(PART 1122)


"Mistaken" witnesses are much more likely to exist than a boatload of "Lying" witnesses.


"All of the shots came from the same place--from back over my right shoulder. They weren't in front of us; they weren't at the side of us. There were no sounds like that emanating from those directions." -- John B. Connally; 1967

"They [the shots] all came from the same direction...behind us, over my right shoulder." -- Nellie Connally; 1967


Do conspiracists, therefore, think John and Nellie Connally were "mistaken" or were they "lying"?

You see, conspiracy theorists are in the exact same boat as LNers in this "Lying Or Mistaken?" regard --- because CTers have to disregard a whole lot of witnesses too. Such as the Connallys, as I just illustrated. It's a two-way street when it comes to witnesses.

1967 interviews with the Connallys:


Why do you refuse to acknowledge that multiple witness statements have been provably altered?


Point me to an altered statement. Thanks.




IMO, those examples provided by Nick are pretty weak when it comes to PROVING any witness statements were actually altered.

There are plenty of statements, testimonies, and affidavits available which could lead (on the surface anyway) to a conclusion that a conspiracy existed. Seymour Weitzman's affidavit being one such example. And the Warren Commission testimony of witnesses like Jean Hill and Sam Holland.

So why would the FBI or the WC feel compelled to "change" a little bit of testimony here and a dash there, when they left so much other testimony "unaltered" (like Holland's and Hill's and many others)? Doesn't make any sense to me to do that.


Who cares what makes sense to you? It was done. Period. And the "little bit" of testimony here and "a dash" there, as you put it, were not innocuous statements. They were the entire CRUX of the case, which the FBI just "happened" to get wrong. Over and over again. Explain.


But when ALL of the witnesses are taken into account---many of which said things that lead a lot of people into believing a conspiracy existed---what actual bottom-line benefit would be served by altering just a few statements here and there?

Even with a "new" and "altered" version of a few statements, the FBI and Warren Commission still left dozens and dozens of statements untouched that tend to lead toward conspiracy.

So what the heck was the point of altering just a few random statements?

It makes no sense in the long run.

Or do you think that people are likely to see only the allegedly "altered" statements, while not reading any of the unaltered statements made by people like Jean Hill, Sam Holland, Seymour Weitzman, Eugene Boone, Roger Craig, Marguerite Oswald, Mark Lane, and so many others?


Laughable examples, since Weitzman and Boone stopped referring to the weapon as a Mauser (by the way, anyone notice how hastily Boone's testimony gets wrapped up as soon as the word "Mauser" is uttered?) The reputations of the others on your list have been so severely attacked so as to make anything they say automatically dismissed without cause.


So, you're actually referring to the 1963-1964 statements and testimony and affidavits of Jean Hill and S.M. Holland and Roger Craig as being "laughable examples" of witnesses who said things that many CTers prop up as proof of conspiracy? That's nice. Thanks.


Here's something that I'd be willing to bet DOES exist in the JFK case....

A witness (or two or three or more) who originally said something to the WC or the FBI that leads to a "Lone Assassin" conclusion, but then (later) that witness noticed that their statement had been "altered" so that it now reflects something that would lead to a conclusion of conspiracy. (IOW, just the opposite from what CTers allege happened with many witnesses.)

But the reason we've never heard about those type of "altered" statements is because no conspiracy author would ever even think to ask a witness whose published statements lean toward "conspiracy" if their statements had been "altered" or "changed" in any manner.

But I'd bet the farm that there are at least a few witnesses who fall into that category. Which, if it could be proven, would render all of the arguments made by conspiracy theorists about "altered statements" pretty much worthless (or, at the very least, substantially weaken such an argument regarding alleged "altered" witness statements).

I'd never even given it a thought until the idea crossed my mind tonight [April 16, 2016]. But I don't really care enough about it to take the time to look. Maybe somebody else does. If so, that'd be great. I'd love to be able to shove the "Altered Statements" junk down the gullets of the conspiracy hobbyists.

However, even without researching it, I think some of Charles Brehm's statements might come close to meeting the requirements I just discussed above.


Virtually everything from DVP is accompanied by a statement such as "Doesn't make any sense to me," or "I believe" or "it seems clear that" or "it's entirely possible."

In other words, virtually everything from him is sheer speculation.


Pot crashes head-first with Kettle --- yet again.

David Von Pein
April 14-16, 2016