DPD Tapes and a 6 Minute Discrepancy

[Mitch Todd]

BS. I’ve never applied a different standard of skepticism to “say, Markham, Bowley, Davenport.”

You just completely made that up.

I've made nothing up. We see what you object to, and what you refrain from objecting to. Your double standard shines brightly through the crack between that Scylla and Charybdis.

[Bill Chapman]

I've made nothing up. We see what you object to, and what you refrain from objecting to. Your double standard shines brightly through the crack between that Scylla and Charybdis.

More like a light bulb that constantly flickers on-and-off due to not being tightly screwed in.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

More like a light bulb that constantly flickers on-and-off due to not being tightly screwed in.

Every piece of evidence, every account, every piece of information that points to Oswald in any way shooting JFK or Tippit, in implicating Oswald in any crime, is attacked and dismissed. The person making the claim - Brennan or Brewer - is attacked as being dishonest (not wrong but deliberately dishonest). The evidence presented - the fingerprints on the rifle or the rifle purchase - is summarily dismissed as not being authentic, as not believable.

Meanwhile, all of Oswald's statements and acts are given the most innocent and innocuous of explanations. "Lots of people weren't interested in the assassination. Oswald was no different." As if nothing distinguished Oswald from these other people. 

All of this occurring while insisting that he's not a conspiracy believer.

[Mitch Todd]

The problem is that it doesn't take a whole lot to satisfy you when it comes to accepting the narrative.

Actually, the "narrative" (I think Martin would prefer the word "timeline") on this particular topic that I haul to is one I created on my own, from the data available to me. So "the problem" isn't actually a problem.

[Bill Chapman]

Every piece of evidence, every account, every piece of information that points to Oswald in any way shooting JFK or Tippit, in implicating Oswald in any crime, is attacked and dismissed. The person making the claim - Brennan or Brewer - is attacked as being dishonest (not wrong but deliberately dishonest). The evidence presented - the fingerprints on the rifle or the rifle purchase - is summarily dismissed as not being authentic, as not believable.

Meanwhile, all of Oswald's statements and acts are given the most innocent and innocuous of explanations. "Lots of people weren't interested in the assassination. Oswald was no different." As if nothing distinguished Oswald from these other people. 

All of this occurring while insisting that he's not a conspiracy believer.

Don't forget Mr McKneely's oft-used 'witnesses who did not see Oswald breaking any law' attempted witness put down...as if actually ID'ing @Tippit and nearby environs (handling the shells and revolver in some cases) would have no importance whatsoever in the case.

[John Iacoletti]

I've made nothing up. We see what you object to, and what you refrain from objecting to.

What I "refrain from objecting to" tells you nothing about what "standard" I'm applying to anything.  You just made that up by making an assumption -- much like you do when citing "evidence" in this case.

[John Iacoletti]

Every piece of evidence, every account, every piece of information that points to Oswald in any way shooting JFK or Tippit, in implicating Oswald in any crime, is attacked and dismissed.

There is very little evidence, account, or piece of information that points to Oswald in any way in the first place.  And what does is questionable or tainted in some way.  It should be dismissed by anybody looking at the evidence critically rather than trying to confirm a pre-ordained narrative.

[John Mytton]

There is very little evidence, account, or piece of information that points to Oswald in any way in the first place.  And what does is questionable or tainted in some way.  It should be dismissed by anybody looking at the evidence critically rather than trying to confirm a pre-ordained narrative.

Not according to Bugliosi, you know the guy who successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials.

JohnM