JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Tom Scully on April 30, 2021, 12:54:08 AM
-
Bill Brown and a number of other "students of the case" believe Lee Harvey Oswald shot Officer JD Tippit while wearing a jacket he surely must have perspired in on that, turning mild and sunny late November, early afternoon in Dallas before leaving the shooting scene, soon allegedly ditching the jacket, found under a car in a nearby lot, presumably to alter his appearance.
26 years after DNA testing played a big role in the OJ Simpson murder trial, no attempt has been made to collect DNA evidence from the controversial jacket. Oswald's assumed hurried walk to the scene of the shooting, the stress of "getting the drop" on an armed DPD officer, firing repeatedly at him, watching him go down, and making his escape certainly resulted in a reasonable possibility, if the jacket in the U.S. Archive is relevant evidence, that it would be worthwhile to attempt to recover DNA evidence from it.
The fact that this has not happened might be related to the mindset of the Army Museum regarding organic material allegedly from the corpse of John Wilkes Booth which it refuses to test for the purpose of settling the question of whether it was Booth who was shot to death in a burning barn in Maryland in mid-April, 1865. The museum's expressed concern is avoidance of damaging the artifacts it claims were Booth's vertebrae.
Historical vertebrae, a sideshow mummy and the lingering ...
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/culture/historical-vertebrae-a-sideshow-mummy-and-the-lingering-mystery-of-john-wilkes-booth/8560/
Since Abraham Lincoln's assassination 146 years ago, questions have persisted about John Wilkes Booth's fate. Historians scoff, but Booth's descendants want to know more.
The National Museum of Health and Medicine and the Lincoln ...
https://lincolnconspirators.com/2014/06/01/the-national-museum-of-health-and-medicine-and-the-lincoln-assassination/
The vertebrae and spinal cord of John Wilkes Booth are still part of the collection of the National Museum of Health and Medicine though they are not currently on display at the Silver Spring facility. Here is a picture of the specimens taken a few years ago by the AP:
Mr. Parnell worked O.T. on this question :
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-1.html
Another approach... I've found this emerging technology to be the most reliable of several I have used since last fall.:
Choose the middle, verification option of the demo :
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/cognitive-services/face/#demo
(Photo on left appears in Mr. Parnell's blog post. I cropped it out of photo with her spouse Ed Ekdahl and Buick)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51148148385_70b0b8c812_b.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51148262745_7878c2b712_b.jpg)
Anna Anderson claimed she was Anastasia, daughter of Tsar Nicholas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Anderson
She nearly convinces this facial recognition software. Anastasia Romanov is on the left in both comparisons.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51147157031_5977c9c196_b.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51147939254_40e0c3c9f7_b.jpg)
-
26 years after DNA testing played a big role in the OJ Simpson murder trial, no attempt has been made to collect DNA evidence from the controversial jacket. Oswald's assumed hurried walk to the scene of the shooting, the stress of "getting the drop" on an armed DPD officer, firing repeatedly at him, watching him go down, and making his escape certainly resulted in a reasonable possibility, if the jacket in the U.S. Archive is relevant evidence, that it would be worthwhile to attempt to recover DNA evidence from it.
When Oswald shot Tippit in the head there may have been blood spatter deposited on Oswald's pants?
Edit: But after a quick Google search it's probably too late to make a match.
JohnM
-
When Oswald shot Tippit in the head there may have been blood spatter deposited on Oswald's pants?
Edit: But after a quick Google search it's probably too late to make a match.
JohnM
If they can extract dna from a mummy they can make a match...... if they want to. But I doubt if they want to.
-
The sample would need appropriate conditions to preserve the DNA from degradation. Low water environment and cool would be preferable.
-
Bill Brown and a number of other "students of the case" believe Lee Harvey Oswald shot Officer JD Tippit while wearing a jacket he surely must have perspired in on that, turning mild and sunny late November, early afternoon in Dallas before leaving the shooting scene, soon allegedly ditching the jacket, found under a car in a nearby lot, presumably to alter his appearance.
