Touring the Tippit Scene

[Martin Weidmann]

Your reasons are flawed. It has already been explained to you. I'm not doing it again.

All you have explained is that you are confused about the difference between something being likely and something being fact.

Oh brother... we haven't been talking about a fact at all. You're trying to move the goalposts again. If something is a fact, there is no likely or unlikely. Only in speculation is the word "likely"used, more often than not by the person doing the speculating.

Because nothing is ever likely or unlikely. It is, at best, highly speculative and it all depends on the person who is making the assumption. When you make an assumption, it is by definition that it is likely or unlikely, depending on which side of the speculation you are on. Ergo, when you claim it's likely the counter argument automatically becomes that it is unlikely.

Trying to make sense of this:

First you clearly state: nothing is ever likely or unlikely. Then you clearly state that an assumption is by definition likely or unlikely. 

I was afraid you wouldn't follow.... and I was right, which is best illustrated by the fact that you (purposely or not) misrepresent what I said.

Thanks for confirming the point I have been making all alone.

Been arguing with yourself again?   

Another dumb reply from somebody who is unable to have a normal discussion about anything. You truly are not half as clever as you think you are.

Btw, I noticed you skipped right over this;

There is no such thing as a rational assumption. The assumption is only rational to you because you want it to be. Anybody who makes an assumption always thinks it's rational. Only a fool makes an irrational assumption, right?

No, that's not right. A rational assumption is reasoned. You can argue against the reasons. But to dismiss something because you believe that "there is no such thing as a rational assumption" is ridiculous.

And yet you dismiss in an instant the timeline for the Tippit killing I am in the process of constructing, based on actual witness testimony and reasoning, which, according to you is a "rational assumption". Go figure...

Let's remember what you said in this thread alone;

Its about as likely as your “timeline” theory and your LHO wasn’t wearing a jacket theory. None of your theories have any chance at all of being correct.

Since you consider both as likely,

Dead wrong. None of your theories has a snowball’s chance in hell of being correct.

Care to explain why you did that, or shall I make a guess?

Could it be that in your feeble mind anything that you say is automatically reasonable and likely and what somebody else says isn't?

[Charles Collins]

Charles, you continually make “because I said so” arguments. You are no more the authority on the correct usage of the word “arbitrary” as you are the authority on what hypothetical scenario is more “likely” than another hypothetical scenario.

To demonstrate likelihood, you need to have some basis by which to assess it. Is Oswald more likely to have visited the Texas Theater than a theater in Fargo, North Dakota? Yes, because of proximity. Is he more likely to have visited the Texas Theater than not to have visited the Texas Theater? No. You don’t have any evidence either way. “Likely” at the very least means greater than 50%. Is a fair coin flip likely to come up heads? No. Even if you try to “rationally” show that coins can possibly land on heads.

Because hypothetical arguments don’t make something more likely than its negation.

You are no more the authority on the correct usage of the word “arbitrary” as you are the authority on what hypothetical scenario is more “likely” than another hypothetical scenario.


According to you, nobody knows anything at all about anything at all. There are reference books for the proper usage of words. One can consult these. Oh hell, then you would argue that the reference books don’t know anything at all about anything at all. Never mind....


Is Oswald more likely to have visited the Texas Theater than a theater in Fargo, North Dakota? Yes, because of proximity. Is he more likely to have visited the Texas Theater than not to have visited the Texas Theater? No. You don’t have any evidence either way. “Likely” at the very least means greater than 50%.

This shows that you understand the concept. More than I can say about the nonsense coming out of Martin. You state that I have no evidence either way for the second question. What evidence do you believe would be needed?


Because hypothetical arguments don’t make something more likely than its negation.

I asked for argument against the reasons I cited. These reasons are not hypothetical. There is evidence to support them.

[Charles Collins]

By way of example, I could use the same flawed logic to argue that Oswald was unlikely to have ever visited the Texas Theater before.

Reason 1: He was a cheapskate
Reason 2: He had no car. Getting to a theater would necessitate a walk outside in the summer heat.
Reason 3: He could stay home and watch movies on TV instead in the air conditioning and for free.
Reason 4: During the heat of the day he was either at work or at the Paine house anyway.

