Podcast On Tippit

[Bill Brown]

What Weidmann is doing here is a perfect example of a conspiracy Kook being unable to explain why Oswald would ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson.

Instead of dealing with the fact that Oswald threw down his jacket at some point, the Kooks try to argue that Oswald was zipping up his button up shirt.   

Mrs. ROBERTS: Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Mr. BALL: He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS: Yes.

[Martin Weidmann]

What Weidmann is doing here is a perfect example of a conspiracy Kook being unable to explain why Oswald would ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson.

Instead of dealing with the fact that Oswald threw down his jacket at some point, the Kooks try to argue that Oswald was zipping up his button up shirt.   

Mrs. ROBERTS: Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Mr. BALL: He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS: Yes.

Says the fool who thinks the statements of a woman who admitted that she wasn't paying attention, had bad vision, and only could have seen Oswald for a few seconds as he opened the frontdoor and walked out should be written in stone.

Roberts said the jack was dark colored, which it wasn't, and she couldn't identify it during her testimony, so she didn't get a damned thing right which of course means for crazy Bill Brown that she must have been right about the zipping part. Go figure!

Btw, the grey jacket wasn't even in Oak Cliff on Friday morning. There is no way it could have been. We've discussed this in the past but you will never ever accept anything that you don't like, so I am not going to revisit that discussion.

[Tom Graves]

Says the fool who thinks the statements of a woman who admitted that she wasn't paying attention, had bad vision, and only could have seen Oswald for a few seconds as he opened the frontdoor and walked out should be written in stone.

Roberts said the jack was dark colored, which it wasn't, and she couldn't identify it during her testimony, so she didn't get a damned thing wrong which of course means for crazy Bill Brown that she must have been right about the zipping part. Go figure!

Btw, the grey jacket wasn't even in Oak Cliff on Friday morning. There is no way it could have been. We've discussed this in the past but you will never ever accept anything that you don't like, so I am not going to revisit that discussion.

Dear Martin,

There's a big difference between passively misremembering the shade of a jacket and actively remembering the actions of a person who is not only in an unusual hurry but has just put on said jacket and is in the process of zipping it up as he rushes out the door.

-- Tom

[Martin Weidmann]

Dear Martin,

There's a big difference between passively misremembering the shade of a jacket and actively remembering the actions of a person who is not only in an unusual hurry but has just put on said jacket and is in the process of zipping it up as he rushes out the door.

-- Tom

Nice try, but no cigar. She said the jacket was dark from the beginning and her lack of powers of observation are clear when you read her affidavit in which she says that she couldn't describe the clothing Oswald was wearing when he entered the rooming house.

No, why in the world would she not be able to describe Oswald's clothing as he came in as well as when he left. She can't even describe the jacket, gets the color wrong and only makes a comment about him zipping up a jacket. Even worse, Roberts, by her own admission, wasn't paying much attention and the circumstances as she described justify the conclusion that she only saw Oswald for a few seconds as he opened the front door and walked out.

Besides, the grey jacket wasn't even in the rooming house on Friday morning, but in Irving instead.

It's amazing that anybody would blindly accept the statement about one particular item from a woman with bad vision, who wasn't paying attention, got everything else wrong and who her employer described as somebody who makes up stories.

[Tom Graves]

Nice try, but no cigar. She said the jacket was dark from the beginning and her lack of powers of observation are clear when you read her affidavit in which she says that she couldn't describe the clothing Oswald was wearing when he entered the rooming house.

No, why in the world would she not be able to describe Oswald's clothing as he came in as well as when he left. She can't even describe the jacket, gets the color wrong and only makes a comment about him zipping up a jacket. Even worse, Roberts, by her own admission, wasn't paying much attention and the circumstances as she described justify the conclusion that she only saw Oswald for a few seconds as he opened the front door and walked out.

Besides, the grey jacket wasn't even in the rooming house on Friday morning, but in Irving instead.

It's amazing that anybody would blindly accept the statement about one particular item from a woman with bad vision, who wasn't paying attention, got everything else wrong and who her employer described as somebody who makes up stories.