26 years after DNA testing played a big role in the OJ Simpson murder trial, no attempt has been made to collect DNA evidence from the controversial jacket. Oswald's assumed hurried walk to the scene of the shooting, the stress of "getting the drop" on an armed DPD officer, firing repeatedly at him, watching him go down, and making his escape certainly resulted in a reasonable possibility, if the jacket in the U.S. Archive is relevant evidence, that it would be worthwhile to attempt to recover DNA evidence from it.
I don't believe sweat contains DNA.
Skin cells which indeed contain DNA can (but not always, by any means) be released into the sweat but the sweat itself does not contain DNA.
I could be wrong, but this is my understanding of it all, anyway.
-
I don't believe sweat contains DNA.
Skin cells which indeed contain DNA can (but not always, by any means) be released into the sweat but the sweat itself does not contain DNA.
I could be wrong, but this is my understanding of it all, anyway.
Dated from 2012, only a few cells are required to perform a test, denting "conservation of intact but possibly exculpatory, or not, jacket, for posterity", archivist argument. Assume collection technique refined, since.:
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/dna-evidence-basics-identifying-gathering-and-transporting
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51149008141_ffaa4b34a7_b.jpg)
-
Dated from 2012, only a few cells are required to perform a test, denting "conservation of intact but possibly exculpatory, or not, jacket, for posterity", archivist argument. Assume collection technique refined, since.:
But there is no guarantee that any skin cells would be transferred via the sweat that does transfer from someone's arm to the inside of a jacket sleeve, especially if that person was wearing a long sleeve brown shirt.
-
But there is no guarantee that any skin cells would be transferred via the sweat that does transfer from someone's arm to the inside of a jacket sleeve, especially if that person was wearing a long sleeve brown shirt.
https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62264#relPageId=169
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51149440228_7fe4b5c88f_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51148540342_ae7d05ffb4_b.jpg)
Constant contact with sweat glands in neck, possible dandruff particles "glued" by dried sweat to jacket collar surface.
Skin oil from fingers possibly embedded in areas in vicinity of bottom of zipper track when zipping....
2018 article :
https://theconversation.com/weve-discovered-a-way-to-recover-dna-from-fingerprints-without-destroying-them-98399
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305140
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51150275665_991b59f395_b.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51150276095_4ba1d6a8a3_b.jpg)
-
Constant contact with sweat glands in neck, possible dandruff particles "glued" by dried sweat to jacket collar surface.
Skin oil from fingers possibly embedded in areas in vicinity of bottom of zipper track when zipping....
You make a fair point about the neck and collar.
-
If they can extract dna from a mummy they can make a match...... if they want to. But I doubt if they want to.
And if they did, you wouldn't suggest it was faked or planted? LOL.
-
And if they did, you wouldn't suggest it was faked or planted? LOL.
Correct.
That is exactly what he would do. You're spot on, Richard (like always).
-
And if they did, you wouldn't suggest it was faked or planted? LOL.
Try it and see what happens. If there is a match I'll be the first to accept it.
-
You make a fair point about the neck and collar.
Thanks, Bill. .... Bye, "Harv"!
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51149655461_c07cb77eb4_b.jpg)
For consideration of accuracy...Images of me, in 1999 on left, mid 1970s on right
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51149906888_71e002e0b6_b.jpg)
Images of me, in 1996 on left, mid 1974 on right
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51149690576_165706f3d2_b.jpg)
-
What happened to Oswald's teeth? There are cells in the pulp. Also calcified plaque, tartar, contains DNA. It has been recovered in Neanderthal remains.
-
Correct.
That is exactly what he would do. You're spot on, Richard (like always).
Stop exposing your paranoia
-
What happened to Oswald's teeth? There are cells in the pulp. Also calcified plaque, tartar, contains DNA. It has been recovered in Neanderthal remains.
