Youtube Interview I Did, Tippit Case

[Dan O'meara]

Because you want me to speculate about something that you assume happened. There is nothing reasonable about that.

In order to give you any kind of answer, I would first have to agree that it happened and I, for lack of sufficient evidence, don't. Get it now?

What evidence would be sufficient?

[Bill Brown]

Because you want me to speculate about something that you assume happened. There is nothing reasonable about that.

In order to give you any kind of answer, I would first have to agree that it happened and I, for lack of sufficient evidence, don't. Get it now?

Of course you don't agree.  Is that supposed to be some sort of surprise?

You cannot change the facts.  The facts are that multiple witnesses said that they saw Oswald at Tenth and Patton (or fleeing down Patton) with a gun in his hand and wearing a jacket.

[Martin Weidmann]

Of course you don't agree.  Is that supposed to be some sort of surprise?

You cannot change the facts.  The facts are that multiple witnesses said that they saw Oswald at Tenth and Patton (or fleeing down Patton) with a gun in his hand and wearing a jacket.

Nobody wants to chance facts. One fact is that multiple witnesses can be wrong. Denial of that obvious possibility is a logical fallacy and simply exposes your bias agenda. You can repeat the same thing over and over again as much as you like, but that does not change a damned thing.

If Oswald left the rooming house without a jacket or did not have enough time to get to 10th/Patton, the witnesses must be wrong. It really is a simple as that. Now, before you go off on another tantrum, I am not claiming that the witnesses were in fact wrong, because that would make me just as dishonest as you are. I'm merely saying that the evidence simply isn't conclusive enough to reach a conclusion either way.

[Bill Brown]

Nobody wants to chance facts. One fact is that multiple witnesses can be wrong. Denial of that obvious possibility is a logical fallacy and simply exposes your bias agenda. You can repeat the same thing over and over again as much as you like, but that does not change a damned thing.

If Oswald left the rooming house without a jacket or did not have enough time to get to 10th/Patton, the witnesses must be wrong. It really is a simple as that. Now, before you go off on another tantrum, I am not claiming that the witnesses were in fact wrong, because that would make me just as dishonest as you are. I'm merely saying that the evidence simply isn't conclusive enough to reach a conclusion either way.

Why not just answer Dan O'meara's question?

[Dan O'meara]

It doesn't matter. It's not a numbers game. You may have 100 people saying one thing and 1 person saying something else. It is still possible that the one person is the one who is correct.

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy which incorrectly assumes that the majority is always right!

When I asked you if you believed that every witness is always 100% correct in everything he or she says, you answered; NO.
Does that mean you accept that Guinyard could have been wrong?

So, if 100 people identified Oswald running down the road with a jacket on after the Tippit shooting, that still wouldn't be conclusive?
Really?
You wouldn't be able to draw a conclusion from that?

[Richard Smith]

What evidence would be sufficient?

Martin/Roger recently suggested that if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's pants or shoes that would mean only that Oswald was "close" to Tippit at the moment he was murdered.  Not that Oswald was the murderer but only somehow standing "close" to the event.  That's the kind of mindset that he has.  No evidence would ever be conclusive of Oswald's guilt in the contrarian mind.  It doesn't fit the desired narrative.

[Martin Weidmann]

What evidence would be sufficient?

Anything conclusive rather than a mere assumption