Why Was Oswald Killed?

[Thomas Graves]

The point is, you either recognize that witness testimony is unreliable or you don't.

In Iacoletti's case, testimony is unreliable if it can't be interpreted as exonerating Oswald.

-- MWT   

[Bill Chapman]

Are you channeling Euins now?  How do you know he's describing anything that's the "same as Oswald's"?
>>> Euins channeled himself. Oswald's head is proof of the 2.5" similarity to the Euin description.

First you make an issue of your "witnesses" seeing a rifle at all (or what they thought was a rifle).  When that wasn't unique enough, then you decide to make an "aimed at something" distinction.  Nice special pleading.
>>> Not so fast: The 'aiming at something' is in reference to your claim that Hill, etc saw shooters.

How would any witnesss know whether or not a "rifle" was being aimed at something?
>>> Are you talking about your witnesses like Jean Hill saw/didn't see/didn't see/saw; or 'my' witnesses? Again, which of your Jean Hill-type claimed witnesses saw anybody aiming (or even pointing) a weapon in the direction of the limo in such a way that would suggest an attempt on Kennedy was being made?

"If memory serves", right?  Actually, you have it backwards.  But so what?  Years later Brennan said he saw the president's head explode.  The point is, you either recognize that witness testimony is unreliable or you don't.  Gorillas playing basketball and all that.
>>> Brennan died before his book was published. You're reliant on the ghost-writer being honest.
>>> Since you seem to be down with the notion that witness testimony is unreliable, can one now expect the 4 people including Jean Hill, 'saw'-shooters claims now fall into that 'unreliable' category?

Or are you just doing a little 'chest-pounding' 

[John Iacoletti]

In Iacoletti's case, testimony is unreliable if it can't be interpreted as exonerating Oswald.

Testimony is unreliable, period.

[John Iacoletti]

Are you channeling Euins now?  How do you know he's describing anything that's the "same as Oswald's"?
>>> Euins channeled himself. Oswald's head is proof of the 2.5" similarity to the Euin description.

Euins didn't say anything about 2.5" -- that was Specter.  But please even demonstrate that Oswald had a 2.5" "bald spot" on his head.

First you make an issue of your "witnesses" seeing a rifle at all (or what they thought was a rifle).  When that wasn't unique enough, then you decide to make an "aimed at something" distinction.  Nice special pleading.
>>> Not so fast: The 'aiming at something' is in reference to your claim that Hill, etc saw shooters.

So, are you saying that Norman, Jarman, and Williams aren't witnesses to a shooter unless they saw somebody aiming at something?  How about everybody near 10th & Patton?

>>> Brennan died before his book was published. You're reliant on the ghost-writer being honest.

You're assuming (without evidence) that publication date = written date.  Do you apply that to Priscilla Johnson's book as well?

>>> Since you seem to be down with the notion that witness testimony is unreliable, can one now expect the 4 people including Jean Hill, 'saw'-shooters claims now fall into that 'unreliable' category?

Yes.

Or are you just doing a little 'chest-pounding' 

Your dad can beat up my dad.

[Bill Chapman]

Testimony is unreliable, period.

Except when it isn't*

*© John Iacoletti

[Bill Chapman]

Euins didn't say anything about 2.5" -- that was Specter.  But please even demonstrate that Oswald had a 2.5" "bald spot" on his head.
>>> Are you claiming that Euins had no input at all regarding the size of the so-called 'bald/white' spot?

So, are you saying that Norman, Jarman, and Williams aren't witnesses to a shooter unless they saw somebody aiming at something?  How about everybody near 10th & Patton?
>>> Did those three gentlemen claim to have seen the shooter? Yours did, according to your earlier claim (that included Jean Hill). Do explain where that claim of yours is an any way comparable to an actual shooter brandishing an actual weapon, and emptying it, to boot.

You're assuming (without evidence) that publication date = written date.  Do you apply that to Priscilla Johnson's book as well?
>>> There you go again: Telling others what they are assuming. Get over yourself, Lord Haughty Jr.
>>> My reference to Brennan's death prior to publication is clearly suggestive of the opportunity afforded by said death for a less than scrupulous ghost writer to 'pump up the volume' so-to-speak, despite Brennan having signed off (IIRC) on the manuscript prior to his demise.

[John Iacoletti]

Except when it isn't*

*© John Iacoletti

That's the LN-er credo.

[John Iacoletti]

>>> Are you claiming that Euins had no input at all regarding the size of the so-called 'bald/white' spot?

I thought my response was quite clear.

Please even demonstrate that Oswald had a 2.5" "bald spot" on his head.

>>> Did those three gentlemen claim to have seen the shooter? Yours did, according to your earlier claim (that included Jean Hill). Do explain where that claim of yours is an any way comparable to an actual shooter brandishing an actual weapon, and emptying it, to boot.

True to form, you're moving the goalposts.  But I'll remind you of your original false claim about the knoll witnesses:

43 opinions = 0 shooters seen

You're assuming (without evidence) that publication date = written date.  Do you apply that to Priscilla Johnson's book as well?
>>> There you go again: Telling others what they are assuming. Get over yourself, Lord Haughty Jr.
>>> My reference to Brennan's death prior to publication is clearly suggestive of the opportunity afforded by said death for a less than scrupulous ghost writer to 'pump up the volume' so-to-speak, despite Brennan having signed off (IIRC) on the manuscript prior to his demise.

You're all about what's "suggestive" to you.  Do you have any evidence that Brennan's manuscript was altered after his death?