Since you consider a witness saying something on video is true... What Holland says must also be true, right?
Idiotic comparison.
No it isn't. It's a comparison of witnesses who made statements on video.
Holland could not identify a shooter. He had no interaction with a second assassin.Brewer and McDonald also could not identify a shooter. Neither man saw Tippit being killed.
Brewer identified Oswald as the man who acted suspiciously in the foyer of his shoe-store... when police cars drove by with sirens wailing.
McDonald interacted physically with Oswald.So what? They still had no way of knowing that Oswald killed Tippit, because they never saw the shooting
There's an enormous difference between Sam Holland's video testimony and that of Brewer's and McDonald's.No there isn't... It's witnesses making statements on video. Same rules for everybody... But what difference would that be? Pray tell....
Why don't you discern that. You don't want to.You just want there to be a difference, so you can dismiss what Holland said
And what's Holland (in Dealey Plaza) got to do with Brewer and McDonald in Oak Cliff?What have Brewer and McDonald, on Jefferson, to do with a shooting at 10th/Patton?
Is that a non sequitur?You really love using that term... Is it something you learned the meaning of recently and now you want to use it as often as you can?
It's all very simple; if you take the position that Brewer and McDonald were truthfull because they said something on video than the same must apply to Holland.
Idiotic comparison.