New podcast on my books POLITICAL TRUTH and INTO THE NIGHTMARE

[Bill Brown]

5 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

There may have been multiple line-ups in which Lee Oswald participated. The principle of the line-ups was always the same - Lee had to look odd in a line-up.

In one of the line-ups, Lee was paraded in a T-shirt with teenagers around him in regular shirts, and Lee complained:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20SzdIBn51Q

In another line-up, older men possibly dressed in suits were presented along with Lee Oswald:

https://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=WCD-LINEUPS

 

I was not too glad seeing one of the Forum members criticising Joseph's presentation and, by extension, his work. "Into the nightmare" is one of the most revealing and best researched books in the realm of JFK's assassination. I read it twice already, and will read it again to appreciate all details and valuable bits of information one cannot find anywhere else, e.g., the account of Joseph's interview with Tippit's father.

 

Again... Oswald did not appear in any lineup alongside men in suits. You guys gotta stop it with that nonsense. 

 

As for McBride's "presentation and, by extension, his work"... Are you aware that he stated that Howard Brennan had poor eyesight on 11.22.63?

 

It should be common knowledge that Brennan had the sandblasting accident (which damaged his vision somewhat) in January of '64.

 

I could go on and on.

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

The Commission "Documents" weren't published by the WC at all (AFAIK).

But, fortunately, we can still access all of the "Warren Commission Documents" (linked below) due to the amazing archiving effort done by the people who run the Mary Ferrell website. There are 1555 of the WC "Documents" available at the Ferrell site (totalling approx. 50,000 pages). And they have been very valuable to me on many occasions during the last several years.

(I think Clint Bradford is [or at least was] the leading archivist there at the Mary Ferrell Foundation, is that correct? Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=1008

Rex Bradford, David. Rex. There was a researcher named Clint Bradford--I think I even met him once--but I believe he has been inactive for a decade or more. 

[Joe Bauer]

Due to only "one" researcher we are informed enough about J.D. Tippit - his background, personal character and actions before, leading up to and during the assassination day - to know he logically deserves to be considered with much suspicion in the case.

 

 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Rex Bradford, David. Rex. There was a researcher named Clint Bradford--I think I even met him once--but I believe he has been inactive for a decade or more. 

Ah yes, it's Rex. Not Clint. Sorry about that. I got my names mixed up.

[David Von Pein]

54 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Due to only "one" researcher we are informed enough about J.D. Tippit - his background, personal character and actions before, leading up to and during the assassination day - to know he logically deserves to be considered with much suspicion in the case.

The above comment made by Joe Bauer is, in my opinion, totally unwarranted and just flat-out ridiculous.

As time goes on, there are more and more conspiracy believers who seem to want to smear just about everyone connected with the Kennedy assassination except  the person to whom all of the evidence leads---Lee H. Oswald.

Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, J.D. Tippit, Buell Frazier, Linnie Randle, Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, Will Fritz, Gerald Hill, Captain Westbrook, and many others are branded with the label of "suspicious" by many CTers. While Lee Harvey Oswald, who was the owner of both of the 11/22/63 murder weapons (which is a provable fact no matter what any conspiracy theorist today wants to believe), is considered by many to be merely an innocent "patsy" in BOTH of those Nov. 22 murders, despite the pile of evidence that exists against him.

The logic of such thinking completely escapes me.

Edited July 14, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Due to only "one" researcher we are informed enough about J.D. Tippit - his background, personal character and actions before, leading up to and during the assassination day - to know he logically deserves to be considered with much suspicion in the case.

 

 

McBride either doesn't know the case (Oswald in a lineup alongside men in suits, Brennan having bad eyesight on the day of the assassination) and therefore does not belong up on the pedestal which you place him...

 

Or....

 

McBride is telling porky pies about those things and therefore does not belong up on the pedestal which you place him.

 

One of these must be true.  Which is it?

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

McBride either doesn't know the case (Oswald in a lineup alongside men in suits, Brennan having bad eyesight on the day of the assassination) and therefore does not belong up on the pedestal which you place him...

 

Or....

 

McBride is telling porky pies about those things and therefore does not belong up on the pedestal which you place him.

 

One of these must be true.  Which is it?

You are reminding me once again of why I stopped posting on the JFK Assassination Forum.

It shouldn't be a constant game of "Gotcha!", Bill.

