Tippit Debate

[John Mytton]

What's your point? Isn't there a difference difference between knowing somebody personally or going by what others say about them?

My argument still stands. You never knew Oswald personally, so all you know (or think you know) about them is what you have been told.

It's not really difficult to understand, so why are you struggling to comprehend?

You made a mistake, it seems that you can't even follow your own arguments and then get unnecessarily testy when confronted with your flawed logic.
My refutation still stands, one person interacting personally with another person over a fraction of that person's life will by definition only tell a partial story of who that person is, but examining their actions and analysing many people interacting with that person over a lifetime will paint a far more accurate picture, it's a simple and concise way to establish who a person is.
For instance your bad attitude, hurling insults and hot temper on this Forum is well documented but if people in your life, tell us that Martin is a nice person because he helps the hungry, donates to charities, volunteers his time to the elderly etc etc, then the person who you are will be established. We are defined across our entire being not just by one persons perspective. See how this works!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

You made a mistake, it seems that you can't even follow your own arguments and then get unnecessarily testy when confronted with your flawed logic.
My refutation still stands, one person interacting personally with another person over a fraction of that person's life will by definition only tell a partial story of who that person is, but examining their actions and analysing many people interacting with that person over a lifetime will paint a far more accurate picture, it's a simple and concise way to establish who a person is.
For instance your bad attitude, hurling insults and hot temper on this Forum is well documented but if people in your life, tell us that Martin is a nice person because he helps the hungry, donates to charities, volunteers his time to the elderly etc etc, then the person who you are will be established. We are defined across our entire being not just by one persons perspective. See how this works!

JohnM

You really must be desperate by now.

So, let's make it easy for you; what do you know about Oswald from personal experience and what do you know about him because others have told you about him?

[John Iacoletti]

How is that a problem, you keep using circular logic and assuming eyewitnesses make decisions based on the Oswald we know, but from their POV the man who was wearing the brown shirt could have simply been a bum they grabbed to fill the line-up.

In what way was his T-shirt messed up, the fact that in those line-ups Oswald wasn't wearing the jacket and brown shirt gave him a distinct advantage.

Speaking of circular logic, why would that give him an advantage?

But let's get serious, if Oswald was truly innocent why would he even say anything?

Because they were trying to railroad him with blatantly unfair lineups.  "Same size and build", my azz.

[John Iacoletti]

Who defects to the enemy at the height of the cold war?
Who after painfully discovering that his trip to Russia was a colossal failure because he envisioned himself as having a significant impact, comes crawling back to America?
Who after being denied entrance to Russia has a hissy fit and slashes his own wrists and then writes in his "Historic Diary" that he decided to "end it" and that Rimma will come to "find me dead" and to top it off, the Russians put Oswald in the "insanity ward"
Who beats his wife.
Who attempts to kill General Walker, does a sane man kill someone he doesn't even know for a cause?
Who uses an alias to buy murder weapons.
Who kills a President?, if that isn't absolutely bonkers crazy then I don't know what is.
Who kills a poor cop for simply stopping him.
Who tries to kill more cops when he's arrested.
Who tells the most absurd lies to his interrogators.

Oswald was a disturbed young man who through violence sought to change the World.

Or you are disturbed for believing all of that crap...

[Zeon Mason]

Why didn’t they kick Oswald out of the USMC when he started speaking Russian and praising Castro and the USSR? This was 1958 and its the height of the Cold War and the USMC is willing to tolerate a commie sympathizer and trust him with throwing grenades and shooting auto rifles during the training period?

What about that photo of Oswald in the company of Alpha 66 members at some point during his training?

Then they sent the commie sympathizer kook to the top secret base in Japan where he could have access to codes and listen in on USSR radio traffic.

Then the U2 spy plane getting shot down , and Oswald gets his hardship discharge and then he defects to USSR and gets the job in Minsk.
 
And Marina Oswald who already previously had met the other defectors , (her uncle being a KGB officer ?) meets Oswald too, they get married , and then back to the USA no problem.

So JohnM could be right that Oswald was just a random kook, but these coincidences seem
 to indicate Oswald was a CIA trained kook.

[Bill Brown]

Oswald had NO advantage at all in the line ups.
 
They had fill-ins that looked nothing like him or the witness descriptions.
Police officers dressed in suit jackets - collared shirt and dress slacks - vests, or button down sweaters - blonde hair and some much heavier.
Oswald complained about the process loudly and incessantly -  Held for 44+ hours with no attorney.

Leavelle to the witnesses: "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer.
We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him."

https://jfk.boards.net/post/1268/thread

They had fill-ins that looked nothing like him or the witness descriptions.
Police officers dressed in suit jackets

Suit jackets?  Do you really believe that?  Laughable.

[Michael Capasse]

Suit jackets?  Do you really believe that?  Laughable.

Mr. BALL. How were these men dressed that were in this showup?
Mr. BOYD. Well, let me think--some of them had coats and slacks....

Mr. BALL Ables was in his shirt sleeves. What about the two officers, Perry?
Mr. BOYD. Now, I remember Perry had on a coat, but he didn't have his shirt buttoned back up at the top, I remember that.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Don Ables also looked very nice, in a button down sweater, dress slacks, and a collared shirt.

Mr. BALL - How were you dressed when you went in the showup room?
Mr. ABLES - I was wearing a white shirt and this sweater here [indicating].

Mr. BALL - You have a gray-knit sweater on?
Mr. ABLES - Yes.

Mr. BALL - And dark trousers?
Mr. ABLES - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Have a tie on?
Mr. ABLES - No.

Mr. BALL - Then you were dressed about like you are dressed today, is that right?
Mr. ABLES - Yes.



If I was going to testify before the Warren Commission, I would look my best.
It is a benefit this guy was dressed in nearly the same clothes the day he testified, as he wore in the lineups. He looks sharp.
Lee on the other hand is in a ragged torn shirt and the only one with cuts and bruises on his face, and in later lineups, a T shirt.
He loudly complained about not being allowed a jacket like the others. Line ups simply were not fair. No attorney would have allowed it.