Parnell Vs Armstrong Bill Brown et al, Can applied tech resolve Who Shot Tippit?

[Bill Chapman]

I'm sure your imagination plays a big part in your miserable life.

You seem the miserable one around here. Especially lately.

[Martin Weidmann]

You seem the miserable one around here. Especially lately.

Still desperate for my attention, I see... 

Did I hurt your feelings, lately? 

[John Iacoletti]

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?

 

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.

[Richard Smith]

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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

[Richard Smith]

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.

[Richard Smith]

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."

[Martin Weidmann]

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.