Just one question, if I may. This is not a "gotcha" question or an attempt
to trap you. It's a "good faith" question.
You believe Oswald was framed and that evidence was planted and witnesses >coerced/intimidate/coached into incriminating him.
Fine.
So why didn't they order/instruct/threaten Brennan into identifying Oswald >from the start? He's a critical witness, one that can directly identify >Oswald as the shooter.
Yet, you cite him not identifying Oswald in a lineup (a lineup you think >probably didn't happen; that makes no sense to me but let's pass on it).
And yet think he later lied (I believe) when he did testify the shooter
was Oswald. So why didn't they get him to ID Oswald from the start? You >believe the whole case against Oswald was faked, right?
I can ask the same question for the other witnesses at the scene. Why not >coerce/frighten/coach Rowlands into saying it was Oswald? And Euins? And >Fischer? And others?
Getting witnesses to identify Oswald as the shooting is critical, it seems
to me, in framing him. Yet they didnt' do this. Unless you think they got
to Brennan later?
Nah... not fine at all. Just what proof do these liars need to
finally publicly acknowledge the actual witness intimidation that went
on in this case?
From the censored forum... Steve Galbraith shows his inability to
reason:
Just one question, if I may. This is not a "gotcha" question or an attempt >>to trap you. It's a "good faith" question.
You believe Oswald was framed and that evidence was planted and witnesses >>coerced/intimidate/coached into incriminating him.
Fine.
Nah... not fine at all. Just what proof do these liars need to
finally publicly acknowledge the actual witness intimidation that went
on in this case?
So why didn't they order/instruct/threaten Brennan into identifying Oswald >>from the start? He's a critical witness, one that can directly identify >>Oswald as the shooter.
They provably did. A simple comparison between his contemporary
refusal to ID Oswald with his later ID as he testified shows this.
Yet, you cite him not identifying Oswald in a lineup (a lineup you think >>probably didn't happen; that makes no sense to me but let's pass on it). >>And yet think he later lied (I believe) when he did testify the shooter
was Oswald. So why didn't they get him to ID Oswald from the start? You >>believe the whole case against Oswald was faked, right?
I can ask the same question for the other witnesses at the scene. Why not >>coerce/frighten/coach Rowlands into saying it was Oswald? And Euins? And >>Fischer? And others?
Getting witnesses to identify Oswald as the shooting is critical, it seems >>to me, in framing him. Yet they didnt' do this. Unless you think they got >>to Brennan later?
It doesn't occur to these believers that you don't know who's not
going to go along with the frame UNTIL THEY DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY'RE
NOT GOING TO GO ALONG WITH THE FRAME.
This believer is whining that the conspiracy wasn't perfect. But sad
to say, there are numerous examples of witnesses "falling in line"
with the official story as time goes on.
The illogic won't be pointed out in the censored forum, you won't
learn the truth where only one side is allowed...
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 09:01:57 -0700, Ben Holmes <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
From the censored forum... Steve Galbraith shows his inability to
reason:
Just one question, if I may. This is not a "gotcha" question or an attempt >>to trap you. It's a "good faith" question.
You believe Oswald was framed and that evidence was planted and witnesses >>coerced/intimidate/coached into incriminating him.
Fine.
Nah... not fine at all. Just what proof do these liars need to
finally publicly acknowledge the actual witness intimidation that went
on in this case?
So why didn't they order/instruct/threaten Brennan into identifying Oswald >>from the start? He's a critical witness, one that can directly identify >>Oswald as the shooter.
They provably did. A simple comparison between his contemporary
refusal to ID Oswald with his later ID as he testified shows this.
Yet, you cite him not identifying Oswald in a lineup (a lineup you think >>probably didn't happen; that makes no sense to me but let's pass on it). >>And yet think he later lied (I believe) when he did testify the shooter >>was Oswald. So why didn't they get him to ID Oswald from the start? You >>believe the whole case against Oswald was faked, right?
I can ask the same question for the other witnesses at the scene. Why not >>coerce/frighten/coach Rowlands into saying it was Oswald? And Euins? And >>Fischer? And others?
Getting witnesses to identify Oswald as the shooting is critical, it seems >>to me, in framing him. Yet they didnt' do this. Unless you think they got >>to Brennan later?
It doesn't occur to these believers that you don't know who's not
going to go along with the frame UNTIL THEY DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY'RE
NOT GOING TO GO ALONG WITH THE FRAME.
This believer is whining that the conspiracy wasn't perfect. But sad
to say, there are numerous examples of witnesses "falling in line"
with the official story as time goes on.
The illogic won't be pointed out in the censored forum, you won'tNot a single response... such AMAZING cowardice!
learn the truth where only one side is allowed...
I knew Steve wouldn't respond, but it's surprising that no believers
were willing to stick up for him.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 112:51:53 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,336,100 |