What my game is?
I asked a very simple question:
"...as far as this case is concerned, what specific evidence would you consider to be "conclusive"?"
You've still not answered this question because you believe it's some kind of trap. It's not.
Point me to where you've answered this question because I can't find it.
I've listened to Bill's interview a couple of times and find it compelling and authoritative. I have to qualify that by saying I've not really looked into the Tippit shooting in any great detail and am totally open to hearing a counter-narrative that encompasses the available witness statements and evidence.
At the moment Oswald looks guilty as far as I'm concerned but that can change as I dig deeper.
I am
When you say "building a house", are you referring to the narrative. If so, what narrative do you believe is dictated by the available evidence?
What evidence in the Tippit case have you kept?
The evidence must fit the narrative or the narrative doesn't work.
Investigation is a process of eliminating evidence?
If multiple "reasonable" explanations arise from the same evidence no real conclusions can be drawn.
But if one explanation is reasonable and one isn't, it's fair to "assume" the reasonable explanation is closer the truth.
When you say "building a house", are you referring to the narrative. If so, what narrative do you believe is dictated by the available evidence?Ask me again when I have examined all the available evidence. I don't jump to conclusions.
What evidence in the Tippit case have you kept?Who said anything about the Tippit case?
I've listened to Bill's interview a couple of times and find it compelling and authoritative. I have to qualify that by saying I've not really looked into the Tippit shooting in any great detail and am totally open to hearing a counter-narrative that encompasses the available witness statements and evidence. At the moment Oswald looks guilty as far as I'm concerned but that can change as I dig deeper.
You've just told me that you have already begun making up your mind after hearing a "compelling and authoritative" propaganda piece filled with misrepresentations. The fact that you then proceed to say that you have not really looked into the Tippit, tells me that you have determined Bill Brown's video as "compelling and authoritative" without actually knowing much about the case. In my book that's jumping to conclusions.
You haven't even told me what your position of the case is, in order to establish if I perhaps misunderstood what you were asking. It seems I have known what you were asking after all. As for the rest, you're asking way too many questions and are not answering enough or discussing the information I have provided for me to wonder what use it is to continue this conversation.
If multiple "reasonable" explanations arise from the same evidence no real conclusions can be drawn.
But if one explanation is reasonable and one isn't, it's fair to "assume" the reasonable explanation is closer the truth.Great, so we are at least in agreement on that point. Now let me ask you this; if there is a narrative, based on some but not all the witness statements, that combines a sequence of events in such a way that a time line can be derived from it in a corroborated way without having to claim that witnesses were wrong, late to catch their regular bus to work, late to pick up a daughter from school, and watches and hospital clocks were all slow, and not be vague about for instance how long it would take to walk one block.
And there is a narrative, again based on some but not all the witness statements as well as on a time line which totally depends on time stamps called out by DPD dispatchers, using clocks which the man in charge of the dispatchers told the HSCA were not synchronized, could be off by several minutes (esspecially in busy times when they were not checked regulary) and did not provide real time. For this narrative to work, a woman needs to be wrong about the time she left home and would be late for her regular bus to work, another man would have to be late by as much as five minutes to pick up his daughter from school, because his watch was late, and the clocks of a hospital need to be wrong so that a doctor can write down (and pass on to a justice of the peace) a time of death that allegedly was wrong, despite the fact that a police officer present confirmed the same time twice in his reports....
Which of these two narratives do you think, at first glance, is reasonably the most likely to be conclusive and correct?
I should point out that if you avoid answering this question this conversation is over.