Don't you ever listen to yourself?
Don't you have any idea how crazy you sound?
This is the logic of your argument -
You think it makes sense that when Roberts says it was after 1PM because it was after JFK was shot. And the reason you think it makes sense is because JFK was shot at 12:30 PM!!
It could have been 12:55 PM or 12:58 PM or any time after JFK was shot.
12:55 PM is after JFK was shot.
Here's what you don't understand - just because it was after JFK was shot, doesn't mean it was after 1PM!!
You must surely understand this most simple point.
You must surely agree that when Roberts says it was after JFK was shot, this doen't "prove" it was after 1 PM.
Even you must see this.
Or is it the case that no matter what evidence or argument is presented to you, you are not going to change your mind.
The true hallmark of the Tinfoil mentality
Here's what you don't understand - just because it was after JFK was shot, doesn't mean it was after 1PM!!Nobody said that
You must surely agree that when Roberts says it was after JFK was shot, this doen't "prove" it was after 1 PM.Nobody said that either. These are just silly strawman arguments.
You are, rather pathetically, trying to make an issue out of something that isn't one. It's not the first time you've done that, and it probably won't be the last.
Roberts was using the words "it was after Kennedy was shot" because the events we are discussing took place after Kennedy was shot. Most people don't select their words carefully, just in case some fool might want to read something into them some half a decade + later!
"Tomorrow you might find out something new...and change your story again."
That you honestly believe this is a criticism or a weakness says it all.
This says it all about your inflexible Tinfoil mentality.
As far as your concerned, it doesn't matter if you find out something new because you won't be changing your mind.
That is weakness!!
That is a profound weakness of mind.
But you don't see that, do you?
Now that is truly pathetic.
Who says it was a criticism or a weakness? It merely exposed you as a person who first makes his mind up about something and then starts to look for evidence that might support that decision. It's not about changing your or my mind either. It's about you desperately trying to find an argument that will stick. It's utter dishonesty.
"Yeah right!"
What a brilliant counter-argument 
How insightful.
And the stuff about the Parkland hotline can be found a few pages back where you destroyed your own theory trying to win a point then tried to dig yourself out of one of the many holes you've dug for yourself.
In fact, you've dug so many holes I might have to start calling you The Mole.
Keep the ad homs coming. It exposes your frustration and lack of coherent counter arguments. I did not destroy my own theory. You, rather stupidly, tried to claim I had done that and you used this Parkland hotline crap. I couldn't be bothered to reply to it back then, because I could not imagine that you were taking such a pathetic argument, that you made up, seriously, but it seems I was wrong and you are actually taking it seriously. How sad.....
No it doesn't brain boy.
Go back and read the analysis again - before the third bulletin "As The World Turns" is playing.
In fact, why don't you actually watch the video before commenting.
You might learn something new (Oh yeah...I forgot...you're not interested in learning anything new)
Oh boy.... you really are in desperate need of some help. First of all, stop being such a smug. You're not nearly as clever as you think you are. Secondly, let's see if you can wrap your head around this;
We are basically dealing with two videos in which Roberts says something different.
In the first video she says she was watching "as the world turns" when a bulletin came on about Kennedy being shot. There is no mention of her friend calling her by phone or her switching on the television. That's the video you want to rely on.
In another video, that you want to ignore, which is also posted in the Cop Killer thread, Roberts says that a friend called her and said that Kennedy was killed and that she should turn on the television, which is what she did. She already had the sound but not a stable picture and was trying to fix it when Oswald came in.
Clearly both these statements can't be true. So, in order to find out what actually happened you need to look at what Roberts said under oath in her testimony;
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry." He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.So, unless Roberts lied under oath, she was not watching "as the world turns" and she did not know Kennedy had been shot
until her friend called her and she switched the television on. When she did, "as the world turns" was probably still on and was shortly after that followed by a news bulletin. This is how the discrepancy between the two statements most likely happened. Or is that over your head? In the video you want to rely on, she simply did not mention how it came to be that she switched the television on "after Kennedy was shot" or perhaps it was simply edited out.
I find it completely amazing that you are so desperately clinging to some words spontaneously spoken in a brief conversation and try to pretend that they are 100% accurate and complete, as if normal persons are always 100% accurate and complete in everything they say.
There are two more comments to make. Your entire theory that Roberts watched either the first, the second or the third special bulletin is nothing more than that; an extremely bad theory. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. You are just making it up and are completely ignoring the possibility that Roberts got the phone call from her friend and turned on the television just as "as the world turned" came to an end and was followed by the news at 1PM. This scenario fits your theory just as well! Ever thought of that, genius?
And secondly, in her testimony Roberts placed the time that Oswald came in at
"around 1 o'clock"Mr. BALL. Can you tell me what time it was approximately that Oswald came in?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Now, it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after, because it was after President Kennedy had been shot-what time I wouldn't want to say because
and in the video you want to rely on she said
"it must have been after 1 o'clock".The expression "it must have been" is not an estimate, it's an affirmative statement!
Nowhere does she say he came in earlier than 1 o'clock! Try dealing with facts for once rather than your imaginations.
"No. Not her words. They are yours. You made it up"
They literally are her words.
They are literally what she, herself, says in the interview.
I wrote a transcript of the relevant part of the interview.
You can go back and watch the interview yourself.
These are her words.
The only reason you think I've made it up is because you've not actually read my post properly.
An error you've made time and time again.
I get the impression you are a very old man.
Stop being so dishonest. She never made the connection between watching "as the world turned" and trying to clean up the picture. You are the one who is falsely conflating the two comments into one in order to somehow score a point. It's really pathetic.
"...by all means, keep the ad homs coming..."
Will do Crispy Mole Brain Boy
Thank you for showing just how little of an adult you truly are.
