Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket  (Read 138426 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #696 on: June 02, 2018, 10:07:16 PM »
Advertisement
This is wrong, pure and simple.

Burroughs never said anything of the sort on November 22, 1963.

Burroughs made that claim for The Men Who Killed Kennedy (1988).

===============

Warren Commission testimony, April 8, 1964:

Mr. BALL. Did you see that man come in the theatre?
Mr. BURROUGHS. No, sir; I didn't.

Highly dishonest.  Burroughs never claimed even in 1988 to have seen Oswald come in the theater.  There's no contradiction here.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #696 on: June 02, 2018, 10:07:16 PM »


Offline Howard Gee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #697 on: June 02, 2018, 11:31:09 PM »
Brewer didn't see the person he was watching from behind way down the street even enter the theater.

That's right, from his vantage Brewer couldn't see the person enter the theater.

But he could see the person he identified as none other than Saint Oz stop in front of the theater and disappear from his view.

At which point the cops were notified that their suspect was probably in the theater and lo and behold, there's Saint Oz.

What an amazing coincidence !

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #698 on: June 03, 2018, 12:32:40 AM »
That's right, from his vantage Brewer couldn't see the person enter the theater.

But he could see the person he identified as none other than Saint Oz stop in front of the theater and disappear from his view.

If that's not evidence of murder then I don't know what is.

 ::)

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #698 on: June 03, 2018, 12:32:40 AM »


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #699 on: June 03, 2018, 02:56:27 AM »
Good, then show Griffin acknowledging this transmission and stating that he was heading there.

What for?

Quote
Then explain why the DPD transcript says 279 found the jacket. You are running around in circles.

The DPD transcript doesn't say 279 found the jacket.

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #700 on: June 03, 2018, 03:00:38 AM »
He is as close as anyone. He sent the transmission and he didn't say anyone else found it.

He didn't say that he found it either.

 
Quote
Explain why he said the jacket is white.

He said the jacket was white for the same reason that people would say the the jacket seen in the pics below is white.






JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #700 on: June 03, 2018, 03:00:38 AM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7395
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #701 on: June 03, 2018, 03:01:55 AM »
You're right again, Johnboi.

By itself, Brewer witnessing someone acting suspiciously and taking action which led to your hero being apprehended isn't evidence of murder.

However, it does destroy your narrative that Brewer just saw 'a person' walking towards the theater. There's no doubt that the person Brewer saw, entered the theater, and that person's name was Lee Harvey Oswald, AKA Saint Oz.

The same Saint Oz who wasn't wearing a jacket when arrested but whose shirt fibers were found in the jacket ditched under a car in a lot through which JDT's assailent fled.

Poor Saint Oz was having a really, really bad day.


Next up: Hairless goofball says Oswald's shirt fibers in a jacket aren't evidence of murder.

whose shirt fibers were found in the jacket ditched under a car in a lot

So you can actually prove conclusively that the grey jacket now in evidence as CE 162 is the jacket found under a car in a lot?

Care to amaze us all?

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7395
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #702 on: June 03, 2018, 03:04:02 AM »
He didn't say that he found it either.

 
He said the jacket was white for the same reason that people would say the the jacket seen in the pics below is white.





He said the jacket was white for the same reason that people would say the the jacket seen in the pics below is white.

How in the world would you know what reason he had for saying the jacket was white?

Also, did he look at the jacket under the same lightning conditions as those when the photo was taken?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #702 on: June 03, 2018, 03:04:02 AM »


Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1744
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #703 on: June 03, 2018, 03:25:17 AM »
Earlene was so blind, I'm surprised she even had a television !

Oh, and of course she had her back turned the entire time Saint Oz was leaving the boarding house.

The poor blind woman couldn't have possibly averted her attention from the TV that she was incapable of watching, not even for a moment to vainly try and see who was walking in and out of the house.

And even if she was able to actually turn her head and see Saint Oz she couldn't possibly tell if he was wearing a jacket.

Nope, at best she might have heard someone she assumed to be Saint Oz zipping a jacket.

Ain't that right, kooks ?

EARLENE WASN'T HALF AS BLIND AS THE DROOLING SAINT OZ FANBOIS ARE

It is extreme desperation to claim that Earlene Roberts was half-blind and couldn't possibly be able to see Oswald wearing a jacket (and even zipping it up).

It is nothing more than a lame (and desperate) Weidmann argument.  Pathetic really.