Oswald, Depository To Rooming House

[Gerry Down]

Can you name a single person giving testimony to support any of these theories?

I don't see it as a theory. I'm simply going by the bus route of the Beckley line and the position of the bus stops. If Oswald was to get the Beckley line to and from work each evening from his rooming house, then it would seem Oswald would have to travel the way Bill laid out in his post and to which i expanded upon.

[Zeon Mason]

The stopwatch photo in Bills post reads 8 min 30 sec

[Zeon Mason]

At risk of harming my CT Personal bias, I’ve realized that it’s possible for Oswald to have arrived at 10th and Patton st as early as 1:06 pm

This timeline requires discarding Mrs Reid’s  2min post shots encounter with Oswald in the 2nd floor office and discounting McWatters bus ride as some OTHER man whom McWatters mistakenly thought might have been Oswald.

The transfer ticket may be rejected on grounds it was pristine , and had no fingerprints of Oswald or McWatters on it . It is suspect as planted evidence.


This leaves Pierce Allman reporter encounter with Oswald in the front lobby entrance of TSBD approx 2:15 sec post shots as plausible and allows Oswald to exit front entrance of TSBD by 2:30 sec before DPD officer Barnett arrived to lock the front door about 3 min post shots ( by Barnett’s estimate)

Note: Allman was able to enter TSBD before the front door was locked by Barnett, hence the 2:15 sec estimate allows a brief encounter with Oswald and Oswald still having time to exit front door preceding Barnett’s arrival at 3 min post shots.

Therefore the adjusted scenario has Oswald plausibly being seen by BW Frazier at Elm/Houston st intersection at 2:45 sec and then Frazier able to return into TSBD just before the 3min post shot mark of Officer Barnett locking the entrance door.

The WC theory has Oswald in anxious desire to return to his boarding room ASAP. Therefore it is not implausible that perhaps Oswald chose the fastest possible way, which is go directly to find a taxi.

The alternative is some vehicle driven by unknown person, Such as  the rambler station wagon DC man driver story ( Roger Craig etc. sighting) . This must be discarded if William Walley’s ID of Oswald is valid.

What is left is for Oswald to have walked directly from.Elm/Houston st intersection to William Walleys taxi, Oswald arriving there approx by 12:39-12:40pm

This is consistent with Walleys Taxi manifest having recorded the pickup in the 12:30 to 12:45 section.

It’s entirely plausible that William Walley was able to drive his taxi a bit faster than his WC time trial and arrive 5 blocks from Oswalds boarding house in  7:30 sec. (The reasoning here is that during the WC time trial, Walley would be following the speed limit , as opposed while on his own, unscrutinized, probably driving a bit faster )

Thus, at approx 12:47:30 , Oswald departs Walleys taxi.

If Oswald the began a double time jog to his boarding room, 5 blocks away, he would arrive at the front door approx 12:50 pm.

Exiting at 12:55pm, Oswald then was able to have plausibly walked at fast pace the0.9 mile to 10th and Patton in 11 minutes, arriving there at 1:06 pm

[John Iacoletti]

[Dan O'meara]

So you agree? Great stuff....

You either agree with Roberts or you call her unreliable again. Which is it going to be?

"Actually, I consider Roberts to be one of the most unreliable witnesses in this case." - Martin Weidmann
             
Oh, the hypocrisy.
Truly unbelievable.

Roberts guess at the time means nothing:

"...it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after, because it was after President Kennedy had been shot-what time I wouldn't want to say..."

What does this even mean?
It must have been after 1 PM because it was after JFK was shot?       
What does that mean?
She is clearly guessing and finishes off by saying "what time I wouldn't want to say"

Only the truly Tinfoil can take this seriously.
                                                                             

[Martin Weidmann]

"Actually, I consider Roberts to be one of the most unreliable witnesses in this case." - Martin Weidmann
             
Oh, the hypocrisy.
Truly unbelievable.

Roberts guess at the time means nothing:

"...it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after, because it was after President Kennedy had been shot-what time I wouldn't want to say..."

What does this even mean?
It must have been after 1 PM because it was after JFK was shot?       
What does that mean?
She is clearly guessing and finishes off by saying "what time I wouldn't want to say"

Only the truly Tinfoil can take this seriously.
                                                                             

Why have you jumped thread with this BS?

Btw just to demonstrate your utter dishonesty by selective quoting, let me first post the actual exchange between John Mytton and myself that you delibately misrepresented by leaving out what John had said.

