Looked like the guy, resembled the guy, is far from giving a postive identification.
Didn't say it did.
Saying to the police officers on the scene that he could not identify the killer and therefore not wanted to take part in a line up, is hardly a positive ID is it?
This was already exposed as false. He said he wasn't sure he could identify the killer, so he didn't want to make the trip. "Wasn't sure" is not the same as "could not":
"I was just trying to hide from the reporters and everything, and these two officers came around and asked me if I'd seen him, and I told him yes, and told them what I had seen, and they asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. At this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have."
To ”figure” it was Oswald who killed Tippit because Oswald had been in the news every day for months AS BEING THE KILLER of Tippit is hardly a good foundation for an unbiased identification is it?
That's the CT argument we've come to know and love. Taking a quote out of context, and ignoring the sentence immediately after (or before, as in this instance) is the foundation of all CT arguments, isn't it?
Benavides suspecting that his brother got killed because he was very look a like to himself and the fact that he had not positively identified Oswald as the killer of Tippit, is hardly admitting that he saw Oswald kill Tippit, is it?
QUOTE? You won't cite for this, because it's made up nonsense that you believe.
I know that you are fond of McAdams and his methods, Hank, but more on this later.
I reached my conclusions by reading the 26 volumes of the Warren Report through from beginning to end (twice) and by reading the HSCA 12 volumes on the JFK assassination. I post my conclusions. I only utilize the website of McAdams to link to the witness testimony and (rarely) summaries of the evidence.
You mean sources outside the Mighty Church of the Lone Assassin, which is pretty much equal to Reality itself.
Yeah, you keep saying that, but I keep presenting evidence and you keep presenting argument.
Here's how Robert Groden treated it: "After Domingo Benavides witnessed the Tippit murder, he began to receive numerous threats upon his life.
I'm saying no evidence has been presented to establish that as a fact. Where and when did he say it? To whom? Who first reported this? Is it part of a hearsay record, or did he testify to this before the Warren Commission or in another legal forum? You make a lot of assertions. Your follow-through on the evidence is clearly something you need to work on.
"Along with other eyewitnesses, he [Benavides] had claimed that Tippit's killer did not look anything like Lee Harvey Oswald." (still quoting Groden).
Yes. You yourself conceded Benavides said Oswald "looked like the guy, resembled the guy". You don't go from looking like someone to Groden's claim that Benavides claimed that "Tippit's killer did not look anything like Lee Harvey Oswald." That's clearly a falsehood by Groden. And one you apparently believe and are asking me to prove, despite already conceding the point in your prior post here.
This has always been my contention, it was an honest mistake from the newspaper man, Penn Jones.
That became an ingrained argument in the conspiracy literature for decades. That conspirators shot Eddy in February of 1964 either intending to kill Domingo to silence him before he could testify or to influence Domingo's testimony in April of 1964. The problem was, the argument was always false because Eddy was not killed until February of 1965 - 10 months after Domingo's testimony. But you won't know that by reading any conspiracy book written between 1966 and 2000.
The reports of scared and intimidated witnesses are many. Dallas was a city in fear after the assassination of JFK, and after the killing of Tippit, a fellow cop, in particular.
You've never been to Dallas, as I understand it, and certainly not in the mid-1960s, yet here you are presenting yourself as an expert on the atmosphere in Dallas at the time. I'd ask for a citation, but we both know you don't do evidence. Just assertions.
I haven’t cited Groden a single time concerning this event, but you are trying to smear him and then me by trying to associate my statements with his? It is starting to look more and more like the tactics used by your hero, McAdams, doesn’t it?
Pointing out how Groden's arguments and facts are wrong is not a smear tactic whatsoever. Pointing out how both you and he argue for a conspiracy regardless of the facts of the case is not a smear tactic. It's showing you're wrong to utilize that argument.
Do you know why McAdams disinformation allways comes up as the first hits when searching for anything connected to the JFK assassination? He is hardly the most read researcher in the field. So, why always on top of everything else when googleing JFK?
"Disinformation" is begging the question. I knew if you're taking something out of context, a logical fallacy wouldn't be far behind. But to answer your question, I imagine there's two possibilities:
1. Google is now part of the massive world-wide conspiracy now.
2. McAdams' site is well-organized, has well-written articles, and lays out the evidence in an easy to access format, so people utilize it a lot.
By the way, first you accuse me of smearing Groden, then you use innuendo to smear McAdams. What precisely are you alluding to here? Do you understand how Google's search algorithm works?
Am I to blame for mistakes Groden does? I do not know the guy and have used zero of his material in my studie stundie of the Tippit case?
FTFY. I didn't blame you for anything. I pointed out the facts don't affect conspiracy arguments. Whatever the fact, whether Eddie was shot before or after Domingo testified, conspiracy theorists will claim it's part of the conspiracy, and will attempt to draw unwarranted conclusions from his shooting (basing their claims on suspicion and false facts (like 'the killer is unknown'). It stands to reason that if the facts don't affect whether there's an argument for conspiracy, then the argument for conspiracy is flawed.
Isn’t this a bit weired even coming from, Hank?
Only in the fevered CT imagination.
The important thing here is that Benavides DID NOT identify Oswald as the killer of Tippit. That he ”figured” it was Oswald after his picture had been blasted in the news for months as Tippits killer, of course Benavides ”figure” it was Oswald who killed Tippit.
Repeating the false claim doesn't make it more true.
Note both Groden and Manifesto retain the "unknown killer" Nonsense. Apparently they are unaware the killer (Radford Lee Hil) confessed and served time for the offense.
That I didn’t know. If true.
Of course you don't know this. It isn't reported on your favorite CT website you get all your information.
IF Benavides is correct in suspecting that the murder of his brother was connected to his inability to positively identify Oswald as the killer of Tippit, it happened after his testimony.
You need to establish two things:
1. Domingo Benavides actually claimed that (you've cited nothing to date), and
2. His suspicion is correct.
It's one thing to make an assertion (you do that a lot), it's another thing to prove them by citing the evidence (you don't do that, not ever).
That could spell revenge, but more reasonably, it was one in a number of violent acts in order to spread fear among potential witnesses who otherwise could step forward and tell a different story of the killings that weekend.
Remember, the guy was caught, pleaded guilty, and served time. If this is as you say, shouldn't you start there? Here's a person who's a minion of the conspiracy, and you haven't bothered to even interview him. In fact, in your last post, you were claiming the killer was unknown (as were your CT sources). Apparently the great CT researchers can't get anything right.
Ah, caught in the act. More on your pal, McAdams later, but I can say this, it ain’t pretty.
Attack the arguments, not the man. You can't attack the arguments, so the logical fallacy of Ad Hominem is on the way (complete with the same quotes out of context, suspicion masquerading as fact, and innuendo and logical fallacies inherent in all CT arguments). Thanks for the heads up. I'll point it out when you utilize it.
Hank