Why can't it be "I'm sorry, Joe, but I believe you made a couple of mistakes"? And then list the mistakes.

The Education Forum--at its best--has been a place where people can disagree with one another or correct each other without making it personal, or exchanging insults. It hasn't always been successful but most of those posting here "Get it".

Do you "Get it", Bill? Or are you just here to ruffle feathers?

P.S. I respect a lot of researchers who I nevertheless think are wrong on a number of issues, of varying importance. If you wish to start a thread on whether or not certain researchers should be held in high esteem, that might be of value, but only if you are respectful and are open to discussing the merits of Posner, Bugliosi, Lattimer, Sturdivan, etc.  I once had a discussion with John McAdams about the nature of lying. He tried to convince me that when Jim Garrison or Oliver Stone say something that isn't true, they are lying, but that when men like Arlen Specter or Michael Baden say something that isn't true, they are simply mistaken, as "they would have no reason to lie." Are you of a  similar mindset--where you think the errors in Joe's video demand correction, but where the errors or lies in say, Bugliosi's book, do not? Is it a two-way street? Or are you only here to "own" the CTs? 

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Bill Brown]

17 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

You are reminding me once again of why I stopped posting on the JFK Assassination Forum.

It shouldn't be a constant game of "Gotcha!", Bill.

Why can't it be "I'm sorry, Joe, but I believe you made a couple of mistakes"? And then list the mistakes.

The Education Forum--at its best--has been a place where people can disagree with one another or correct each other without making it personal, or exchanging insults. It hasn't always been successful but most of those posting here "Get it".

Do you "Get it", Bill? Or are you just here to ruffle feathers?

P.S. I respect a lot of researchers who I nevertheless think are wrong on a number of issues, of varying importance. If you wish to start a thread on whether or not certain researchers should be held in high esteem, that might be of value, but only if you are respectful and are open to discussing the merits of Posner, Bugliosi, Lattimer, Sturdivan, etc.  I once had a discussion with John McAdams about the nature of lying. He tried to convince me that when Jim Garrison or Oliver Stone say something that isn't true, they are lying, but that when men like Arlen Specter or Michael Baden say something that isn't true, they are simply mistaken, as "they would have no reason to lie." Are you of a  similar mindset--where you think the errors in Joe's video demand correction, but where the errors or lies in say, Bugliosi's book, do not? Is it a two-way street? Or are you only here to "own" the CTs? 

 

For starters, can you quote me defending Bugliosi's book? I don't recall doing so.

[Bill Brown]

And it's my opinion that I have not been rude to McBride in this thread. He put his interview out there and I'm responding to it.

[W. Niederhut]

54 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

And it's my opinion that I have not been rude to McBride in this thread. He put his interview out there and I'm responding to it.

It's really an issue of devious, misleading rhetoric.

You're using an old rhetorical trick of focusing on some minor peripheral detail-- a tiny strawman as it were-- in the hope that poorly informed people will believe it discredits an entire opus.

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

How do we know if Brennan had good or less good vision on the day of the assassination?

We do know that Joe Ball had a problem with this in March I think.

Which is about four months later.  Did it just occur within those four (or less) months?

[Joseph McBride]

A podcast panel on the JFK assassination and Lee Oswald et al with host Robbie Robertson and fellow panel members, esteemed assassination researchers Joe Green and Richard Bartholomew.

 

 

[Bill Brown]

29 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

It's really an issue of devious, misleading rhetoric.

You're using an old rhetorical trick of focusing on some minor peripheral detail-- a tiny strawman as it were-- in the hope that poorly informed people will believe it discredits an entire opus.

 

 

I don't believe mistakenly claiming that Oswald was in police lineups alongside men in suits is a minor peripheral detail.

[Bill Brown]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

How do we know if Brennan had good or less good vision on the day of the assassination?

We do know that Joe Ball had a problem with this in March I think.

Which is about four months later.  Did it just occur within those four (or less) months?

This is addressed in Brennan's Warren Commission testimony. It's all we have to go on. Perhaps you should go read it. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Bill Brown

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

For starters, can you quote me defending Bugliosi's book? I don't recall doing so.

I don't mean to pick on you, Bill, but as soon as I saw your name I thought "Oh no, I hope the Ed Forum doesn't become the JFK Assassination Forum, where a thread will go on for a hundred pages, with the last 98 largely name-calling."

So, do you have any criticism of Bugliosi's book that you would like to share?