JFK Assassination Forum

What happened to your independent logical and critical thinking brain? Were you born without it or did you just become more stupid as you were growing up?

Weidmann wrote:

Without any kind of sound explanation, you say Earlene Roberts was wrong about the color of the jacket but right about Oswald’s leaving the rooming house wearing a jacket. You are making those determinations based on absolutely nothing and for self-serving purposes. Rather than dealing with the evidence honestly, you just twist and turn to make it fit the preferred narrative. It's exactly what the WC did time after time! You don't get to work backwards and assume that the man who was seen wearing a light-colored jacket must have been Oswald. If Oswald didn't leave the rooming house wearing a jacket then the two men must have seen somebody else and not Oswald. Since the defenders of the Warren Commission faith have created their own narrative, in which evidence is misrepresented, not authenticated, and problems are resolved by simply picking the explanation that works the best for the narrative, any unpleasant questions asked about evidence must be about fabricated and planted evidence? All you have shown with your post is that you are completely unable to honestly deal with the actual evidence and clearly live in an alternative reality.

My reply:

The evidence is that Earlene Roberts stated under penalty of perjury that she saw Oswald leave the rooming house wearing (and zipping up!) a jacket. It’s not a big deal that she misremembered the color of the jacket.

The evidence is that a jacket was found under a car about two blocks from the Tippit murder location on the route that the Tippit murderer (Oswald) took while fleeing the scene.

The evidence is that Oswald was no longer wearing a jacket when he was arrested in the Texas Theater.

Question for “useful idiot” (or worse?) Weidmann:

How many bad guys do you figure were involved in the planning, the “patsy-ing,” the fabricating and planting of Oswald-incriminating evidence, the shooting, the getting-away, the alteration of photos, films, and x-rays, and the all-important (and continuing!!!) cover up?

Just a few, or oodles and gobs?

GROK says somewhere between thirty and three hundred.

Does that "work" for you?

She correctly remembered that he was not wearing a jacket when he arrived at the rooming house, and that he was wearing a jacket and was in the act of zipping it up when he left the rooming house.

Get over it.

You complete misstate the issue with fibers. Fibers can be matched to an item. They cannot prove with absolute certainty that a fiber can from a particular item because it is theoretically possible it came from an item with the same type of fibers. it would be a truly amazing coincidence if the fibers in the bag came from a different item with the same kind of fibers. The match is highly probative that the fibers came from Oswald's blanket.

Ditto for the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle that matched Oswald's shirt. What are the odds that there would be a match to both Oswald's shirt and blanket if the fibers hadn't come from those items.

This is where the concept of probative comes into play for conspiracy hobbyists. As long as there is a theoretical chance of an alternative explanation that does not incriminate Oswald, no matter how remote the likelihood, that's gives them the excuse they need to completely dismiss a piece of evidence. If it isn't 100% conclusive, it doesn't mean a thing to them.

Roberts was obviously wrong about the shade of the jacket, but she was undoubtedly correct when she said Oswald was zipping it up when he left the rooming house.

This is just about the most pathetic way to try and solve the problems with Roberts' statements about the jacket.

Without any kind of sound explanation you simple say she was wrong about the color of the jacket but right about Oswald leaving the rooming house wearing a jacket.

You are making those determinations based on absolutely nothing and for self-serving purposes. This is classic LN BS. Rather than dealing with the evidence honestly, you just twist and turn to make it fit the preferred narrative. It's exactly what the WC did time after time!

Two men who saw a man walking towards the Tippit murder scene shortly before it happened said the man was wearing a light-colored jacket.

Oh no, you don't! You don't get to work backwards and assume that the man who was seen wearing a light-colored jacket must have been Oswald. If Oswald didn't leave the rooming house wearing a jacket then the two men must have seen somebody else and not Oswald.

There is no reason for me to reply to anything else in your post and it simply is more of the same silly "working backward" reasoning.

All of the evidence that you think (sic) were either really weird coincidences or fabricated and planted by the evil, evil bad guys.

So, because the defenders of the faith have created their own narrative, in which evidence is misrepresented, not authenticated and problems are resolved by simply picking the explanation that works the best for the narrative, any unpleasant questions asked about evidence must be about fabricated and planted evidence.

All you have shown with your post is that you are completely unable to honestly deal with the actual evidence and clearly live in an alternative reality!