"I had the television on listening to...trying to find out what happened to President Kennedy when he came in, it must have been after 1 o'clock because..." - Earlene Roberts

JohnM

So you agree? Great stuff....

You either agree with Roberts or you call her unreliable again. Which is it going to be?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The obvious reason for leaving out what John had said is of course that he agreed that Roberts said that Oswald must have come in after 1 PM, which is exactly what you don't want to hear. So, you desperately tried to make it look as if I disagreed with John, when in fact I didn't. Why so much dishonesty?


The last time I heard from you about this topic was when you were preparing to run away from answering the simple question at the end of this post;

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=post;msg=112169;topic=697.2510

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As predicted, a complete farce.
More than once I stressed that I was presenting an "interpretation" of various pieces of evidence which is necessarily a series of assumptions to integrate Roberts' statements with the video and you've jumped on that like it's some big discovery.
Well done. Great work.

Just confronting you with the obvious truth. Sorry you don't like it.

But here's what I'd like to highlight just to show the pointlessness of attempting to deal with the Tinfoil mentality:

"So, that's the first assumption. The only problem is that Roberts said in the video I posted that her friend called her and told her Kennedy had been killed. That had not been broadcast yet."

In her WC testimony Roberts states that:

"Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on."

She emphasises it was after JFK was shot, which fits perfectly with her interview in which she says she was watching "As The World Turns" and the a bulletin came on. This bulletin referred to JFK being shot.

She does not emphazise anything. She just said it. And you jump on that as if it means something. And no, it doesn't fit with her watching "As the world turns" because that means the television was already on, so why did she say she turned it on after the phone call from her friend. Just how dishonest can you get?

But in a short video posted of Roberts she uses the word "killed" instead of "shot" which you jump on to try and win a point.
The problem is that the announcement of JFK's death isn't until 1:38 PM.
So you are now implying that Oswald didn't enter the rooming house until after 1:38 PM which destroys your own theory!!

No, I am not implying anything of the kind. That's just your strawman. Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1 PM. You don't know where Roberts' friend got the information from. Unlike you, I just try to follow the evidence and am not trying to create an alternate reality.

You have absolutely no qualms about destroying your own theory just to make a silly point so you can feel you're winning the argument.
Is there nothing you won't do to try and win a point?

The only one who has a "theory" is you. And you seem to be willing to throw out all logic and honesty to "win a point". Somehow, as Roberts was watching "As the world turns" the television went wild and she had to get it fixed. Yeah right, and you want to be taken seriously? You're making up stuff the witness never said and you keep on doing it. It's dishonest and pathetic.

Just like you simply ignored completely the presence of CE 163 at the TSBD and what Bledsoe said about the hole in a shirt sleeve as well as dismissed what Reid and Roberts said (about Oswald not wearing a jacket) to create your fictional jacket story, you now again simply ignore the basic, yet crucial, fact that Roberts said she turned on the television and she was trying to get a better picture when Oswald came in. You don't have to turn on the television if you are already watching it!

What am I saying...you're more than prepared to falsify eye-witness testimony so why wouldn't you do this.
Truly unbelievable.
You're not worth discussing anything with.

More ad hominem BS.... Coming from the guy who basically ignores the available testimony to make up his own little story to fit his own little theory. Kinda sad really, but I guess it must be frustrating if you can't make others believe the fairytales you dream up.

And just for the record - I've not said anything about Oswald coming in at 12:49 PM. That's just a little strawman you've put up to knock down to give yourself the illusion you're still in the game.   

What game would that be?

You still haven't answered the basic question;

Roberts said, in her interview as well as in her testimony, that it must have been after one o'clock that Oswald came in. Now, why in the world would you make up your own alternate reality based on several assumptions instead of simply accepting what she testified?

And that tells me all I need to know about your agenda.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you want to try and provide a credible answer in this thread? Go ahead....

And while you're at it, perhaps you can explain this little conundrum as well;

You claimed that Roberts was watching "As the world turns" when the first special bulletin about Kennedy being shot came on and you clearly implied that this was about the time that Oswald walked into the room. You've since tried to walk it back some what by claiming that when "As the world turns" was on the television somehow started to play up and Roberts was trying to fix that when Oswald came in, but the biggest problem with that is that you made it up.

