Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?  (Read 49926 times)

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?
« Reply #64 on: April 21, 2022, 03:17:44 PM »
Advertisement

billchapman

AKA The Bad-Mouther vs The Bone-Crusher
« Last Edit: April 21, 2022, 04:54:24 PM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?
« Reply #64 on: April 21, 2022, 03:17:44 PM »


Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?
« Reply #65 on: April 21, 2022, 05:26:19 PM »

Again with "which one is the correct one" nonsense.  You seem to be mistakenly believing that the dispatcher was saying the time was 1:19:00 when he said 1:19.  Get on with your point.  Or don't.  That part is up  to you.


You'd like that.

Again, stop discussing me.  Discuss the topic.

You seem to be mistakenly believing that the dispatcher was saying the time was 1:19:00 when he said 1:19

What in the world makes you think that?


Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?
« Reply #66 on: April 21, 2022, 05:32:05 PM »
Agreed, and I will point out examples of this later.

Will that be when you are going to claim that you can't rely on witness testimony but can rely on your incorrect interpretation of vague statements like the Scoggins quote or some totally insignificant remarks by Benavides that tells us nothing about when Callaway helped to load Tippit in the ambulance?

Domingo Benavides said that Callaway got on the patrol car radio to report the shooting and the "officer" at the other end (the dispatcher) told Callaway that they already had that information and to stay off the air.

Benavides then said that Callaway grabbed the service revolver and said to Benavides that they should go chase the killer.

Benavides said he declined and added that Callaway then went over to the cab driver (Scoggins).

Callaway said to Scoggins "Let's get the son of a As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day?  It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair.  His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate.  Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare.  There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'".

Nothing about Callaway helping to load the body into the ambulance (because this had already been done earlier and the ambulance was gone).

Nothing about Callaway helping to load the body into the ambulance

Indeed, so why did you bring this up?

(because this had already been done earlier and the ambulance was gone).

Says who? Benavides certainly didn't and your incorrect opinion is of no significance.


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?
« Reply #66 on: April 21, 2022, 05:32:05 PM »


Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1802
Re: Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?
« Reply #67 on: April 21, 2022, 06:04:04 PM »
You can ignore them if you want to, but that will not make them go away.

You can call their remarks insignificant if you want to, but that doesn't change anything.

Ignoring what they (Scoggins and Benavides) said won't win you any debates, so go ahead and ignore them.

I'm off to New Orleans for 4 days with Fred Litwin and four other guys for a nice little Oswald/Ferrie/Garrison/Shaw trip.  I won't be home until Tuesday evening.  I may check in here each night but then again I may not.

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?
« Reply #68 on: April 21, 2022, 06:30:21 PM »
You can ignore them if you want to, but that will not make them go away.

You can call their remarks insignificant if you want to, but that doesn't change anything.

Ignoring what they (Scoggins and Benavides) said won't win you any debates, so go ahead and ignore them.

I'm off to New Orleans for 4 days with Fred Litwin and four other guys for a nice little Oswald/Ferrie/Garrison/Shaw trip.  I won't be home until Tuesday evening.  I may check in here each night but then again I may not.

Ignoring what they (Scoggins and Benavides) said won't win you any debates, so go ahead and ignore them.

I'm not ignoring them. I'm just saying that they do not have the significant evidentiary value you attach to it.

The fact that Benavides doesn't say anything about Callaway and Bowley loading Tippit in the ambulance is not proof that it happened prior to the sequence of events he does describe, if this is in fact what Benavides really said. You don't even provide authentication for those remarks.

Scoggins [who you quote, without providing the source] is describing events that took place in a very short time indeed. In fact, probably in less than a minute. The order in which he relates the information tells you absolutely nothing about the actual sequence of events.

And since when is this about winning a debate? You are revealing your true mindset again.... But if you are so preoccupied with "winning" this debate, you will have to do a whole lot better than coming up with some wacky interpretations of vague and insignificant statements allegedly made by witnesses.

I'm off to New Orleans for 4 days with Fred Litwin and four other guys for a nice little Oswald/Ferrie/Garrison/Shaw trip.

Have a good time. I can wait until you get back. No problem at all.

« Last Edit: April 21, 2022, 11:29:19 PM by Martin Weidmann »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?
« Reply #68 on: April 21, 2022, 06:30:21 PM »


Offline Gerry Down

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?
« Reply #69 on: April 21, 2022, 06:58:13 PM »
I'm off to New Orleans for 4 days with Fred Litwin and four other guys for a nice little Oswald/Ferrie/Garrison/Shaw trip.  I won't be home until Tuesday evening.  I may check in here each night but then again I may not.

