Youtube Interview I Did, Tippit Case

[Martin Weidmann]

Not on the afternoon of the murder, she wasn't.  There's the difference.

It doesn't matter when she said it. It shows that her employer was likely correct about her making up stories.
If you make up stories afterwards, you can also do so on the day itself.

Unreliable is unreliable. Period.

Btw, Frazier, was being polygraphed on Friday evening when he was shown the bag they found at the TSBD and he denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry that same day. By your "logic" he needs to be believed, right? Even more so, because he never was accused of making up stories.....

[Martin Weidmann]

Totally agree with what you're saying here.

Mrs Johnson's testimony regarding Roberts' credibility is devastating.
Roberts' story about the police car outside seems suspect for a number of reasons.
But a detail like Oswald wearing a jacket on his way out....what does that gain Roberts?
It seems like a totally plausible, almost irrelevant detail. It only takes on importance because we all have it under the microscope for various reasons.
The way I look at it at the moment, the only reason Oswald returned to his room was to collect a gun.
It makes sense (to me) for him to wear a jacket to carry it in to make it as inconspicuous as possible.

I get the impression you're involved in a bitter LN vs CT situation that I'm not particularly interested in. It descends into a lot of nit-picking that often masks the valid points you have to make (IMO)
The LN narrative is an entrenched position that can only be really challenged by a strong counter-narrative that accounts for aspects of the assassination LNers struggle with. Endless arguments over little details have got nowhere, and never will (IMO)

But a detail like Oswald wearing a jacket on his way out....what does that gain Roberts?

That's the wrong question to ask, as I do not believe that most witnesses testify hoping to gain something.

It seems like a totally plausible, almost irrelevant detail. It only takes on importance because we all have it under the microscope for various reasons.

I disagree about it being an "almost irrelevant detail". It most certainly isn't. If Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket, then the Tippit witnesses who saw a man wearing a jacket possibly did not see Oswald and the jacket found under a parked car likely didn't belong to Oswald either, which in turn leaves the door wide open for the possibility that Oswald's gray jacket was in fact in Irving and found by the officers during the first search of Ruth Paine's house. They arrived back at the police station before Westbrook submitted the jacket (with no chain of custody) to the identification bureau.

I get the impression you're involved in a bitter LN vs CT situation that I'm not particularly interested in.

Not really. I just don't like the hypocrisy. I have tried many times to have a normal conversation with LNs but whenever it gets to a point where they can not explain something, they start playing games and the conversation is over.

The LN narrative is an entrenched position that can only be really challenged by a strong counter-narrative that accounts for aspects of the assassination LNers struggle with.

I disagree. You can never present a strong counter-narrative because as soon as you do the conversation is over.
Also, the LN narrative is the one claiming to be correct. The LNs should be able to defend it with convincing arguments. The LNs are the ones who are acting as prosecutors. They need to prove their case.

Endless arguments over little details have got nowhere, and never will (IMO)

It depends what one considers to be a little detail. Sometimes evidence that seems insignificant at first provide the conclusive proof at a later stage. I don't think it's a good idea to predetermine what evidence is relevant and what not!

[Bill Chapman]

I get the impression you're involved in a bitter LN vs CT situation that I'm not particularly interested in.

Not really. I just don't like the hypocrisy. I have tried many times to have a normal conversation with LNs but whenever it gets to a point where they can not explain something, they start playing games and the conversation is over.

The LN narrative is an entrenched position that can only be really challenged by a strong counter-narrative that accounts for aspects of the assassination LNers struggle with.

I disagree. You can never present a strong counter-narrative because as soon as you do the conversation is over.
Also, the LN narrative is the one claiming to be correct. The LNs should be able to defend it with convincing arguments. The LNs are the ones who are acting as prosecutors. They need to prove their case.

Endless arguments over little details have got nowhere, and never will (IMO)

It depends what one considers to be a little detail.

'They need to prove their case'
The witnesses @Tippit did that and cracked the code in the process.

'You can never present a strong counter-narrative because as soon as you do the conversation is over.'
Still waiting for a strong counter-narrative from you or any other CT 'conversationalist', Bubba.

[Martin Weidmann]

'They need to prove their case'
The witnesses @Tippit did that and cracked the code in the process.

'You can never present a strong counter-narrative because as soon as you do the conversation is over.'
Still waiting for a strong counter-narrative from you or any other CT 'conversationalist', Bubba.

Thanks for once again proving the point I was making.

You want a counter narrative? Since pictures seem to be the easiest way to communicate with you, watch the movie "Executive action" and the assassination scene in the movie "the International". 

[Bill Chapman]

Thanks for once again proving the point I was making.

You want some fries with that nothing-burger? 

And does your 'counter-narrative' include the comment about Earlene having only a couple of seconds to see what Oswald was wearing? It must be, since I've schooled you on this very point before, using a similar blurred, mocking image... and yet here you are repeating yourself.

And did you finally work out if the figure in my mocking-mockup (so-to-speak) is wearing a jacket or not?

[Bill Brown]

Just like you keep skipping over the part where Roberts testified that the jacket she saw was darker than CE 162.

Again, for the four millionth time...

Forget 162.  Got that now?

Forget Tenth and Patton.

Oswald left the rooming house zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.  Oswald is seen by Johnny Brewer on Jefferson with no jacket.  Why did Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?

[Bill Brown]

It doesn't matter when she said it. It shows that her employer was likely correct about her making up stories.
If you make up stories afterwards, you can also do so on the day itself.

Unreliable is unreliable. Period.

Btw, Frazier, was being polygraphed on Friday evening when he was shown the bag they found at the TSBD and he denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry that same day. By your "logic" he needs to be believed, right? Even more so, because he never was accused of making up stories.....

It doesn't matter when she said it.

Except, it does.  She told a reporter almost immediately that Oswald left in a jacket.  She didn't tell anyone about the supposed horn-honking incident until a week later and by that time, the alleged assassin was himself gunned down, sparking rumors of a plot.

Unreliable is unreliable. Period.

No.  Like it or not, there are grey areas.

Btw, Frazier, was being polygraphed on Friday evening when he was shown the bag they found at the TSBD and he denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry that same day. By your "logic" he needs to be believed, right? Even more so, because he never was accused of making up stories.....

Frazier is an obvious liar.  These days, I don't trust a single thing he said.