Dear Martin,

Roberts was sufficiently distracted by the problematic television to notice correctly the shade of Oswald's jacket, but his actions were sufficiently unusual for her to remember that he arrived in a hurry, that he hurriedly entered his room, that he left wearing a jacket that he hadn't arrived in, and that he was zipping it up as he was hurriedly leaving.

-- Tom

[Martin Weidmann]

Dear Martin,

Roberts was sufficiently distracted by the problematic television to notice correctly the shade of Oswald's jacket, but his actions were sufficiently unusual for her to remember that he arrived in a hurry, that he hurriedly entered his room, that he left wearing a jacket that he hadn't arrived in, and that he was zipping it up as he was hurriedly leaving.

-- Tom

Since when is zipping up a jacket unusual?

I repeat; there is evidence that shows that the grey jacket was in Irving and could not have been at the rooming house on Friday morning. As Oswald had only two jackets and one of those was found at the TSBD, while Frazier described the jacket Oswald was wearing on Thursday afternoon as being grey, can you explain how the grey jacket could have been at the rooming house the next day?

[John Mytton]

Nice try, but no cigar. She said the jacket was dark from the beginning and her lack of powers of observation are clear when you read her affidavit in which she says that she couldn't describe the clothing Oswald was wearing when he entered the rooming house.

No, why in the world would she not be able to describe Oswald's clothing as he came in as well as when he left. She can't even describe the jacket, gets the color wrong and only makes a comment about him zipping up a jacket. Even worse, Roberts, by her own admission, wasn't paying much attention and the circumstances as she described justify the conclusion that she only saw Oswald for a few seconds as he opened the front door and walked out.

Besides, the grey jacket wasn't even in the rooming house on Friday morning, but in Irving instead.

It's amazing that anybody would blindly accept the statement about one particular item from a woman with bad vision, who wasn't paying attention, got everything else wrong and who her employer described as somebody who makes up stories.

She said the jacket was dark...

Why do you insist on being so stupid and dishonest, she said the jacket she was shown was relatively darker than the one she saw Oswald zipping up at the rooming house. But the most relevant memory she has is the zipping action, something understandably that stuck with her!
Because you realize how important her testimony is you have tried every pathetic attempt to try and discredit her. Like I said you are simply an angry, bitter old man who hates Women! Misogynist!

Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?

Just because one grey is darker than another, doesn't instantly categorize it as "Dark", you must be the dumbest person to ever walk the Earth!!



And shades are powerfully reflected by the contrast of the environment. The centre bar when surrounded by varying shades appears to be itself different shades but it's a constant colour.
Grow a brain you idiot!



JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Why do you insist on being so stupid and dishonest, she said the jacket she was shown was relatively darker than the one she saw Oswald zipping up at the rooming house. But the most relevant memory she has is the zipping action, something understandably that stuck with her!
Because you realize how important her testimony is you have tried every pathetic attempt to try and discredit her. Like I said you are simply an angry, bitter old man who hates Women! Misogynist!

Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?

Just because one grey is darker than another, doesn't instantly categorize it as "Dark", you must be the dumbest person to ever walk the Earth!!



And shades are powerfully reflected by the contrast of the environment. The centre bar when surrounded by varying shades appears to be itself different shades but it's a constant colour.
Grow a brain you idiot!



JohnM

Why do you insist on being so stupid and dishonest, she said the jacket she was shown was relatively darker than the one she saw Oswald zipping up at the rooming house.

Did you ever read her affidavit of 12/5/1963? I doubt it, because than you wouldn't have exposed your ignorance!

Because you realize how important her testimony is you have tried every pathetic attempt to try and discredit her.

Her testimony (if true) is indeed important, but you have it backwards. It's pretty obvious to any sane person that Roberts isn't a reliable witness, but idiots like you desperately need her testimony to keep your pathetic narrative alive that you will say anything you can to salvage the wreckage of her statements and thus expose yourself as a dishonest fool with an agenda.

Like I said you are simply an angry, bitter old man who hates Women! Misogynist!

Oh boy, so much anger....

you must be the dumbest person to ever walk the Earth!!

More insults from a petty keyboard junkie.... I'm really sad that little Johnny doesn't like me (not really  )