Oswald, Depository To Rooming House

[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....

[Dan O'meara]

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.

"Actually, I consider Roberts to be one of the most unreliable witnesses in this case."

Your words, not mine.
And you didn't even realise John was disagreeing with you 

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.

Note how you'll tackle my first point about her saying "it must have been" but forget to tackle the qualification of her guess - "because it was after President Kennedy had been shot"
It doesn't make sense, does it?
Why should it be after 1PM just because it is after JFK was shot?
She didn't say it was after 1 PM because she looked at a clock or because the 1 PM news was on.
She is clearly guessing at the time.
But that doesn't suit your doomed theory.

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.

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.

How devious you are.
Using a very early post to try and win your point and ignoring the following post after I had found the actual channel, uncut, that Roberts states she was watching that day.
Where I discovered there were three bulletins.

This is from Reply #2506

My first port of call was David Von Pein's website, an invaluable research tool. Without genuine researchers such as David, Robin Unger and Pat Speer a novice such as myself wouldn't have a clue what to do. It's all been done for me.
From there I found a video of the CBS channel showing it's contents uncut from just after the time of the assassination. This is the channel Roberts was watching according to her interview. It starts with As The World Turns, a popular soap opera. A quick Google search of the show threw up this image:



These are the two actors in the opening sequence of the video confirming it is As The World Turns.

I found a timestamp at 58:50 in the video where Walter states that JFK died at 1:00 PM "some thirty eight minutes ago".
Therefore 58:50 on the video = 1:38 PM in "real time" [RT] (obviously this is not to the second, just an approximation. But a close one)
The following analysis of the first part of the video is based on this approximate timestamp.

0:00  [ 12:39.10 RT ] -- "As The World Turns" is on
1:50  [ 12:41 RT ]     --  The first bulletin flashes on (this is the one shown in the Roberts interview)
2:50  [ 12:42 RT ]     --  First bulletin ends, followed by various ads
4:57  [ 12:44.07 RT ] -- Second Bulletin flashes on
7:08  [ 12:46.18 RT ] -- Second Bulletin finishes and "As The World Turns" resumes
8:50  [ 12:48 RT ]     --  "As The World Turns" goes into an ad break
9:34  [ 12:48.44 RT ] -- Third bulletin begins. This runs continuously until the 1:00 PM news comes on with Walter Cronkite

My best interpretation of Roberts testimony and the interview she gave is that her friend sees either the first or second Bulletin and rings Roberts to tell her the news.
Roberts switches on the TV and "As The World Turns" is on which goes into an ad break shortly after which the third and final bulletin comes on. This is the bulletin Roberts reports seeing. This bulletin begins around 12:49 PM. For whatever reason her TV starts playing up and she has to try to fix it. She can hear the report but the picture isn't any good. It is around this time Oswald comes in.

Remember - this is my best, most honest interpretation. It's not the only interpretation and it doesn't account for every statement Roberts made in her various testimonies and interviews, but it accounts for a lot of them.
Obviously the timings are not perfect to the second but they are probably within a minute.

You seem to think Roberts' friend was getting the scoop about JFK's death straight from Parkland.
I think her friend saw the first or, possibly, second bulletin,
Phoned Roberts and told her about the news,
Roberts switched on the TV,
"As The World Turns" was on after which the third bulletin came on and it was this one Roberts saw.
A far more likely possibility than Roberts' friend with the hotline to Parkland.

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.

This is what Roberts really said:

ROBERTS - I was watching "As The World Turns", it comes on from twelve thirty 'til one, And it'd been on a few minutes and they says a...a "Special Bulletin".
Well I was listening, I had the television on listening, trying to find out what happened to President Kennedy when he [Oswald] came in. It must have been after one o'clock because... he come in and...(unintelligible)... I was trying to clear it up and he come in, he wasn't running he was just in a fast walk.

INTERVIEWER - Now when he came in that day, you were trying to fix the television set, did you say anything to him about the President being shot or not?

