(PART 1145)


Look, bird brain, you don't throw testimony out because other testimony contradicts it.


Therefore, via this lovely "Never Throw Out Testimony" declaration (which equates to: ALL testimony MUST be equal in Ric's world, evidently), we could never solve any murder case that includes wildly varying testimony and discrepancies in the evidential record.


So we're destined to remain stuck in neutral FOREVER, due to the fact I am being FORCED to accept Audrey Bell's testimony regarding the Connally bullet fragments (and her testimony about JFK's neck wound being a wound of entrance too, don't forget...you didn't mention that earlier; probably because you didn't know about it)...and I'm forced to also accept Dr. Gregory's "postage stamp" size fragment testimony right alongside Bell's words.

So...where do we go from here? Do we twiddle our thumbs and let the case grow weeds under our feet as we accept BOTH versions as the truth (somehow)?

Or: Should we use these testimonies and weigh them and balance them against the SUM TOTAL of evidence in the whole case to determine which person has the most credible testimony?

The latter, of course, should be done....with Gregory winning that particular battle for the reasons already given. Gregory removed the fragments himself and saw the Governor's X-rays, and testified in detail in front of the Warren Commission under oath. Bell did not.

True, it wasn't her fault she never appeared before a Government inquiry panel. She was never called. Which will also send CTers to their computers to type out more "sinister" meanings behind that move by the WC re: Bell.


When in doubt call names, huh?


Oh, no. I can do that when I'm not in doubt about anything...like now. And
my last post. ~wink~


Posting what? Your own posts as sources? No, don't bother doing that again. No one took them serious when you posted them a year ago, why do you think anyone take[s] them serious now?


The truth and some CS&L always go further than a CTer's doubts and lack of common sense. And my posts always contain an abundance of CS&L (Common Sense & Logic). About that fact I don't think I need to be overly modest.

Did you bother to take note that WITHIN my own posts that I link I have included OFFICIAL SOURCE MATERIAL? (I.E., links to WC testimony and official WC exhibits for reference.)

Like right here (which I linked previously as well).


Oswald leaves the house at 1:03 or 1:04. Helen Markham arrives at the bus stop at 1:06 and sees Tippit get shot. The distance is 0.85 miles.


ALL TIMES ARE ONLY APPROXIMATIONS, which the Warren Commission firmly states in CE1119-A.

BTW, Ric, here are Helen Markham's exact words concerning the "1:06" timeline that CTers love so much. Just have a look:

Mr. BALL. You think it was a little after 1?

Mrs. MARKHAM. I wouldn't be afraid to bet it
wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1.

An odd hunk of phrasing by Markham actually. I know what she meant there. But the word "wasn't" seems slightly out of place. But, anyway, please note that no CTer ever uses the LATER time of 1:07 when speaking of Markham's testimony. Granted, it's only 60 seconds difference...but if you give a CTer a choice...guess which exact minute they'll pick from Mrs. Markham's choice of two?

In any event, Markham wasn't wasn't looking at any watch or clock when she arrived at the corner and saw Oswald shoot Tippit. She was GUESSING regarding the time. And she was pretty close actually. Because the BEST GUESS would have been about 1:14 (per Dale Myers' detailed study of the shooting, which includes studying the DPD Radio tapes and Bowley's/Benavides' initial "keying" of Tippit's microphone).

So Markham's only off by about 7 or 8 minutes. That's all. And the conspiracy fanatics think that those 7 or 8 minutes trump everything else that says Oswald killed a man on Tenth Street.

And that's just flat-out stupid.


A component of the scientific method is challenging your hypothesis by attempting to disprove it. This means the last thing you do is throw out evidence.


Thanks for finally admitting throwing out contradictory evidence is what you do. We've been saying this all along about you, but it's amusing hearing you admit it.


"All along"? You mean for the whopping 1.5 months you've been gracing us with your presence thus far at The Asylum [alt.conspiracy.jfk]? Or have you been operating under a different username prior to mid-March 2007?

In the final analysis, when confronted with contradictory witness testimony, a person must ultimately decide WHO IS RIGHT and WHO IS NOT RIGHT when they are talking about the VERY SAME incident in history. Like, say, the murder of a policeman on 10th Street in Oak Cliff.

Obviously, not all the witnesses can be 100% right about all the things they said...now can they?

But to hear Ric tell it, we have no choice but to accept as true all of the contradictory evidence!

How idiotic is that? As I said earlier, if this were required when evaluating evidence, no case could ever get "solved"...because every case would be bogged down by its own inconsistencies and contradictions forever....because Ric Landers says we can't ever throw ANY of it aside.

Lovely policy there. I guess Charlie Manson, Jeff Dahmer, and Ted Bundy were innocent after all, huh?


I'd be vomiting too right about now were I you.


Yep. I am.

Looks like a red-letter day for the makers of TUMS. I definitely need some more after talking with you every time.

David Von Pein
April 29, 2007