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

[Martin Weidmann]

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

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

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

So you make a habit of constantly replying to somebody you loath? Now that's compulsion if I ever saw it.

But never mind, it's pretty clear it's really obsession even when you deny it.

[Martin Weidmann]

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?

LOL.  I did answer your silly question.

No you didn't.

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

I have already done that. You are just too dumb to understand it.

Now run to the National Archives and have Oswald's trousers and shoes tested for Tippit's blood or dna. If the results come back positive, I'll be the first to accept that Oswald killed Tippit.

But, somehow, I doubt you will do so.... afraid of what you will find!

[Richard Smith]

LOL.  I did answer your silly question.

No you didn't.

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

I have already done that. You are just too dumb to understand it.

Now run to the National Archives and have Oswald's trousers and shoes tested for Tippit's blood or dna. If the results come back positive, I'll be the first to accept that Oswald killed Tippit.

But, somehow, I doubt you will do so.... afraid of what you will find!

"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]

"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.

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. 

Exactly what I thought. Anything that points to Oswald not being the killer is automatically dismissed by you!

[Bill Chapman]

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

So you make a habit of constantly replying to somebody you loath? Now that's compulsion if I ever saw it.

But never mind, it's pretty clear it's really obsession even when you deny it.

Its revulsion. No, really.

[Martin Weidmann]

Its revulsion. No, really.

You must be even more obsessed than I thought then, because I would want to have no contact with somebody I had revulsion for.

[Bill Chapman]

You must be even more obsessed than I though then, because I would want to have no contact with somebody I had revulsion for.

No problem: I just hold my nose.

[Richard Smith]

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. 

Exactly what I thought. Anything that points to Oswald not being the killer is automatically dismissed by you!

Again, the absence of DNA is not the same as its presence.  It is possible to wear a jacket and not leave DNA on it.  Particularly if it is not tested for six decades after the person last came into contact with the jacket. The absence of DNA doesn't mean that it was never worn by that person.  Still no answer on what you meant by Oswald being "close" to Tippit if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's pants or shoes?  Are you suggesting Oswald could have been anything other than Tippit's murderer if that were the case?