ROBERTS - No sir, I just said "Oh you sure are in a hurry"

She was watching as "As The World Turns", there was a bulletin, then she was trying to clear the picture up and Oswald came in.
Her words.
Not mine.

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

I've burned you so many times on this I might have to start calling you "Crispy".

[Martin Weidmann]

"Actually, I consider Roberts to be one of the most unreliable witnesses in this case."

Your words, not mine.
And you didn't even realise John was disagreeing with you 

Note how you'll tackle my first point about her saying "it must have been" but forget to tackle the qualification of her guess - "because it was after President Kennedy had been shot"
It doesn't make sense, does it?
Why should it be after 1PM just because it is after JFK was shot?
She didn't say it was after 1 PM because she looked at a clock or because the 1 PM news was on.
She is clearly guessing at the time.
But that doesn't suit your doomed theory.

How devious you are.
Using a very early post to try and win your point and ignoring the following post after I had found the actual channel, uncut, that Roberts states she was watching that day.
Where I discovered there were three bulletins.

This is from Reply #2506

You seem to think Roberts' friend was getting the scoop about JFK's death straight from Parkland.
I think her friend saw the first or, possibly, second bulletin,
Phoned Roberts and told her about the news,
Roberts switched on the TV,
"As The World Turns" was on after which the third bulletin came on and it was this one Roberts saw.
A far more likely possibility than Roberts' friend with the hotline to Parkland.

This is what Roberts really said:

ROBERTS - I was watching "As The World Turns", it comes on from twelve thirty 'til one, And it'd been on a few minutes and they says a...a "Special Bulletin".
Well I was listening, I had the television on listening, trying to find out what happened to President Kennedy when he [Oswald] came in. It must have been after one o'clock because... he come in and...(unintelligible)... I was trying to clear it up and he come in, he wasn't running he was just in a fast walk.

INTERVIEWER - Now when he came in that day, you were trying to fix the television set, did you say anything to him about the President being shot or not?

ROBERTS - No sir, I just said "Oh you sure are in a hurry"

She was watching as "As The World Turns", there was a bulletin, then she was trying to clear the picture up and Oswald came in.
Her words.
Not mine.

I've burned you so many times on this I might have to start calling you "Crispy".

"Actually, I consider Roberts to be one of the most unreliable witnesses in this case."

Your words, not mine.

Indeed, and I stand by them. But even an unreliable witness can say something that's true.

Note how you'll tackle my first point about her saying "it must have been" but forget to tackle the qualification of her guess - "because it was after President Kennedy had been shot"
It doesn't make sense, does it?

Of course it makes sense. Kennedy was shot at 12:30, so it was obviously after Kennedy was shot that her friend called her.

How devious you are.
Using a very early post to try and win your point and ignoring the following post after I had found the actual channel, uncut, that Roberts states she was watching that day.
Where I discovered there were three bulletins.

So what, your first post shows beyond a doubt that you have been adapting your fairytale story whenever you found out something new. So, what you wrote in your first post was wrong.... why would any of the subsequent posts be correct? Tomorrow you might find out something new (to you) again and change your story again. It's pathetic.

This is from Reply #2506

You seem to think Roberts' friend was getting the scoop about JFK's death straight from Parkland.
I think her friend saw the first or, possibly, second bulletin,
Phoned Roberts and told her about the news,
Roberts switched on the TV,
"As The World Turns" was on after which the third bulletin came on and it was this one Roberts saw.
A far more likely possibility than Roberts' friend with the hotline to Parkland.

So, now she saw the third bulletin and not the first one... Yeah right! And btw, all this BS of Roberts' friend having a hotline to Parkland is all BS you made up as well. It just shows how low you will go to desperately score a point.

ROBERTS - I was watching "As The World Turns", it comes on from twelve thirty 'til one, And it'd been on a few minutes and they says a...a "Special Bulletin".
Well I was listening, I had the television on listening, trying to find out what happened to President Kennedy when he [Oswald] came in. It must have been after one o'clock because... he come in and...(unintelligible)... I was trying to clear it up and he come in, he wasn't running he was just in a fast walk.