Making a hypothetical reasoned argument doesn’t make that conclusion any more likely to be correct.

Now we are getting somewhere.

1. Yes, he was very frugal, no doubt. However, this could also be used as another reason to believe that he had already figured out the easy way to sneak in to the Texas Theater, before 11/22/63. And perhaps he had even sneaked in before.

2. The Texas Theater was within easy walking distance of where he lived. He also had the bus as an option if the weather was too nasty. The summer heat is ferocious in Dallas, I can say that from personal experience. But it wouldn’t have taken much time to walk the distances involved and tolerating the heat for short periods isn’t out of the question for a healthy man in his early twenties.

3. Do you have any evidence that LHO had a television or air conditioning (not as common in residences in 1962-1963 as it is today) in the places that he lived in Oak Cliff? I know there was a community television in the rooming house. But what about the Neely Street address, etc?

4. We need to include the other times and places LHO lived in Oak Cliff. Also, we do not know his whereabouts for certain during the weekend before the assassination.


Making a hypothetical reasoned argument doesn’t make that conclusion any more likely to be correct

Perhaps, if the reasons were hypothetical. But they are not in this argument.

[Charles Collins]

Oh brother... we haven't been talking about a fact at all. You're trying to move the goalposts again. If something is a fact, there is no likely or unlikely. Only in speculation is the word "likely"used, more often than not by the person doing the speculating.

I was afraid you wouldn't follow.... and I was right, which is best illustrated by the fact that you (purposely or not) misrepresent what I said.

Another dumb reply from somebody who is unable to have a normal discussion about anything. You truly are not half as clever as you think you are.

Btw, I noticed you skipped right over this;

Let's remember what you said in this thread alone;

Care to explain why you did that, or shall I make a guess?

Could it be that in your feeble mind anything that you say is automatically reasonable and likely and what somebody else says isn't?

Still begging for someone to “argue” with you about your “timeline” I see.

[Martin Weidmann]

Still begging for someone to “argue” with you about your “timeline” I see.

No, just pointing out two things;

First of all, your hypocrisy in dismissing out of hand a narrative based on factual witness testimonty while on the other hand insisting that your speculative assumptions can not be dismissed out of hand, because your "reasons" need to be discussed.

And secondly, that wannabe "know alls" like yourself don't have the guts, nor the arguments, to tell me what is wrong about the timeline.

You provide the most idiotic "reasons" why it's so-called "likely" that Oswald knew the Texas Theater and argue ad-nauseam about that, but when you have an opportunity to actually discuss a significant part of the case you chicken out and run....

I wouldn't be surprised if you don't even understand that your inability to provide any reason why the timeline is wrong is, by itself, an admission that it isn't wrong at all.

[Martin Weidmann]

Now we are getting somewhere.

1. Yes, he was very frugal, no doubt. However, this could also be used as another reason to believe that he had already figured out the easy way to sneak in to the Texas Theater, before 11/22/63. And perhaps he had even sneaked in before.

2. The Texas Theater was within easy walking distance of where he lived. He also had the bus as an option if the weather was too nasty. The summer heat is ferocious in Dallas, I can say that from personal experience. But it wouldn’t have taken much time to walk the distances involved and tolerating the heat for short periods isn’t out of the question for a healthy man in his early twenties.

3. Do you have any evidence that LHO had a television or air conditioning (not as common in residences in 1962-1963 as it is today) in the places that he lived in Oak Cliff? I know there was a community television in the rooming house. But what about the Neely Street address, etc?

4. We need to include the other times and places LHO lived in Oak Cliff. Also, we do not know his whereabouts for certain during the weekend before the assassination.


Making a hypothetical reasoned argument doesn’t make that conclusion any more likely to be correct

Perhaps, if the reasons were hypothetical. But they are not in this argument.

Pathetic. The clown who presents "reasons" for which he has not a shred of evidence is asking somebody else for evidence for similar speculative reasons, without even understanding that John destroyed your entire argument simply by showing you that anybody can make assumptions the way you are constantly doing.