Reburied after the exhumation as far as I know.
-
Reburied after the exhumation as far as I know.
Oswalds teeth and Jack Rubys mothers teeth would make a nice collection. The 6th floor museum would probably do a video on it.
-
Try it and see what happens. If there is a match I'll be the first to accept it.
Accept what?
-
Accept what?
What part of "If there is a match I'll be the first to accept it." do you not understand?
-
I would too, if it was done by a disinterested party in a double-blind fashion. Same with DNA on the rifle or the shells, etc. Right now all we have are similar fibers and a partial palmprint on an index card.
-
What part of "If there is a match I'll be the first to accept it." do you not understand?
You are so dishonest and biased it could mean anything. There is already overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt in the murder of Tippit. And yet you do not "accept it" but suggest that evidence is the product of fakery and mistaken identity in a wildly improbable series of events that all just happen to point to Oswald's guilt. Why would DNA evidence be any different? So why not just state what you you mean by "accept it" in this context? Why the reluctance if it is so apparent?
-
You are so dishonest and biased it could mean anything. There is already overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt in the murder of Tippit. And yet you do not "accept it" but suggest that evidence is the product of fakery and mistaken identity in a wildly improbable series of events that all just happen to point to Oswald's guilt. Why would DNA evidence be any different? So why not just state what you you mean by "accept it" in this context? Why the reluctance if it is so apparent?
Is whining all you can do? It's not my fault that a liar as you needs to be held to a higher standard of evidence than the one you like.
Btw your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted.
-
Is whining all you can do? It's not my fault that a liar as you needs to be held to a higher standard of evidence than the one you like.
Btw your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted.
Note: The above Weidmann reply was made to Richard Smith
your [pathetic] obsession with me is duly noted
Try to come up with something original instead of hanging onto my coatails, plagiarist.
A bunch of fkn amateurs, the lot of you.
-
Note: The above Weidmann reply was made to Richard Smith
your [pathetic] obsession with me is duly noted
Try to come up with something original instead of hanging onto my coatails, plagiarist.
A bunch of fkn amateurs, the lot of you.
Your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted
-
Your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted
Your copy-cat behaviour reveals your obvious admiration for my ideas.
Duly note that, ParrotBoy.
-
Your copy-cat behaviour reveals your obvious admiration for my ideas.
Duly note that, ParrotBoy.
Your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted
-
Is whining all you can do? It's not my fault that a liar as you needs to be held to a higher standard of evidence than the one you like.
Btw your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted.
More babbling words but still no explanation as to what you mean by "accept it." What is so difficult about explaining what you mean instead of this endless commentary?
-
More babbling words but still no explanation as to what you mean by "accept it." What is so difficult about explaining what you mean instead of this endless commentary?
There is nothing to explain, at least to people with a functional brain. "accept it" means I would accept the outcome of a dna test on the jacket, regardless of how it turns out. Now can you say, and would you do, the same?
If dna was found in the jacket and it doesn't belong to Oswald, would you accept that CE 162 was not Oswald's jacket or at least wasn't worn by him?
-
There is nothing to explain, at least to people with a functional brain. "accept it" means I would accept the outcome of a dna test on the jacket, regardless of how it turns out. Now can you say, and would you do, the same?
If dna was found in the jacket and it doesn't belong to Oswald, would you accept that CE 162 was not Oswald's jacket or at least wasn't worn by him?
You would "accept" the outcome of a test? What exactly does that mean? That you would accept Oswald wore the jacket on 11.22 and discarded it in flight from the Tippit murder? My understanding is that this jacket may have been previously owned due to the laundry mark. In other words, Oswald would not be the only person to have ever worn it and nearly 60 years later it has no doubt been handled by many others who could have left their DNA. So the presence of DNA other than Oswald's on the jacket is probable. For that reason, the presence of someone else's DNA wouldn't mean the jacket was not worn by him on 11.22 as you stupidly suggest here. I was actually asking about the presence of Tippit's DNA on Oswald's shoes or pants. If that was found, what would that mean to you?