Your "theory" of Oswald arriving at the rooming house prior to 1 PM, of course, completely ignores the time Oswald needed to get from the TSBD to the rooming house, but it also ignores the basic fact that Roberts said, in one of the videos as well as in her testimony that a friend called her by phone (to tell her about the shooting) and that she then turned on the television and was trying to get a better picture when Oswald walked in.

So, here is the conundrum (again); how in the world can Roberts turn the television on, if she had been watching "As the world turns", which - just in case you don't understand this - means that the television was already on.

Now, am I going to get a credible answer to either question or is it going to be another ad hom "tinfoil" attack to cover up the fact that you don't have any answers?

[Dan O'meara]

Why have you jumped thread with this BS?

Btw just to demonstrate your utter dishonesty by selective quoting, let me first post the actual exchange between John Mytton and myself that you delibately misrepresented by leaving out what John had said.

So you agree? Great stuff....

You either agree with Roberts or you call her unreliable again. Which is it going to be?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The obvious reason for leaving out what John had said is of course that he agreed that Roberts said that Oswald must have come in after 1 PM, which is exactly what you don't want to hear. So, you desperately tried to make it look as if I disagreed with John, when in fact I didn't. Why so much dishonesty?


The last time I heard from you about this topic was when you were preparing to run away from answering the simple question at the end of this post;

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=post;msg=112169;topic=697.2510

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just confronting you with the obvious truth. Sorry you don't like it.

She does not emphazise anything. She just said it. And you jump on that as if it means something. And no, it doesn't fit with her watching "As the world turns" because that means the television was already on, so why did she say she turned it on after the phone call from her friend. Just how dishonest can you get?

No, I am not implying anything of the kind. That's just your strawman. Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1 PM. You don't know where Roberts' friend got the information from. Unlike you, I just try to follow the evidence and am not trying to create an alternate reality.
 

The only one who has a "theory" is you. And you seem to be willing to throw out all logic and honesty to "win a point". Somehow, as Roberts was watching "As the world turns" the television went wild and she had to get it fixed. Yeah right, and you want to be taken seriously? You're making up stuff the witness never said and you keep on doing it. It's dishonest and pathetic.

Just like you simply ignored completely the presence of CE 163 at the TSBD and what Bledsoe said about the hole in a shirt sleeve as well as dismissed what Reid and Roberts said (about Oswald not wearing a jacket) to create your fictional jacket story, you now again simply ignore the basic, yet crucial, fact that Roberts said she turned on the television and she was trying to get a better picture when Oswald came in. You don't have to turn on the television if you are already watching it!

More ad hominem BS.... Coming from the guy who basically ignores the available testimony to make up his own little story to fit his own little theory. Kinda sad really, but I guess it must be frustrating if you can't make others believe the fairytales you dream up.

What game would that be?

You still haven't answered the basic question;

Roberts said, in her interview as well as in her testimony, that it must have been after one o'clock that Oswald came in. Now, why in the world would you make up your own alternate reality based on several assumptions instead of simply accepting what she testified?

And that tells me all I need to know about your agenda.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you want to try and provide a credible answer in this thread? Go ahead....

And while you're at it, perhaps you can explain this little conundrum as well;

You claimed that Roberts was watching "As the world turns" when the first special bulletin about Kennedy being shot came on and you clearly implied that this was about the time that Oswald walked into the room. You've since tried to walk it back some what by claiming that when "As the world turns" was on the television somehow started to play up and Roberts was trying to fix that when Oswald came in, but the biggest problem with that is that you made it up.

Your "theory" of Oswald arriving at the rooming house prior to 1 PM, of course, completely ignores the time Oswald needed to get from the TSBD to the rooming house, but it also ignores the basic fact that Roberts said, in one of the videos as well as in her testimony that a friend called her by phone (to tell her about the shooting) and that she then turned on the television and was trying to get a better picture when Oswald walked in.

So, here is the conundrum (again); how in the world can Roberts turn the television on, if she had been watching "As the world turns", which - just in case you don't understand this - means that the television was already on.

Now, am I going to get a credible answer to either question or is it going to be another ad hom "tinfoil" attack to cover up the fact that you don't have any answers?

"The obvious reason for leaving out what John had said is of course that he agreed that Roberts said that Oswald must have come in after 1 PM, which is exactly what you don't want to hear. So, you desperately tried to make it look as if I disagreed with John, when in fact I didn't. Why so much dishonesty?"

