Martin.


Where did I say I believed Arnold and/or Brennan or not? The discussion was about your question about who to believe; Oswald or Arnold. I have merely demostrated to you that there is not enough evidence to reach any kind of firm conclusion. Both could be telling the truth and both could not be.

So, let's not assume to know what Arnold really said and then proceed to call it truth, shall we?

Nobody is doing that. All I have done is counter your claim with the argument that she could indeed be telling the truth. I didn't like much how you concentrated on minor differences in time told to third parties 15 years later and basically ignored the fact that she still claimed to have seen Oswald just prior to the shooting, just like she told the FBI on 11/26/63.

So, why are you making a big effort to argue that she was lying or at least is not a reliable witness, when you simply lack the evidence to reach such a determination?

Very humorous Martin, all the CT'ers have is third party crap. Give me a break.

First of all, I don't care what you think CT'ers have or not. I'm not one of them in as much as I don't have a theory and I don't really care if there was conspiracy or not. All I am interested in is finding out for myself if the case against Oswald is conclusive or not. And, no I won't give you a break.

By the way, you know what I believe, so, could you tell me which conspiracy theory you believe?

I have no theory. I just have serious doubts about the quality of the evidence presented against Oswald, that's all. LNs very often confuse playing Devil's advocate with defending some wacky theory... Why is that?

The one that really gets me is the "theory" that JFK was really not killed that day. What a hoot. Or how about "Jackie did it" , "the driver did it"!! I mean come on Martin. Do the CT'ers ever feel any embarrassment by some of these theories? 

I have never put any of those theories forward, nor do I subscribe to them, so I wouldn't know how CT'ers that do feel
about those theories.

But why are you now trying to make it about me and CT'ers. Why not continue to look at the evidence honestly and go from there?

Any thoughts about my comments about Sanders?