Yes, that's what she said in the video and it doesn't compute with her seeing the third bulletin, after her friend called, because she clearly says that "As the world turns" had been on a few minutes when the special bulletin came on. This would imply that she actually saw the first bulletin. And of course there is no mention of her friend's phonecall.

Mrs. ROBERTS. 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." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry." He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.

She was watching as "As The World Turns", there was a bulletin, then she was trying to clear the picture up and Oswald came in.
Her words.
Not mine.

No. Not her words. They are yours. You made it up.

She said she turned on the television and was trying to clear the picture up when Oswald came in.

She did not say that she was trying to clear up the picture after having watched a bulletin, as you seem to be claiming.

I've burned you so many times on this I might have to start calling you "Crispy".

All you have show is utter dishonesty, flip flopping on the issue whenever the need arises, making stuff up and blatantly misrepresenting what Roberts actually said.

But, by all means, keep the ad homs coming. They only expose the weakness of your arguments.

[Dan O'meara]

Indeed, and I stand by them. But even an unreliable witness can say something that's true.

Note how you'll tackle my first point about her saying "it must have been" but forget to tackle the qualification of her guess - "because it was after President Kennedy had been shot"
It doesn't make sense, does it?
[Why should it be after 1PM just because it is after JFK was shot?
She didn't say it was after 1 PM because she looked at a clock or because the 1 PM news was on.
She is clearly guessing at the time.
But that doesn't suit your doomed theory.]

Of course it makes sense. Kennedy was shot at 12:30, so it was obviously after Kennedy was shot that here friend called her.

 
Don't you ever listen to yourself?
Don't you have any idea how crazy you sound?
This is the logic of your argument -
You think it makes sense that when Roberts says it was after 1PM because it was after JFK was shot. And the reason you think it makes sense is because JFK was shot at 12:30 PM!!
It could have been 12:55 PM or 12:58 PM or any time after JFK was shot.
12:55 PM is after JFK was shot.
Here's what you don't understand - just because it was after JFK was shot, doesn't mean it was after 1PM!!
You must surely understand this most simple point.
You must surely agree that when Roberts says it was after JFK was shot, this doen't "prove" it was after 1 PM.
Even you must see this.
Or is it the case that no matter what evidence or argument is presented to you, you are not going to change your mind.
The true hallmark of the Tinfoil mentality

How devious you are.
Using a very early post to try and win your point and ignoring the following post after I had found the actual channel, uncut, that Roberts states she was watching that day.
Where I discovered there were three bulletins.

So what, your first post shows beyond a doubt that you have been adapting your fairytale story whenever you found out something new. So, what you wrote in your first post was wrong.... why would any of the subsequent posts be correct? Tomorrow you might find out something new (to you) again and change your story again. It's pathetic.

"Tomorrow you might find out something new...and change your story again."

That you honestly believe this is a criticism or a weakness says it all.
This says it all about your inflexible Tinfoil mentality.
As far as your concerned, it doesn't matter if you find out something new because you won't be changing your mind.
That is weakness!!
That is a profound weakness of mind.
But you don't see that, do you?
Now that is truly pathetic.

This is from Reply #2506

You seem to think Roberts' friend was getting the scoop about JFK's death straight from Parkland.
I think her friend saw the first or, possibly, second bulletin,
Phoned Roberts and told her about the news,
Roberts switched on the TV,
"As The World Turns" was on after which the third bulletin came on and it was this one Roberts saw.
A far more likely possibility than Roberts' friend with the hotline to Parkland.

So, now she saw the third bulletin and not the first one... Yeah right! And btw, all this BS of Roberts' friend having a hotline to Parkland is all BS you made up as well. It just shows how low you will go to desperately score a point.

"Yeah right!"