-
Your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted
Your obsession with me predates your parroting, copy-cat.
-
You would "accept" the outcome of a test? What exactly does that mean? That you would accept Oswald wore the jacket on 11.22 and discarded it in flight from the Tippit murder? My understanding is that this jacket may have been previously owned due to the laundry mark. In other words, Oswald would not be the only person to have ever worn it and nearly 60 years later it has no doubt been handled by many others who could have left their DNA. So the presence of DNA other than Oswald's on the jacket is probable. For that reason, the presence of someone else's DNA wouldn't mean the jacket was not worn by him on 11.22 as you stupidly suggest here. I was actually asking about the presence of Tippit's DNA on Oswald's shoes or pants. If that was found, what would that mean to you?
You would "accept" the outcome of a test? What exactly does that mean?
It means exactly what I said it means.
So the presence of DNA other than Oswald's on the jacket is probable. For that reason, the presence of someone else's DNA wouldn't mean the jacket was not worn by him on 11.22 as you stupidly suggest here.
What is really stupid (but rather common for you) is suggesting that I did suggest that, when I did no such thing. It's just another pathetic strawman. All I am concerned with is the presence of Oswald's dna on the jacket. If it's there, it means he must have worn it. If it's not there he most likely didn't wear it. Now, if a dna test on the jacket does not find Oswald's dna would you accept that he likely did not wear it? Or are you going to be evasive again?
I was actually asking about the presence of Tippit's DNA on Oswald's shoes or pants. If that was found, what would that mean to you?
Then you should have asked more clearly. But the answer is a simple one. If Tippit's dna is found on Oswald's shoes or pants then it means conclusively that he was close to Tippit at 10th/Patton, as the likelihood of a dna transfer on any other occassion is extremely remote.
-
Your obsession with me predates your parroting, copy-cat.
John Mytton and a few other LNs were playing this same childish game long before you came along, copy-cat.
Your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted
-
John Mytton and a few other LNs were playing this same childish game long before you came along, copy-cat.
LOL! What's this; Back to the Future? Tell us how I would know that someone played this 'game' if it happened long before I came along, buck-passer.
Your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted
Run, Marty... RUN
-
John Mytton and a few other LNs were playing this same childish game long before you came along, copy-cat.
LOL! What's this; Back to the Future? Tell us how I would know that someone played this 'game' if it happened long before I came along, buck-passer.
Your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted
Run, Marty... RUN
John Mytton and a few other LNs were playing this same childish game long before you came along, copy-cat.
LOL! What's this; Back to the Future? Tell us how I would know that someone played this 'game' if it happened long before I came along, buck-passer.
Don't have to. I don't know where you picked it up, but most LNs are not active on just one board, so who knows how you would know. It's a common practice for LNs and it most certainly isn't something you exclusively came up with, just as this is;
Run, Marty... RUN
It has all been done thousands of times before and it's pretty boring.
But your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted
-
You would "accept" the outcome of a test? What exactly does that mean?
It means exactly what I said it means.
So the presence of DNA other than Oswald's on the jacket is probable. For that reason, the presence of someone else's DNA wouldn't mean the jacket was not worn by him on 11.22 as you stupidly suggest here.
What is really stupid (but rather common for you) is suggesting that I did suggest that, when I did no such thing. It's just another pathetic strawman. All I am concerned with is the presence of Oswald's dna on the jacket. If it's there, it means he must have worn it. If it's not there he most likely didn't wear it. Now, if a dna test on the jacket does not find Oswald's dna would you accept that he likely did not wear it? Or are you going to be evasive again?
I was actually asking about the presence of Tippit's DNA on Oswald's shoes or pants. If that was found, what would that mean to you?
