Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )

[Dan O'meara]

And Mr Oswald was not confused either----------that's why he told Captain Fritz that he went outside to watch P. parade. If the reporter had asked him, 'Where were you when the shooting happened?', he would have said 'Out on the front steps' or 'Front entrance of the building'. If the reporter had asked him, 'Were you inside the building at the time?', he would have said, 'Well, sir, I was on the building's front steps.'

Your explanation for the Hosty draft report seems to be that Agent Hosty was on hallucinogens at the time of Mr Oswald's first interrogation. Or that a trained FBI agent would completely misunderstand the suspect's answer to the single most crucial question of the case. Dream on!

Give us a single credible alternative candidate for Prayer Man. Go on, it should be easy! 

What is the evidence that Prayer Man is a man?
How many people on the steps at the time of the shooting?

You must surely know the answer to the second question as so much research has been done specifically about this (I assume)

[Martin Weidmann]

I agree that people aren't always 100% correct in what they say but I disagree that i'm reaching too far interpreting Oswald's words as referring to the time of the assassination. The exchange in the video clip goes like this:

Reporter - Did you kill the President?
Oswald - No sir, I didn't. People keep asking me about that.
Reporter - Did you shoot the President?
Oswald - I work in that building
Reporter - Were you in the building at the time?
Oswald - Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir.

The key phrase is 'at the time'. At what time? You really think it's reaching too far to conclude the reporter is referring to the time the President was shot and killed. His previous questions make it abundantly clear he is asking whether Oswald was in the building at the time the President was shot and killed (assassinated). Oswald understands the question and what is meant by it and he answers in the affirmative twice ('Naturally' and yes sir')
I'd say that any other interpretation of this exchange was reaching too far.
Oswald is confirming he was in the building at the time the President was shot and killed.
Do you have an alternative interpretation?

You really think it's reaching too far to conclude the reporter is referring to the time the President was shot and killed.

Yes, I do. "At the time" can just as easily be interpeted as "where you there when the President was shot". Oswald had already said he worked in the building so his subsequent reply relates to that. If you say you work in a building and I ask you if you were there when the President was shot, you would also say something like "Of course, as I work there, I was there" or as Oswald answered; "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir"

To narrow it down to only one explanation when others are also possible is reaching too far.... even more so when this matter can not be resolved beyond speculation and opinion.

I have spent a great deal of my profesional life obtaining information from people and you wouldn't believe just how difficult it sometimes is for people to say exactly what they mean or to keep their story straight or to recall all the details at once.

This was a very short conversation and Oswald had hardly any time to consider the possible ramifications of his answer or even provide a more detailed answer.

[John Tonkovich]

I agree that people aren't always 100% correct in what they say but I disagree that i'm reaching too far interpreting Oswald's words as referring to the time of the assassination. The exchange in the video clip goes like this:

Reporter - Did you kill the President?
Oswald - No sir, I didn't. People keep asking me about that.
Reporter - Did you shoot the President?
Oswald - I work in that building
Reporter - Were you in the building at the time?
Oswald - Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir.

The key phrase is 'at the time'. At what time? You really think it's reaching too far to conclude the reporter is referring to the time the President was shot and killed. His previous questions make it abundantly clear he is asking whether Oswald was in the building at the time the President was shot and killed (assassinated). Oswald understands the question and what is meant by it and he answers in the affirmative twice ('Naturally' and yes sir')
I'd say that any other interpretation of this exchange was reaching too far.
Oswald is confirming he was in the building at the time the President was shot and killed.
Do you have an alternative interpretation?

Mr O'meara:
Oswald is being peppered with questions simultaneously by the large crowd of reporters, which may explain the odd responses.

[Dan O'meara]

You really think it's reaching too far to conclude the reporter is referring to the time the President was shot and killed.

Yes, I do. "At the time" can just as easily be interpeted as "where you there when the President was shot". Oswald had already said he worked in the building so his subsequent reply relates to that. If you say you work in a building and I ask you if you were there when the President was shot, you would also say something like "Of course, as I work there, I was there" or as Oswald answered; "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir"

To narrow it down to only one explanation when others are also possible is reaching too far.... even more so when this matter can not be resolved beyond speculation and opinion.