What a brilliant counter-argument 
How insightful.
And the stuff about the Parkland hotline can be found a few pages back where you destroyed your own theory trying to win a point then tried to dig yourself out of one of the many holes you've dug for yourself.
In fact, you've dug so many holes I might have to start calling you The Mole.

ROBERTS - I was watching "As The World Turns", it comes on from twelve thirty 'til one, And it'd been on a few minutes and they says a...a "Special Bulletin".
Well I was listening, I had the television on listening, trying to find out what happened to President Kennedy when he [Oswald] came in. It must have been after one o'clock because... he come in and...(unintelligible)... I was trying to clear it up and he come in, he wasn't running he was just in a fast walk.

Yes, that's what she said in the video and it doesn't compute with her seeing the third bulletin, after her friend called, because she clearly says that "As the world turns" had been on a few minutes when the special bulletin came on. This would imply that she actually saw the first bulletin. And of course there is no mention of her friend's phonecall.

No it doesn't brain boy.
Go back and read the analysis again - before the third bulletin "As The World Turns" is playing.
In fact, why don't you actually watch the video before commenting.
You might learn something new (Oh yeah...I forgot...you're not interested in learning anything new)

Mrs. ROBERTS. 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." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry." He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.

She was watching as "As The World Turns", there was a bulletin, then she was trying to clear the picture up and Oswald came in.
Her words.
Not mine.

No. Not her words. They are yours. You made it up.

She said she turned on the television and was trying to clear the picture up when Oswald came in.

She did not say that she was trying to clear up the picture after having watched a bulletin, as you seem to be claiming.

"No. Not her words. They are yours. You made it up"

They literally are her words.
They are literally what she, herself, says in the interview.
I wrote a transcript of the relevant part of the interview.
You can go back and watch the interview yourself.
These are her words.
The only reason you think I've made it up is because you've not actually read my post properly.
An error you've made time and time again.
I get the impression you are a very old man.

I've burned you so many times on this I might have to start calling you "Crispy".

All you have show is utter dishonesty, flip flopping on the issue whenever the need arises, making stuff up and blatantly misrepresenting what Roberts actually said.

But, by all means, keep the ad homs coming. They only expose the weakness of your arguments.

"...by all means, keep the ad homs coming..."

Will do Crispy Mole Brain Boy

[Martin Weidmann]

Don't you ever listen to yourself?
Don't you have any idea how crazy you sound?
This is the logic of your argument -
You think it makes sense that when Roberts says it was after 1PM because it was after JFK was shot. And the reason you think it makes sense is because JFK was shot at 12:30 PM!!
It could have been 12:55 PM or 12:58 PM or any time after JFK was shot.
12:55 PM is after JFK was shot.
Here's what you don't understand - just because it was after JFK was shot, doesn't mean it was after 1PM!!
You must surely understand this most simple point.
You must surely agree that when Roberts says it was after JFK was shot, this doen't "prove" it was after 1 PM.
Even you must see this.
Or is it the case that no matter what evidence or argument is presented to you, you are not going to change your mind.
The true hallmark of the Tinfoil mentality

Here's what you don't understand - just because it was after JFK was shot, doesn't mean it was after 1PM!!

Nobody said that

You must surely agree that when Roberts says it was after JFK was shot, this doen't "prove" it was after 1 PM.

Nobody said that either. These are just silly strawman arguments.

You are, rather pathetically, trying to make an issue out of something that isn't one. It's not the first time you've done that, and it probably won't be the last.

Roberts was using the words "it was after Kennedy was shot" because the events we are discussing took place after Kennedy was shot. Most people don't select their words carefully, just in case some fool might want to read something into them some half a decade + later!

"Tomorrow you might find out something new...and change your story again."

That you honestly believe this is a criticism or a weakness says it all.
This says it all about your inflexible Tinfoil mentality.
As far as your concerned, it doesn't matter if you find out something new because you won't be changing your mind.
That is weakness!!
That is a profound weakness of mind.
But you don't see that, do you?
Now that is truly pathetic.