Then you should have asked more clearly. But the answer is a simple one. If Tippit's dna is found on Oswald's shoes or pants then it means conclusively that he was close to Tippit at 10th/Patton, as the likelihood of a dna transfer on any other occassion is extremely remote.
Translation: Even if Oswald's DNA were found on the jacket, our resident contrarian would argue that simply means Oswald had "worn" it on some occasion but not necessarily that he had worn it while murdering Tippit and discarded it. And even if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's shoes or pants, then our contrarian would argue that means only that he was "close" to Tippit. Whatever that means. Not that he was the murderer. And round and round it goes endlessly down the rabbit hole. No better example of the application of the impossible standard of proof to Oswald's guilt than this nonsense.
-
So the presence of DNA other than Oswald's on the jacket is probable. For that reason, the presence of someone else's DNA wouldn't mean the jacket was not worn by him on 11.22 as you stupidly suggest here.
What is really stupid (but rather common for you) is suggesting that I did suggest that, when I did no such thing. It's just another pathetic strawman. All I am concerned with is the presence of Oswald's dna on the jacket. If it's there, it means he must have worn it. If it's not there he most likely didn't wear it. Now, if a dna test on the jacket does not find Oswald's dna would you accept that he likely did not wear it? Or are you going to be evasive again?
One more time for Martin/Roger:
I'm not being evasive at all but answering the direct question that you posed:
"If dna was found in the jacket and it doesn't belong to Oswald, would you accept that CE 162 was not Oswald's jacket or at least wasn't worn by him?"
My answer is that I would expect DNA of other individuals to be on the jacket. It may have been owned and worn by someone prior to Oswald and has been handled by numerous individuals over the decades since its discovery. That is a very stupid question that you posed. If you are asking if the jacket is tested and Oswald's DNA is not discovered on it after nearly 6 decades, does that mean it didn't belong to him, then the answer is that it doesn't rule out Oswald's ownership of the jacket. The absence of DNA is not the same as the presence of DNA. Can you understand that simple point? The presence of DNA would conclusively link Oswald to the jacket (unless some contrarian made a stupid, baseless claim like it was planted or the authorities should have found "more" DNA as with the fingerprint evidence). The absence of DNA simply means none was found. It does not exclude Oswald as having worn the jacket. This would be obvious to most.
-
Translation: Even if Oswald's DNA were found on the jacket, our resident contrarian would argue that simply means Oswald had "worn" it on some occasion but not necessarily that he had worn it while murdering Tippit and discarded it. And even if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's shoes or pants, then our contrarian would argue that means only that he was "close" to Tippit. Whatever that means. Not that he was the murderer. And round and round it goes endlessly down the rabbit hole. No better example of the application of the impossible standard of proof to Oswald's guilt than this nonsense.
Translation: Even if Oswald's DNA were found on the jacket, our resident contrarian would argue that simply means Oswald had "worn" it on some occasion but not necessarily that he had worn it while murdering Tippit and discarded it.
As per usual our resident liar and strawman presenter is trying to put, rather dishonestly, words in my mouth that I never said, while at the same time refusing to answer my question about what it would mean if Oswald's dna wasn't found in the jacket.
And even if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's shoes or pants, then our contrarian would argue that means only that he was "close" to Tippit.
Don't you ever get tired of lying? I said that if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's shoes or pants it would be conclusive evidence that Oswald was indeed close to Tippit when he was shot. How else would get Tippit's blood on Oswald's shoes or pants. But there is no pleasing pathetic little "Richard". He will continue to twist and turn to make it look that I wouldn't accept Oswald's culpability in Tippit's murder when evidence as conclusive as this was to be found. Why? Because it destroys the idiot's claim that even conclusive evidence wouldn't persuade me of Oswald's guilt. That's how pathetic little "Richard" actually is.
-
Translation: Even if Oswald's DNA were found on the jacket, our resident contrarian would argue that simply means Oswald had "worn" it on some occasion but not necessarily that he had worn it while murdering Tippit and discarded it.