You have completely lost your grip on reality.
John was pointing out, as I did, that Roberts was guessing.
He wasn't agreeing with you at all. He was pointing out the unreliability of her testimony on this point.
Get a grip man.

"Roberts said, in her interview as well as in her testimony, that it must have been after one o'clock that Oswald came in. Now, why in the world would you make up your own alternate reality based on several assumptions instead of simply accepting what she testified?"

How many times do I have to answer the same question?
Roberts was guessing the time!!
She wasn't lying or being sneaky. She was guessing.
Why can't you get your head round that?
When she says "it must have been", this indicates she's guessing.
This is confirmed by her reasoning - because it was after JFK was shot.
Why should it be after 1 PM just because it was after JFK was shot?
What is so difficult to understand about that?

"So, here is the conundrum (again); how in the world can Roberts turn the television on, if she had been watching "As the world turns", which - just in case you don't understand this - means that the television was already on."

I've already answered this as well.
Roberts friend (who you think was getting the inside scoop from Parkland  ) called her up to switch on the TV.
Roberts switched on the TV.
And "As The World Turns" was on.
Why can't you understand this simple scenario.

[Martin Weidmann]

"The obvious reason for leaving out what John had said is of course that he agreed that Roberts said that Oswald must have come in after 1 PM, which is exactly what you don't want to hear. So, you desperately tried to make it look as if I disagreed with John, when in fact I didn't. Why so much dishonesty?"

You have completely lost your grip on reality.
John was pointing out, as I did, that Roberts was guessing.
He wasn't agreeing with you at all. He was pointing out the unreliability of her testimony on this point.
Get a grip man.

Hilarious. It's amazing just how much desperation you LNs put into trying to destroy a witness who you subsequently want to rely on for the jacket issue.

"Roberts said, in her interview as well as in her testimony, that it must have been after one o'clock that Oswald came in. Now, why in the world would you make up your own alternate reality based on several assumptions instead of simply accepting what she testified?"

How many times do I have to answer the same question?
Roberts was guessing the time!!
She wasn't lying or being sneaky. She was guessing.
Why can't you get your head round that?
When she says "it must have been", this indicates she's guessing.
This is confirmed by her reasoning - because it was after JFK was shot.
Why should it be after 1 PM just because it was after JFK was shot?
What is so difficult to understand about that?

The one who is guessing is you. Her choice of words is just convenient for you. If she was really guessing she would most likely have said something like "it probably was after 1 PM". Her use of "it must have been" is clear affirmation of her belief that it was indeed after 1 PM.

The only reason why you don't want to accept the "after 1 PM" comment is because that just about destroys any possibility for Oswald to have enough time to get to 10th/Patton to kill Tippit, even if he ran. That's the extent of your desperation.

"So, here is the conundrum (again); how in the world can Roberts turn the television on, if she had been watching "As the world turns", which - just in case you don't understand this - means that the television was already on."

I've already answered this as well.
Roberts friend (who you think was getting the inside scoop from Parkland  ) called her up to switch on the TV.
Roberts switched on the TV.
And "As The World Turns" was on.
Why can't you understand this simple scenario.

No, you haven't answered it at all. You have first tried to spin it in such a way that Roberts switched on the TV (presumably after her friend called) and saw the first special bulletin at 12:40.

In the clip below (that you posted) at 4:37, Roberts begins to explain things from the moment she turned on the TV (presumably after her friend called)

She describes that a program called "As The World Turns" was on when suddenly a bulletin cut in about the assassination.
The bulletin Roberts is describing was at 12:40 PM.
She describes how she was then trying to find out more news about the assassination when Oswald came in.

Which was of course absolute BS simply because if Roberts saw the first bulletin, where did the friend get the information about the shooting from?

Ever since then you have been trying to spin this thing in every imaginary way you can to somehow get to a coherent narrative and you have failed every time.

I am beginning to wonder just how old you are, but back in the early sixties a television set needed to warm up (for lack of a better term) before providing a stable picture. Once the set was heated up you had no such problems. You assumption (because that's what it is) is that Oswald came in when Roberts was "trying to find out more news" presumably by changing channels, but that was not what she said in her testimony and/or video interviews. In fact you just made it up.

What Roberts really said was that she turned on the television (after her friend's call) and that she had the sound and was trying to get a better picture when Oswald came in. Her turning on the television and trying to get a better picture describes exactly how, in those early days, televisions worked.

You really need to find another hobby, because you are not very good at this stuff....