Who says it was a criticism or a weakness? It merely exposed you as a person who first makes his mind up about something and then starts to look for evidence that might support that decision. It's not about changing your or my mind either. It's about you desperately trying to find an argument that will stick. It's utter dishonesty.

"Yeah right!"

What a brilliant counter-argument 
How insightful.
And the stuff about the Parkland hotline can be found a few pages back where you destroyed your own theory trying to win a point then tried to dig yourself out of one of the many holes you've dug for yourself.
In fact, you've dug so many holes I might have to start calling you The Mole.

Keep the ad homs coming. It exposes your frustration and lack of coherent counter arguments. I did not destroy my own theory. You, rather stupidly, tried to claim I had done that and you used this Parkland hotline crap. I couldn't be bothered to reply to it back then, because I could not imagine that you were taking such a pathetic argument, that you made up, seriously, but it seems I was wrong and you are actually taking it seriously. How sad.....

No it doesn't brain boy.
Go back and read the analysis again - before the third bulletin "As The World Turns" is playing.
In fact, why don't you actually watch the video before commenting.
You might learn something new (Oh yeah...I forgot...you're not interested in learning anything new)

Oh boy.... you really are in desperate need of some help. First of all, stop being such a smug. You're not nearly as clever as you think you are. Secondly, let's see if you can wrap your head around this;

We are basically dealing with two videos in which Roberts says something different.

In the first video she says she was watching "as the world turns" when a bulletin came on about Kennedy being shot. There is no mention of her friend calling her by phone or her switching on the television. That's the video you want to rely on.

In another video, that you want to ignore, which is also posted in the Cop Killer thread, Roberts says that a friend called her and said that Kennedy was killed and that she should turn on the television, which is what she did. She already had the sound but not a stable picture and was trying to fix it when Oswald came in.

Clearly both these statements can't be true. So, in order to find out what actually happened you need to look at what Roberts said under oath in her testimony;

Mrs. ROBERTS. 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." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry." He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.

So, unless Roberts lied under oath, she was not watching "as the world turns" and she did not know Kennedy had been shot until her friend called her and she switched the television on. When she did, "as the world turns" was probably still on and was shortly after that followed by a news bulletin. This is how the discrepancy between the two statements most likely happened. Or is that over your head? In the video you want to rely on, she simply did not mention how it came to be that she switched the television on "after Kennedy was shot" or perhaps it was simply edited out.

I find it completely amazing that you are so desperately clinging to some words spontaneously spoken in a brief conversation and try to pretend that they are 100% accurate and complete, as if normal persons are always 100% accurate and complete in everything they say.

There are two more comments to make. Your entire theory that Roberts watched either the first, the second or the third special bulletin is nothing more than that; an extremely bad theory. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. You are just making it up and are completely ignoring the possibility that Roberts got the phone call from her friend and turned on the television just as "as the world turned" came to an end and was followed by the news at 1PM. This scenario fits your theory just as well! Ever thought of that, genius?

And secondly, in her testimony Roberts placed the time that Oswald came in at "around 1 o'clock"

Mr. BALL. Can you tell me what time it was approximately that Oswald came in?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Now, 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 because

and in the video you want to rely on she said "it must have been after 1 o'clock".

The expression "it must have been" is not an estimate, it's an affirmative statement!

Nowhere does she say he came in earlier than 1 o'clock! Try dealing with facts for once rather than your imaginations.

"No. Not her words. They are yours. You made it up"

They literally are her words.
They are literally what she, herself, says in the interview.
I wrote a transcript of the relevant part of the interview.
You can go back and watch the interview yourself.
These are her words.
The only reason you think I've made it up is because you've not actually read my post properly.
An error you've made time and time again.
I get the impression you are a very old man.

Stop being so dishonest. She never made the connection between watching "as the world turned" and trying to clean up the picture. You are the one who is falsely conflating the two comments into one in order to somehow score a point. It's really pathetic.

"...by all means, keep the ad homs coming..."

Will do Crispy Mole Brain Boy

Thank you for showing just how little of an adult you truly are.