As per usual our resident liar and strawman presenter is trying to put, rather dishonestly, words in my mouth that I never said, while at the same time refusing to answer my question about what it would mean if Oswald's dna wasn't found in the jacket.
And even if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's shoes or pants, then our contrarian would argue that means only that he was "close" to Tippit.
Don't you ever get tired of lying? I said that if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's shoes or pants it would be conclusive evidence that Oswald was indeed close to Tippit when he was shot. How else would get Tippit's blood on Oswald's shoes or pants. But there is no pleasing pathetic little "Richard". He will continue to twist and turn to make it look that I wouldn't accept Oswald's culpability in Tippit's murder when evidence as conclusive as this was to be found. Why? Because it destroys the idiot's claim that even conclusive evidence wouldn't persuade me of Oswald's guilt. That's how pathetic little "Richard" actually is.
LOL. I did answer your silly question. And by "close" to Tippit are you suggesting that Oswald could be anything other than Tippit's murderer? You can't possibly be suggesting that Oswald was a bystander in the vicinity of the shooting and was somehow sprayed with Tippit's blood. What is so hard about explicitly stating that if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's shoes or pants that means he is the murderer without any of this embarrassing equivocation which exposes you as a contrarian loon?
-
Translation: Even if Oswald's DNA were found on the jacket, our resident contrarian would argue that simply means Oswald had "worn" it on some occasion but not necessarily that he had worn it while murdering Tippit and discarded it. And even if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's shoes or pants, then our contrarian would argue that means only that he was "close" to Tippit. Whatever that means. Not that he was the murderer. And round and round it goes endlessly down the rabbit hole. No better example of the application of the impossible standard of proof to Oswald's guilt than this nonsense.
Richard, if you consider this as more evidence in favor of your POV, it is actually a fuse of a bomb, "red meat for
the CT base", I am about to set off!
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10477#relPageId=728
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51154188563_737917d992_b.jpg)
-
John Mytton and a few other LNs were playing this same childish game long before you came along, copy-cat.
LOL! What's this; Back to the Future? Tell us how I would know that someone played this 'game' if it happened long before I came along, buck-passer.
Don't have to. I don't know where you picked it up, but most LNs are not active on just one board, so who knows how you would know. It's a common practice for LNs and it most certainly isn't something you exclusively came up with, just as this is;
Run, Marty... RUN
It has all been done thousands of times before and it's pretty boring.
But your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted
I don't know where you picked it up
I do: My imagination.
But your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted
Not obsession. Revulsion.
-
I don't know where you picked it up
I do: My imagination.
I'm sure your imagination plays a big part in your miserable life.
But your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted
Not obsession. Revulsion.
So you make a habit of constantly replying to somebody you loath? Now that's compulsion if I ever saw it.
But never mind, it's pretty clear it's really obsession even when you deny it.
-
LOL. I did answer your silly question. And by "close" to Tippit are you suggesting that Oswald could be anything other than Tippit's murderer? You can't possibly be suggesting that Oswald was a bystander in the vicinity of the shooting and was somehow sprayed with Tippit's blood. What is so hard about explicitly stating that if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's shoes or pants that means he is the murderer without any of this embarrassing equivocation which exposes you as a contrarian loon?
LOL. I did answer your silly question.
No you didn't.
What is so hard about explicitly stating that if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's shoes or pants that means he is the murderer
I have already done that. You are just too dumb to understand it.
Now run to the National Archives and have Oswald's trousers and shoes tested for Tippit's blood or dna. If the results come back positive, I'll be the first to accept that Oswald killed Tippit.
But, somehow, I doubt you will do so.... afraid of what you will find!
-
LOL. I did answer your silly question.
No you didn't.
What is so hard about explicitly stating that if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's shoes or pants that means he is the murderer
I have already done that. You are just too dumb to understand it.
