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

[Bill Chapman]

John Mytton and a few other LNs were playing this same childish game long before you came along, copy-cat.
LOL! What's this; Back to the Future? Tell us how I would know that someone played this 'game' if it happened long before I came along, buck-passer.

Your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted
Run, Marty... RUN

[Martin Weidmann]

John Mytton and a few other LNs were playing this same childish game long before you came along, copy-cat.
LOL! What's this; Back to the Future? Tell us how I would know that someone played this 'game' if it happened long before I came along, buck-passer.

Your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted
Run, Marty... RUN

John Mytton and a few other LNs were playing this same childish game long before you came along, copy-cat.
LOL! What's this; Back to the Future? Tell us how I would know that someone played this 'game' if it happened long before I came along, buck-passer.

Don't have to. I don't know where you picked it up, but most LNs are not active on just one board, so who knows how you would know. It's a common practice for LNs and it most certainly isn't something you exclusively came up with, just as this is;

Run, Marty... RUN

It has all been done thousands of times before and it's pretty boring.

But your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted

[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. Now, if a dna test on the jacket does not find Oswald's dna would you accept that he likely did not wear it? Or are you going to be evasive again?

I was actually asking about the presence of Tippit's DNA on Oswald's shoes or pants.  If that was found, what would that mean to you?

Then you should have asked more clearly. But the answer is a simple one. If Tippit's dna is found on Oswald's shoes or pants then it means conclusively that he was close to Tippit at 10th/Patton, as the likelihood of a dna transfer on any other occassion is extremely remote.

Translation:  Even if Oswald's DNA were found on the jacket, our resident contrarian would argue that simply means Oswald had "worn" it on some occasion but not necessarily that he had worn it while murdering Tippit and discarded it.  And even if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's shoes or pants, then our contrarian would argue that means only that he was "close" to Tippit.  Whatever that means.  Not that he was the murderer.  And round and round it goes endlessly down the rabbit hole.  No better example of the application of the impossible standard of proof to Oswald's guilt than this nonsense.

[Richard Smith]

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. Now, if a dna test on the jacket does not find Oswald's dna would you accept that he likely did not wear it? Or are you going to be evasive again?

One more time for Martin/Roger:

I'm not being evasive at all but answering the direct question that you posed:

"If dna was found in the jacket and it doesn't belong to Oswald, would you accept that CE 162 was not Oswald's jacket or at least wasn't worn by him?"

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?  The presence of DNA would conclusively link Oswald to the jacket (unless some contrarian made a stupid, baseless claim like it was planted or the authorities should have found "more" DNA as with the fingerprint evidence).  The absence of DNA simply means none was found.  It does not exclude Oswald as having worn the jacket.  This would be obvious to most.

[Martin Weidmann]

Translation:  Even if Oswald's DNA were found on the jacket, our resident contrarian would argue that simply means Oswald had "worn" it on some occasion but not necessarily that he had worn it while murdering Tippit and discarded it.  And even if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's shoes or pants, then our contrarian would argue that means only that he was "close" to Tippit.  Whatever that means.  Not that he was the murderer.  And round and round it goes endlessly down the rabbit hole.  No better example of the application of the impossible standard of proof to Oswald's guilt than this nonsense.

Translation:  Even if Oswald's DNA were found on the jacket, our resident contrarian would argue that simply means Oswald had "worn" it on some occasion but not necessarily that he had worn it while murdering Tippit and discarded it.

As per usual our resident liar and strawman presenter is trying to put, rather dishonestly, words in my mouth that I never said, while at the same time refusing to answer my question about what it would mean if Oswald's dna wasn't found in the jacket.

And even if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's shoes or pants, then our contrarian would argue that means only that he was "close" to Tippit. 

Don't you ever get tired of lying? I said that if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's shoes or pants it would be conclusive evidence that Oswald was indeed close to Tippit when he was shot. How else would get Tippit's blood on Oswald's shoes or pants. But there is no pleasing pathetic little "Richard". He will continue to twist and turn to make it look that I wouldn't accept Oswald's culpability in Tippit's murder when evidence as conclusive as this was to be found. Why? Because it destroys the idiot's claim that even conclusive evidence wouldn't persuade me of Oswald's guilt. That's how pathetic little "Richard" actually is.

[Richard Smith]

Translation:  Even if Oswald's DNA were found on the jacket, our resident contrarian would argue that simply means Oswald had "worn" it on some occasion but not necessarily that he had worn it while murdering Tippit and discarded it.

As per usual our resident liar and strawman presenter is trying to put, rather dishonestly, words in my mouth that I never said, while at the same time refusing to answer my question about what it would mean if Oswald's dna wasn't found in the jacket.

And even if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's shoes or pants, then our contrarian would argue that means only that he was "close" to Tippit. 

Don't you ever get tired of lying? I said that if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's shoes or pants it would be conclusive evidence that Oswald was indeed close to Tippit when he was shot. How else would get Tippit's blood on Oswald's shoes or pants. But there is no pleasing pathetic little "Richard". He will continue to twist and turn to make it look that I wouldn't accept Oswald's culpability in Tippit's murder when evidence as conclusive as this was to be found. Why? Because it destroys the idiot's claim that even conclusive evidence wouldn't persuade me of Oswald's guilt. That's how pathetic little "Richard" actually is.

LOL.  I did answer your silly question.  And by "close" to Tippit are you suggesting that Oswald could be anything other than Tippit's murderer?  You can't possibly be suggesting that Oswald was a bystander in the vicinity of the shooting and was somehow sprayed with Tippit's blood.  What is so hard about explicitly stating that if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's shoes or pants that means he is the murderer without any of this embarrassing equivocation which exposes you as a contrarian loon?

[Tom Scully]

Translation:  Even if Oswald's DNA were found on the jacket, our resident contrarian would argue that simply means Oswald had "worn" it on some occasion but not necessarily that he had worn it while murdering Tippit and discarded it.  And even if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's shoes or pants, then our contrarian would argue that means only that he was "close" to Tippit.  Whatever that means.  Not that he was the murderer.  And round and round it goes endlessly down the rabbit hole.  No better example of the application of the impossible standard of proof to Oswald's guilt than this nonsense.

Richard, if you consider this as more evidence in favor of your POV, it is actually a fuse of a bomb, "red meat for
the CT base", I am about to set off!

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10477#relPageId=728

[Bill Chapman]

John Mytton and a few other LNs were playing this same childish game long before you came along, copy-cat.
LOL! What's this; Back to the Future? Tell us how I would know that someone played this 'game' if it happened long before I came along, buck-passer.

Don't have to. I don't know where you picked it up, but most LNs are not active on just one board, so who knows how you would know. It's a common practice for LNs and it most certainly isn't something you exclusively came up with, just as this is;

Run, Marty... RUN

It has all been done thousands of times before and it's pretty boring.

But your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted

I don't know where you picked it up
I do: My imagination.

But your pathetic obsession with me is duly noted
Not obsession. Revulsion.