Yelling the loudest and frequently does not make anyone more correct than the other.
Right, it's the one that has the most evidence on their side. I pointed out, for instance, Walther was the only person to see two men in the sniper's nest window, while numerous other witnesses saw only one (including several who described the shooter in terms matching Oswald). As you yourself acknowledged, it's 11 vs 1. Who has the most evidence? Which witness is the outlier and should be discarded? Which witness saw what she claimed was a "man" behind the shooter exactly where we know brown boxes were, and described that "man" in terms fitting those brown boxes?
When direct experiences are questioned as "how do you know they are true?", then all discussion ends as that is the trap door that someone springs when they cannot provide an intelligent rebuttal. Unfortunately, this thread has it.
Sorry that's the logical fallacy of begging the question. That's where you imbed in the point the very issue under discussion, and presume it's true. In this case, you're presuming Gaudet's claims about being a CIA Agent are true, and calling those claims his "direct experiences". But you haven't established he was a CIA agent, so you haven't established he had those "direct experiences".
You still need to do that. The HSCA studied the issue in the late 1970s and found evidence contradicting Gaudet's claims. I pointed it out to you. You dismissed it with a snide remark.
Remember this?
thanks Hank I was not aware that the HSCA even existed, your links are invaluable.
In fact, I purposefully have not taken a stance but my favorite Poster has gone to his usual MO of claiming I am not answering a question.
There's a lot of questions you haven't answered. Off the top of my head, what's your point in bringing up Walther's claim if you're not arguing for her veracity, what's the "correct clothing" the witnesses got wrong and how do you know, and where's the evidence Gaudet was a CIA agent?
The desire to have every Poster create a narrative is the old trick of attacking a person and not addressing their own short comings.
It would be nice if a conspiracy theorist, after nearly 54 years, could actually elucidate a coherent theory of the assassination that includes a conspiracy and explains more of the evidence that the conventional narrative. To date, all we get is the same quibbles over the outlier witnesses that don't even agree with each other and are used to exclude Oswald to the exclusion of all other persons.
For one example, Mark Lane, in Rush to Judgment (pg 104 in my copy, in the chapter THE SKY IS FALLING), points out that the three men on the fifth floor heard no one walking away from the Sniper's Nest, arguing this would eliminate Oswald as being up there * ... no, it would eliminate anyone and everyone from being up there, so by this logic no one was in the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination. But we know someone was up there, because numerous witnesses outside the building saw a person above the three men on the fifth floor. So we know Mark Lane's point goes nowhere and never did. This is the kind of nonsense that passes for conspiracy argument over the past 53+ years.
A person who purposefully leaves out portions of documents they have read when those portions do not support his or her claim... could be disingenuous.
Examples?
This thread has degenerated into **** Way or No Way.
Not sure what the **** denotes, but this thread is the same as it always was. A conspiracy theorist (or three) tries to make a case for a conspiracy by Just Asking Questions, or pointing out anomalies in the record, and then attempting to exclude Oswald and establish a conspiracy by those anomalies and those questions. Read the full thread (including the predecessor threads). Many of us have been here since the initial thread in 2011. Your approach isn't any different. Nor has it worked any better.
Walther's sighting has been explained in non-conspiratorial terms that fit the known evidence. You don't accept that explanation, but your acceptance isn't required for it to be the best explanation of what Walther's said she saw.
Gaudet has been shown to have inflated his own importance in statements he made to various persons, including to agents of the FBI. This is not uncommon, and a person's claims is not evidence those claims are true. You appear to accept his claims without question, affirming them more than once, but you have provided no evidence his claims are true, and dismissed with a snide remark the in-depth analysis of Gaudet provided to you that was done by the HSCA staff.
Hank
______
* Lane wrote: "The testimony that Oswald was not seen on the sixth floor minutes before the assassination was complemented by the testimony of the three men at the fifth-floor windows, none of whom heard any sound of movement after the shots."