Now run to the National Archives and have Oswald's trousers and shoes tested for Tippit's blood or dna. If the results come back positive, I'll be the first to accept that Oswald killed Tippit.
But, somehow, I doubt you will do so.... afraid of what you will find!
"If dna was found in the jacket and it doesn't belong to Oswald, would you accept that CE 162 was not Oswald's jacket or at least wasn't worn by him?"
My answer is that I would expect DNA of other individuals to be on the jacket. It may have been owned and worn by someone prior to Oswald and has been handled by numerous individuals over the decades since its discovery. That is a very stupid question that you posed. If you are asking if the jacket is tested and Oswald's DNA is not discovered on it after nearly 6 decades, does that mean it didn't belong to him, then the answer is that it doesn't rule out Oswald's ownership of the jacket. The absence of DNA is not the same as the presence of DNA. Can you understand that simple point? The presence of DNA would conclusively link Oswald to the jacket (unless some contrarian made a stupid, baseless claim like it was planted or the authorities should have found "more" DNA as with the fingerprint evidence). The absence of DNA simply means none was found. It does not exclude Oswald as having worn the jacket. This would be obvious to most.
-
"If dna was found in the jacket and it doesn't belong to Oswald, would you accept that CE 162 was not Oswald's jacket or at least wasn't worn by him?"
My answer is that I would expect DNA of other individuals to be on the jacket. It may have been owned and worn by someone prior to Oswald and has been handled by numerous individuals over the decades since its discovery. That is a very stupid question that you posed. If you are asking if the jacket is tested and Oswald's DNA is not discovered on it after nearly 6 decades, does that mean it didn't belong to him, then the answer is that it doesn't rule out Oswald's ownership of the jacket. The absence of DNA is not the same as the presence of DNA. Can you understand that simple point? The presence of DNA would conclusively link Oswald to the jacket (unless some contrarian made a stupid, baseless claim like it was planted or the authorities should have found "more" DNA as with the fingerprint evidence). The absence of DNA simply means none was found. It does not exclude Oswald as having worn the jacket. This would be obvious to most.
If you are asking if the jacket is tested and Oswald's DNA is not discovered on it after nearly 6 decades, does that mean it didn't belong to him, then the answer is that it doesn't rule out Oswald's ownership of the jacket.
Exactly what I thought. Anything that points to Oswald not being the killer is automatically dismissed by you!
-
I'm sure your imagination plays a big part in your miserable life.
So you make a habit of constantly replying to somebody you loath? Now that's compulsion if I ever saw it.
But never mind, it's pretty clear it's really obsession even when you deny it.
Its revulsion. No, really.
-
Its revulsion. No, really.
You must be even more obsessed than I thought then, because I would want to have no contact with somebody I had revulsion for.
-
You must be even more obsessed than I though then, because I would want to have no contact with somebody I had revulsion for.
No problem: I just hold my nose.
-
If you are asking if the jacket is tested and Oswald's DNA is not discovered on it after nearly 6 decades, does that mean it didn't belong to him, then the answer is that it doesn't rule out Oswald's ownership of the jacket.
Exactly what I thought. Anything that points to Oswald not being the killer is automatically dismissed by you!
Again, the absence of DNA is not the same as its presence. It is possible to wear a jacket and not leave DNA on it. Particularly if it is not tested for six decades after the person last came into contact with the jacket. The absence of DNA doesn't mean that it was never worn by that person. Still no answer on what you meant by Oswald being "close" to Tippit if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's pants or shoes? Are you suggesting Oswald could have been anything other than Tippit's murderer if that were the case?
-
I'm sure your imagination plays a big part in your miserable life.
You seem the miserable one around here. Especially lately.
-
You seem the miserable one around here. Especially lately.
