03-01-2011, 07:08 AM
Alan Dale:
"I would be open to any testimony of any eye witness whose story was told on the day of the event, and which was not embellished over a period of decades to become something much more sensational than it was originally.
Very simply, I don't believe any person whose story of what they saw emerged at some point after their initial interviews on the subject."
Is a witness's story more accurate at FIRST account ... or YEARS/DECADES later? The answer is NEITHER! You have to have critical thinking no matter what a witness/participant is saying whether it is immediate or years later - even if there are dramatic changes.
A good example is Marina Oswald. Practically everything she said in 1963-1964 was a LIE. Just bucketfuls and bucketfuls of lies, lies, lies. Remember in fall 1963, Marina was age 22 with 2 small kids, including a BABY, with NO money, and speaking almost no English, and every news media in the USA and the government was saying that her DEAD husband had MURDERED the president of the USA. Plus Marina was surrounded by US intelligence and her phone was tapped in Feb. 1964 by the FBI (and probably by the CIA as well....) Marina was a marionette doll for US intelligence who made her say anything they wanted her too, including fantastic whoppers like Oswald shot at Gen. Walker, Oswald wanted to kill Nixon, Oswald wanted to hijack a plane to Cuba ... the list is endless.
The Marina 40 years later has dramatically changed her story - and out of the suffocating net of US intelligence (pretty much so, I am sure they "monitor") her story is a lot more ACCURATE. That is why when Marina in 2010 still says she took the backyard photos of Oswald, I tend to believe her. She has changed her story on everything else and I think she is much, much more truthful and accurate now.
So there is no easy rule when it comes to witnesses, when to believe them and when not to - whether it is Marina, Madeleine Duncan Brown, Judy Baker ... or ANYONE. What you have to do is use critical thinking, logic and weigh every statement they make on its own merits. No one is 100% truthful and usually not even a 100% liar.
"I would be open to any testimony of any eye witness whose story was told on the day of the event, and which was not embellished over a period of decades to become something much more sensational than it was originally.
Very simply, I don't believe any person whose story of what they saw emerged at some point after their initial interviews on the subject."
Is a witness's story more accurate at FIRST account ... or YEARS/DECADES later? The answer is NEITHER! You have to have critical thinking no matter what a witness/participant is saying whether it is immediate or years later - even if there are dramatic changes.
A good example is Marina Oswald. Practically everything she said in 1963-1964 was a LIE. Just bucketfuls and bucketfuls of lies, lies, lies. Remember in fall 1963, Marina was age 22 with 2 small kids, including a BABY, with NO money, and speaking almost no English, and every news media in the USA and the government was saying that her DEAD husband had MURDERED the president of the USA. Plus Marina was surrounded by US intelligence and her phone was tapped in Feb. 1964 by the FBI (and probably by the CIA as well....) Marina was a marionette doll for US intelligence who made her say anything they wanted her too, including fantastic whoppers like Oswald shot at Gen. Walker, Oswald wanted to kill Nixon, Oswald wanted to hijack a plane to Cuba ... the list is endless.
The Marina 40 years later has dramatically changed her story - and out of the suffocating net of US intelligence (pretty much so, I am sure they "monitor") her story is a lot more ACCURATE. That is why when Marina in 2010 still says she took the backyard photos of Oswald, I tend to believe her. She has changed her story on everything else and I think she is much, much more truthful and accurate now.
So there is no easy rule when it comes to witnesses, when to believe them and when not to - whether it is Marina, Madeleine Duncan Brown, Judy Baker ... or ANYONE. What you have to do is use critical thinking, logic and weigh every statement they make on its own merits. No one is 100% truthful and usually not even a 100% liar.