Any chance of your group recording a talk or two while ye are there? Project JFK do one of these every month or so and post on Youtube. Very interesting and I always find I learn something new from them.

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?
« Reply #70 on: April 21, 2022, 11:40:33 PM »
Let's give Bill Brown something to think about during his trip;

Instead of presenting questionable interpretations of what Scoggins and Benavides are supposed to have said, as Brown has done, why not simply go to the main source, the one who was there and knows exactly what happened; Callaway himself.

On 02/25/64 Callaway was interviewed by FBI agent Arthur Carter. In his FD 302 report he writes:

.......he [Callaway] observed that TIPPIT had been shot in the temple. He said TIPPIT was lying on his pistol and he, CALLAWAY, took the pistol and put it on the hood of TiPPIT's patrol car. Then he got in the patrol car and used the police radio to contact the Dallas Police Department, who advised they were aware that the police officer [TIPPIT] had been shot. He said the dispatcher told him to get off the air. About that time an ambulance came up and CALLAWAY said he and an unidentified citizen helped the ambulance driver put the officer (TIPPIT) in the ambulance.

On 03/26/64 Callaway testified before the Warren Commission and said;

Mr. BALL. When you got there what did you see?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I saw a squad car, and by that time there was four or five people that had gathered, a couple of cars had stopped. Then I saw--I went on up to the squad car and saw the police officer lying in the street. I see he had been shot in the head. So the first thing I did, I ran over to the squad car. I didn't know whether anybody reported it or not. So I got on the police radio and called them, and told them a man had been shot, told them the location, I thought the officer was dead. They said we know about it, stay off the air, so I went back.
By this time an ambulance was coming. The officer was laying on his left side, his pistol was underneath him. I kind of rolled him over and took his gun out from under him. The people wonder whether he ever got his pistol out of his holster. He did.

The two statements are practically identical!

In the past Bill Brown has claimed that Callaway had misremembered during his WC testimony. In other words; the classic "he was mistaken" claim, but he never explained why Callaway was mistaken on this one particular point, not once but twice. Let's see what explanation Bill can come up with now.....
« Last Edit: April 22, 2022, 01:42:35 AM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1802
Re: Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?
« Reply #71 on: April 22, 2022, 06:06:12 AM »
Let's give Bill Brown something to think about during his trip;

Instead of presenting questionable interpretations of what Scoggins and Benavides are supposed to have said, as Brown has done, why not simply go to the main source, the one who was there and knows exactly what happened; Callaway himself.

On 02/25/64 Callaway was interviewed by FBI agent Arthur Carter. In his FD 302 report he writes:

.......he [Callaway] observed that TIPPIT had been shot in the temple. He said TIPPIT was lying on his pistol and he, CALLAWAY, took the pistol and put it on the hood of TiPPIT's patrol car. Then he got in the patrol car and used the police radio to contact the Dallas Police Department, who advised they were aware that the police officer [TIPPIT] had been shot. He said the dispatcher told him to get off the air. About that time an ambulance came up and CALLAWAY said he and an unidentified citizen helped the ambulance driver put the officer (TIPPIT) in the ambulance.

On 03/26/64 Callaway testified before the Warren Commission and said;

Mr. BALL. When you got there what did you see?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I saw a squad car, and by that time there was four or five people that had gathered, a couple of cars had stopped. Then I saw--I went on up to the squad car and saw the police officer lying in the street. I see he had been shot in the head. So the first thing I did, I ran over to the squad car. I didn't know whether anybody reported it or not. So I got on the police radio and called them, and told them a man had been shot, told them the location, I thought the officer was dead. They said we know about it, stay off the air, so I went back.
By this time an ambulance was coming. The officer was laying on his left side, his pistol was underneath him. I kind of rolled him over and took his gun out from under him. The people wonder whether he ever got his pistol out of his holster. He did.

The two statements are practically identical!

In the past Bill Brown has claimed that Callaway had misremembered during his WC testimony. In other words; the classic "he was mistaken" claim, but he never explained why Callaway was mistaken on this one particular point, not once but twice. Let's see what explanation Bill can come up with now.....

I most certainly have explained how we know that Callaway was incorrectly recounting the proper order of events.

The police tapes clearly tell you that 602 (the Kinsley/Butler ambulance) was leaving the scene at the same time you hear Callaway making his report to the police dispatcher.

Scoggins and Benavides confirm what the police tapes tell you.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2022, 10:43:34 AM by Bill Brown »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?
« Reply #71 on: April 22, 2022, 06:06:12 AM »