Still desperate for my attention, I see... :D
Did I hurt your feelings, lately? ;D
-
My answer is that I would expect DNA of other individuals to be on the jacket. It may have been owned and worn by someone prior to Oswald and has been handled by numerous individuals over the decades since its discovery. That is a very stupid question that you posed. If you are asking if the jacket is tested and Oswald's DNA is not discovered on it after nearly 6 decades, does that mean it didn't belong to him, then the answer is that it doesn't rule out Oswald's ownership of the jacket. The absence of DNA is not the same as the presence of DNA. Can you understand that simple point?
:D
It's pretty obvious who the contrarian with the impossible standard is around here. It's "Richard" with his faith-based so-called "overwhelming evidence" and an opinion that is not subject to change no matter what.
-
The contrarians harp on and on about the absence of evidence not being evidence. But here we learn that the absence of Oswald's DNA on the jacket would somehow confirm that it didn't belong to him. Wow. Of course, if Oswald's DNA were found on the jacket they would be screaming that it was planted or only prove that Oswald was "close" to the jacket at some point. And on and on and on down the rabbit home. Keep in mind they don't have an impossible standard of proof. And they are not CTers. They have "no position." How do we know this? Because they say so! So it must be true.
-
The contrarians harp on and on about the absence of evidence not being evidence. But here we learn that the absence of Oswald's DNA on the jacket would somehow confirm that it didn't belong to him. Wow. Of course, if Oswald's DNA were found on the jacket they would be screaming that it was planted or only prove that Oswald was "close" to the jacket at some point. And on and on and on down the rabbit home. Keep in mind they don't have an impossible standard of proof. And they are not CTers. They have "no position." How do we know this? Because they say so! So it must be true.
Whining Richard strikes again. Why do you keep making a fool of yourself?
But here we learn that the absence of Oswald's DNA on the jacket would somehow confirm that it didn't belong to him.
Nobody is saying that, except you of course, but then it's your strawman, again.
-
You would "accept" the outcome of a test? What exactly does that mean?
It means exactly what I said it means.
So the presence of DNA other than Oswald's on the jacket is probable. For that reason, the presence of someone else's DNA wouldn't mean the jacket was not worn by him on 11.22 as you stupidly suggest here.
What is really stupid (but rather common for you) is suggesting that I did suggest that, when I did no such thing. It's just another pathetic strawman. All I am concerned with is the presence of Oswald's dna on the jacket. If it's there, it means he must have worn it. If it's not there he most likely didn't wear it.
So here is Martin claiming that if Oswald's DNA is not on the jacket that is evidence that he most likely didn't wear it. The absence of evidence being used as evidence. Obviously, the absence of DNA is not the same as the presence of DNA. Something Martin is trying to equate.
-
Whining Richard strikes again. Why do you keep making a fool of yourself?
But here we learn that the absence of Oswald's DNA on the jacket would somehow confirm that it didn't belong to him.
Nobody is saying that, except you of course, but then it's your strawman, again.
Tell it to the guy who made this claim:
"If it's there, it means he must have worn it. If it's not there he most likely didn't wear it."
-
Whining Richard strikes again. Why do you keep making a fool of yourself?
But here we learn that the absence of Oswald's DNA on the jacket would somehow confirm that it didn't belong to him.
Nobody is saying that, except you of course, but then it's your strawman, again.
Tell it to the guy who made this claim:
"If it's there, it means he must have worn it. If it's not there he most likely didn't wear it."
What an amazing display of utter stupidity. In your strawman you claimed that somebody claimed that "the absence of Oswald's DNA on the jacket would somehow confirm that it didn't belong to him"
In your reply, you prove yourself to be a liar, because nobody actually said anything about the jacket not belonging to Oswald. After you said that you expected DNA from others to present on the jacket, I merely stated that the absence of DNA thus could mean that "Oswald most likely didn't wear it". Not a word about Oswald's ownership of the jacket.
You really need to stop lying. You are not very good at it. And stop telling readers what other people (in your pathetic opinion) have said when those readers can read for themselves what somebody has said in his post.