On Dec 26, 11:03 am, John McAdams wrote:
> On 26 Dec 2011 11:59:41 -0500, "jfk2...@gmail.com"
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 25, 5:21 pm, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 25 Dec 2011 14:03:20 -0500, Raymond wrote:
>
> >> This one works.
>
> >>http://www.bettyconfidential.com/ar/ld/a/Marina_Oswald_Porter_Discuss...
>
> >> Any assertion made my Marina falls into one to two categories:
>
> >> 1.) witness testimony, based on what she saw, heard and personally
> >> experienced.
>
> >> 2.) opinions, based on what she has been told and read.
>
> >> Where (1.) is concerned, she has continued to affirm all the key
> >> testimony she gave to the Warren Commission.
>
> >Your opinion. I think you are wrong. Anything that does not support
> >"LHO acted alone" denies the WCR.
>
> You are being really *slow* getting this.
Wrong. You are being really *slow* getting this. Marina has recanted the thesis of the WCR.
>
> Marina has *consistently* insisted that Oswald shot at Walker, and
> told her he had.
>
Not relevant.
> She has *consistently* said that Oswald had a rifle that disappeared
> from the Paine garage on the day of the assassination.
Not relevant. LHO was never seen with the M/C in Dallas. He may not have known where it was.
>
> She has *consistently* said she took the backyard photos.
Not relevant.
>
> She has *consistently* said that Lee told her he had gone to Mexico
> City.
>
>
Not relevant.
>
> >> Where (2.) is concerned, her opinions simply don't matter.
>
> >Marina has said different things at different times. How do we know when
> >she is lying? How do we know when she is telling the truth?
>
> Go back and read what I wrote above.
I have. Your opinion is still wrong.
>
> Changing your *opinion* does not mean you were lying when you had a
> different opinion.
Really? Are you acknowledging that the WCR is simply *opinion*?
>
> >Will you now apply the same 'logic' to Marina's statements that you did to
> >Judyth's?
>
> You are really *slow* getting this.
You are really *slow* getting this -- Marina has said different things at different times. She has recanted the thesis of the WCR.
>
> Go back and read what I wrote above until you understand it.
>
Go back and read what I wrote until you understand the implications of what I have said.
Had LHO been allowed to live to stand trial, Marina would not have been able to testify against him.
Marina was sequestered by the SS and threatened with deportation until she gave the WC what it wanted.
When she read the 26 vols of H+E she changed her mind and recanted the thesis of the WCR.
The WCR has lost its star witness. What validity does it have today?
Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
> On 26 Dec 2011 11:59:41 -0500, "jfk2...@gmail.com"
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 25, 5:21 pm, John McAdams
> >> On 25 Dec 2011 14:03:20 -0500, Raymond
>
> >> This one works.
>
> >>http://www.bettyconfidential.com/ar/ld/a/Marina_Oswald_Porter_Discuss...
>
> >> Any assertion made my Marina falls into one to two categories:
>
> >> 1.) witness testimony, based on what she saw, heard and personally
> >> experienced.
>
> >> 2.) opinions, based on what she has been told and read.
>
> >> Where (1.) is concerned, she has continued to affirm all the key
> >> testimony she gave to the Warren Commission.
>
> >Your opinion. I think you are wrong. Anything that does not support
> >"LHO acted alone" denies the WCR.
>
> You are being really *slow* getting this.
Wrong. You are being really *slow* getting this. Marina has recanted the thesis of the WCR.
>
> Marina has *consistently* insisted that Oswald shot at Walker, and
> told her he had.
>
Not relevant.
> She has *consistently* said that Oswald had a rifle that disappeared
> from the Paine garage on the day of the assassination.
Not relevant. LHO was never seen with the M/C in Dallas. He may not have known where it was.
>
> She has *consistently* said she took the backyard photos.
Not relevant.
>
> She has *consistently* said that Lee told her he had gone to Mexico
> City.
>
>
Not relevant.
>
> >> Where (2.) is concerned, her opinions simply don't matter.
>
> >Marina has said different things at different times. How do we know when
> >she is lying? How do we know when she is telling the truth?
>
> Go back and read what I wrote above.
I have. Your opinion is still wrong.
>
> Changing your *opinion* does not mean you were lying when you had a
> different opinion.
Really? Are you acknowledging that the WCR is simply *opinion*?
>
> >Will you now apply the same 'logic' to Marina's statements that you did to
> >Judyth's?
>
> You are really *slow* getting this.
You are really *slow* getting this -- Marina has said different things at different times. She has recanted the thesis of the WCR.
>
> Go back and read what I wrote above until you understand it.
>
Go back and read what I wrote until you understand the implications of what I have said.
Had LHO been allowed to live to stand trial, Marina would not have been able to testify against him.
Marina was sequestered by the SS and threatened with deportation until she gave the WC what it wanted.
When she read the 26 vols of H+E she changed her mind and recanted the thesis of the WCR.
The WCR has lost its star witness. What validity does it have today?
Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
No comments:
Post a Comment