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.
