Reasonable doubts about Lee Harvey Oswald

[David Josephs]

(to P. Dragoo)

Your unfortunately broad painting of our philosophical opponents does not help your case. Also listing evidence and using reason to persuade will always ultimately be more successful long term, strong arm hypothesis and insults are the weapons of the uninformed critic. If some will not listen to evidence it is their choice, however this does not render them complicit it means they have not done the work or are do not care as much as we do, not everyone who disagrees is involved, attacks will not inspire them to see the truth, reasonable unbiased facts and discussion might.


Thanks David, your maps and info are welcome additions.

Always my pleasure to help illuminate... yet I think you've missed our point....

The EVIDENCE OFFERED proves conspiracy. Nothing DVP can offer changes this.
The "rebuttals" to each of his 8 comments - you offer - have been part of our understanding of the case for YEARS... and while we can appreciate your posting them, they simply tell US that you still consider there being a NEED to address the DVP's of the world....

The REAL QUESTION that was not stated is, "Why do the DVPs of the world persist, given the obviousness of the EVIDENCE and its meaning?"

"agreeing to disagree" no longer works in the context of our discussions... CS
that you would give DVP the time of day and what looks like hours of time producing a well thought out rebuttal is THE ISSUE.

Until repeated verified evidence from both the official record and independent sources confirm that Oswald did not have anything to do with the plot it seem premature to rule him out utterly in my opinion. I would be willing to review whatever evidence you have, being new I have not seen everything here. I think he is a patsy as you do, however a patsy is part of a plot.

and

I am using reasonable doubt as my basis for proving Oswald likely did not commit the crime he accused of

I addressed your request that Oswald prove himself innocent... and so did Phil... we don't do that in the courts of law here... the Prosecutors need to prove GUILT.

Which "reasonable doubt" are you using here CS?? And how do you prove Oswald "likely" did not commit the crime when there is no proof he did as you pointed out in 8 areas of contention.

Despite all Van Pein's claims, Brennan did not identify Lee Harvey Oswald. His further conspiracy statements without verification should further discredit Brennan's testimony. Brennan's words seem included almost to fill space given their actual use in supporting the guilt of Oswald. Brennan's testimony proves nothing beyond his inability to identify anyone positively.

Now, CS, this is where I finally learned the difference between rebutting nonsense and finding nuggets of truth of Oswald's innocence...

Read Mr. Brennan's testimony again please yet this time let's look for evidence of innocence rather than reasonable doubt about his guilt.


Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as the parade came by, I watched it from a distance of Elm and Main Street, as it came on to Houston and turned the corner at Houston and Elm, going down the incline towards the railroad underpass. And after the President had passed my position, I really couldn't say how many feet or how far, a short distance I would say, I heard this crack that I positively thought was a backfire.
Mr. BELIN. You thought it was backfire?
Mr. BRENNAN. Of a motorcycle.

CS... WHERE are motorcycles sounds? STREET LEVEL or 70 FEET IN THE AIR?
So the first shot - which MOST IF NOT ALL DESCIBED AS A BACKFIRE - is a sound heard at street level and not too long after the limo turns onto ELM...
The first shot available to the 6th floor SE corner is not until Z210 -

He then changes his statement:

Mr. BRENNAN. Well, then something, just right after this explosion, made me think that it was a firecracker being thrown from the Texas Book Store.

Convenient right? the street level backfire makes him look up to someone throwing firecrackers... no one takes this man seriously other than the DVPs of the world...
---------------

Mr. B states he was looking at the man in the window as he aimed for his third(last) shot...

Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it?
Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle explode? Did you see the flash of what was either the second or the third shot?
Mr. BRENNAN. No.
Mr. McCLOY. Could you see that he had discharged the rifle?
Mr. BRENNAN. No. For some reason I did not get an echo at any time. The first shot was positive and clear and the last shot was positive and dear, with no echo on my part.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes. But you saw him aim?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle discharge, did you see the recoil or the flash?
Mr. BRENNAN. No.
Mr. McCLOY. But you heard the last shot.
Mr. BRENNAN. The report; yes, sir

So the man SEES the person aiming, he is looking right at him yet only HEARS the last "report".... B
BRENNAN either LOOKS AWAY or
BRENNAN HEARS A SHOT FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Mr. BELIN. I am talking in the window itself.
Mr. BRENNAN. No, no. That is--I don't remember a box in the window, these boxes I remember are stacked up behind the window, and they were zigzagged, kind of step down, and there was a space it looked like back of here.

So a quick recap CS... BRENNAN HIMSELF tells us in 1964 that the rifle he saw did NOT have a SCOPE
The WINDOW he was looking in did NOT HAVE BOXES IN THEM
and he HEARS THE LAST SHOT while having seen this person AIM... yet does not see this same person shoot the rifle.

This is the quality of witness that convicted Oswald and gives DVP his ammunition for endless argument.

When you can find out HOW and WHY Mr. B here tells the DPD about a 5'10" 150-160 slender male around 30 years old... from what he saw... you'll be entering the DEEP part of this forum...
until then... discussing why the DVPs of the world are wrong is really a waste of time...

Cheers
DJ