I have spent a great deal of my profesional life obtaining information from people and you wouldn't believe just how difficult it sometimes is for people to say exactly what they mean or to keep their story straight or to recall all the details at once.

This was a very short conversation and Oswald had hardly any time to consider the possible ramifications of his answer or even provide a more detailed answer.

So this is your alternative explanation!
"At the time" can easily be interpreted as "Around the time"
"Specific" can easily be interpreted as "vague"
Brilliant stuff.
You agree at least that 'the time' being referred to is the assassination, you just think that "At the time of the assassination" is open to interpretation.
I agree. Any phrase can be interpreted any way you want , from common sense to utter nonsense. I think you will agree though, that on the balance of probabilities, the chance the reporter is asking specifically about the time of the assassination to get an idea of where Oswald was when the event itself actually happened, is greater than any other interpretation.

[Dan O'meara]

Mr O'meara:
Oswald is being peppered with questions simultaneously by the large crowd of reporters, which may explain the odd responses.

"Were you in the building at the time?"

"Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir."

What's odd about this?

[Martin Weidmann]

So this is your alternative explanation!
"At the time" can easily be interpreted as "Around the time"
"Specific" can easily be interpreted as "vague"
Brilliant stuff.
You agree at least that 'the time' being referred to is the assassination, you just think that "At the time of the assassination" is open to interpretation.
I agree. Any phrase can be interpreted any way you want , from common sense to utter nonsense. I think you will agree though, that on the balance of probabilities, the chance the reporter is asking specifically about the time of the assassination to get an idea of where Oswald was when the event itself actually happened, is greater than any other interpretation.

So this is your alternative explanation!

No... I gave you no alternative explanation. I merely pointed out that your explanation was flawed.

I think you will agree though, that on the balance of probabilities, the chance the reporter is asking specifically about the time of the assassination to get an idea of where Oswald was when the event itself actually happened, is greater than any other interpretation.

I agree that that's what the reporter likely intended, but that isn't the issue... It's how Oswald understood the question.

As Oswald had already denied killing Kennedy, one can argue that he doesn't even know when exactly the President was killed and where exactly he was, so he goes with; "Yes I work in the building, so I was there"....

It's easy enough to understand. One of the biggest problems is that people place way too much value on the word choice of a witness, be it in testimony, in affidavit or in interviews.

There is a reason why lawyers always tell their clients (even the innocent ones) not to say anything to the police. The reason is, that once a statement is taken down it starts a life of it's own and very often what is said will be used against you later simply because you didn't say it completely or 100% accurate. In many case, when the police take a statement, you tell an officer what happened, that officer takes from that what he thinks he needs for a statement of possibly one or two A4 sheets, which he then puts in front of you to sign. Once you've signed it, you're stuck with it.

[Dan O'meara]

So this is your alternative explanation!

No... I gave you no alternative explanation. I merely pointed out that your explanation was flawed.

I think you will agree though, that on the balance of probabilities, the chance the reporter is asking specifically about the time of the assassination to get an idea of where Oswald was when the event itself actually happened, is greater than any other interpretation.

I agree that that's what the reporter likely intended, but that isn't the issue... It's how Oswald understood the question.

As Oswald had already denied killing Kennedy, one can argue that he doesn't even know when exactly the President was killed and where exactly he was, so he goes with; "Yes I work in the building, so I was there"....

It's easy enough to understand. One of the biggest problems is that people place way too much value on the word choice of a witness, be it in testimony, in affidavit or in interviews.

There is a reason why lawyers always tell their clients (even the innocent ones) not to say anything to the police. The reason is, that once a statement is taken down it starts a life on it's own and very often what is said will be used against you later simply because you didn't say it completely or 100% accurate. In many case, when the police take a statement, you tell an officer what happened, that officer takes from that what he thinks he needs for a statement of possibly one or two A4 sheets, which he then puts in front of you to sign. Once you've signed it, you're stuck with it.

But isn't it reasonable to assume that by confirming he was in the building when the assassination occurred he knew exactly when it had occurred! And knew he was in the building when it happened.