Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Martin Weidmann]

And I know from my experience of dealing with the Tinfoil Brigade that the only answer that matters is the one they already have and they will go to any extent to defend their "truth", as we have already seen.
Your lame self-portrayal as a man of reason is a joke. You have your answer already even though the unreliability of Roberts timestamp has been held up for all to see.
And even though continuing this discussion with you is a farce I will try to answer your question as openly and as honestly as my limited abilities allow.

It doesn't matter how credible the answer is with you, you already know it all.

First LN instinct is ad hominem attack and insults. Nothing new or of interest there, so I'll just ignore it.

Your lame self-portrayal as a man of reason is a joke.

That's exactly what unreasonable people, pushing their own bogus agenda, have been saying about me for the past 40 years or so. I'm not impressed....

You have your answer already even though the unreliability of Roberts timestamp has been held up for all to see.

Huh? I don't even understand what the hell this means? if Roberts' timestamp is unreliable, then why do you continue to rely on what she said? You are not making any kind of sense.

But here goes.

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.

Yes, so what? Roberts said that Oswald came in as she was trying to get a better picture on the television (I'm paraphrasing, just in case you want to play word games again), so when did this happen?

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is the bulletin Roberts reports seeing.

That's the second assumption

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.

That's the third assumption.

It is around this time Oswald comes in.

And that's the fourth assumption. This one has a major problem, because there is no way that Oswald could have made it from the TSBD to the rooming house by 12:49. Didn't you check the WC bible, like I told you to?

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.

Obviously the timings are not perfect to the second but they are probably within a minute.

No they are not. They are not even close.

There is not a shred of evidence that the television started to play up. You just made it up. What Roberts actually said (again paraphrasing) was that she turned on the television and she had the sound but the picture was still blurred.

But more importantly is that 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?

Wait, no need to answer that. The real reason is already abundantly clear.

[Dan O'meara]

First LN instinct is ad hominem attack and insults. Nothing new or of interest there, so I'll just ignore it.

Your lame self-portrayal as a man of reason is a joke.

That's exactly what unreasonable people, pushing their own bogus agenda, have been saying about me for the past 40 years or so. I'm not impressed....

You have your answer already even though the unreliability of Roberts timestamp has been held up for all to see.

Huh? I don't even understand what the hell this means? if Roberts' timestamp is unreliable, then why do you continue to rely on what she said? You are not making any kind of sense.


Yes, so what? Roberts said that Oswald came in as she was trying to get a better picture on the television (I'm paraphrasing, just in case you want to play word games again), so when did this happen?

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.

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.

This is the bulletin Roberts reports seeing.

That's the second assumption

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.

That's the third assumption.

It is around this time Oswald comes in.

And that's the fourth assumption. This one has a major problem, because there is no way that Oswald could have made it from the TSBD to the rooming house by 12:49. Didn't you check the WC bible, like I told you to?

Obviously the timings are not perfect to the second but they are probably within a minute.

No they are not. They are not even close.

There is not a shred of evidence that the television started to play up. You just made it up. What Roberts actually said (again paraphrasing) was that she turned on the television and she had the sound but the picture was still blurred.

But more importantly is that 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?

Wait, no need to answer that. The real reason is already abundantly clear.

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.
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.
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!!

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?
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.

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.   

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

[Dan O'meara]

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.
 

Oh dear.
It's only just dawned on me how far gone you are.
This is one of the most Tinfoil things I've ever come across.

So somebody immediately contacted Roberts' friend from Parkland Hospital to tell her that JFK was dead??
 
Long before any of the networks were aware of it Roberts' neighbour had the scoop??
 
And the first thing this woman thought to do was ring Earlene Roberts with the news??
 

Once I'd pointed out you were destroying your own tinfoil, ill-conceived, tatty theory with your insistence that Roberts' friend had used the word "killed" instead of "shot" anyone with a grain of common sense would've held their hands up to the mistake. But not the truly Tinfoil who forge ahead into ever deeper and darker folly.

It's clear you don't have the wit to be embarrassed by your own buffoonery and I feel embarrassed I've wasted so much time on you.
It won't be happening in future.

"Unlike you, I just try to follow the evidence and am not trying to create an alternate reality."

 

[Dan O'meara]

He didn't know when the bus was coming and he only had a short window of opportunity to get to Marsalis and Jefferson.

This claim by O'meara remains unproven.

Not that it should surprise anyone.

Listen Otto,
I've just finished mopping up one Tinfoil mess,
Forgive me if I don't get involved in another.

[Martin Weidmann]

Oh dear.
It's only just dawned on me how far gone you are.
This is one of the most Tinfoil things I've ever come across.

So somebody immediately contacted Roberts' friend from Parkland Hospital to tell her that JFK was dead??
 
Long before any of the networks were aware of it Roberts' neighbour had the scoop??
 
And the first thing this woman thought to do was ring Earlene Roberts with the news??
 

Once I'd pointed out you were destroying your own tinfoil, ill-conceived, tatty theory with your insistence that Roberts' friend had used the word "killed" instead of "shot" anyone with a grain of common sense would've held their hands up to the mistake. But not the truly Tinfoil who forge ahead into ever deeper and darker folly.

It's clear you don't have the wit to be embarrassed by your own buffoonery and I feel embarrassed I've wasted so much time on you.
It won't be happening in future.

"Unlike you, I just try to follow the evidence and am not trying to create an alternate reality."

 

Hilarious! All this BS and still no answer to 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?


your insistence that Roberts' friend had used the word "killed" instead of "shot"

There is no insistence on my part. Roberts said it herself in the video. I'm sorry that you don't like it or can't handle it, but that's not really my concern, is it now?

Oswald came into the rooming house just after 1 PM and he wasn't wearing the light grey jacket (CE 162) because that was in Irving. But why am I even telling you this. You already know this. You just don't like it, which is why you are fighting so hard to create bogus alternate narratives. I know somebody who was sucked in by scientology and he acts and "argues" in much the same way as you do. I wonder why that is....

[Bill Chapman]

"Oswald", getting dropped off in the wrong block, wearing two jackets, entering rooming house in shirt sleeves.

ROFL

That's beyond delusion.

Typical troll-speak.