But this will go over your head again.... You must be fun to be around at parties....

[Richard Smith]

Now we are getting somewhere.

1. Yes, he was very frugal, no doubt. However, this could also be used as another reason to believe that he had already figured out the easy way to sneak in to the Texas Theater, before 11/22/63. And perhaps he had even sneaked in before.

2. The Texas Theater was within easy walking distance of where he lived. He also had the bus as an option if the weather was too nasty. The summer heat is ferocious in Dallas, I can say that from personal experience. But it wouldn’t have taken much time to walk the distances involved and tolerating the heat for short periods isn’t out of the question for a healthy man in his early twenties.

3. Do you have any evidence that LHO had a television or air conditioning (not as common in residences in 1962-1963 as it is today) in the places that he lived in Oak Cliff? I know there was a community television in the rooming house. But what about the Neely Street address, etc?

4. We need to include the other times and places LHO lived in Oak Cliff. Also, we do not know his whereabouts for certain during the weekend before the assassination.


Making a hypothetical reasoned argument doesn’t make that conclusion any more likely to be correct

Perhaps, if the reasons were hypothetical. But they are not in this argument.

Brewer indicated that he thought Oswald had been in his store before.  At the very least, that places him in the immediate vicinity of the TT on a prior occasion.  Do I have a time machine to prove Oswald ever went to the TT on a prior occasion?  No.  Does it matter a whole lot?  No.  Even if Oswald had never been there before, he could still have taken those stairs to the balcony upon entering.  They appear to be fairly conspicuous.  Whether he actually did so or not is also not very important as to his guilt.  It just explains the early report of the man being in the balcony.  Burroughs didn't see him and he and Postal assumed from past experience that someone who hadn't bought a ticket would ascend into the balcony via those stairs.  So that is what they thought Oswald had done.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Now we are getting somewhere.

1. Yes, he was very frugal, no doubt. However, this could also be used as another reason to believe that he had already figured out the easy way to sneak in to the Texas Theater, before 11/22/63. And perhaps he had even sneaked in before.

2. The Texas Theater was within easy walking distance of where he lived. He also had the bus as an option if the weather was too nasty. The summer heat is ferocious in Dallas, I can say that from personal experience. But it wouldn’t have taken much time to walk the distances involved and tolerating the heat for short periods isn’t out of the question for a healthy man in his early twenties.

3. Do you have any evidence that LHO had a television or air conditioning (not as common in residences in 1962-1963 as it is today) in the places that he lived in Oak Cliff? I know there was a community television in the rooming house. But what about the Neely Street address, etc?

4. We need to include the other times and places LHO lived in Oak Cliff. Also, we do not know his whereabouts for certain during the weekend before the assassination.


Making a hypothetical reasoned argument doesn’t make that conclusion any more likely to be correct

Perhaps, if the reasons were hypothetical. But they are not in this argument.

About 30 minutes earlier Oswald spent $1 to get a cab to his rooming house. But he didn't want to spend 90 cents for a ticket. His frugality seemed to have, like the Oswald defenders and their opposition to "speculation", waxed and waned.

See how it goes? Every act (proven act and not speculated) by Oswald is isolated and then given, with speculation that is only permissible by his defenders, the most innocent of explanations. The wedding ring, the money left behind, the strange package (his room didn't need curtain rods), his departure from the TSBD shortly after the shooting, his lack of interest in finding out what happened to JFK, the bus ride, the cab ride....on and on and on. There's a long detailed series of actions - proven actions - by Oswald that cannot be explained away.

Unless one is acting like a defense attorney - a modern day Mark Lane - and trying to deconstruct each piece of evidence. Why would one do that? Why would one come here day-after-day week-after-week for years with this same argument? Who really knows? Is the idea to try and muddle through and come to a conclusion as to what happened that November day? Or is the idea to, for again some odd reason, exonerate Oswald? I assume the former since I am not aware of any other historical event that people discuss where a group of people act like this.