Jesse Curry Interviews Nov 1963

[Martin Weidmann]

Your false premise that he ”had to know” how they got to the elevator in order to say anything about seeing them is not the point. The other possibilities include:

1. He was just simply lying without really having any idea of where Norman and Jarman were at the time. But thought it would sound good as part of his lie.

2. He heard the elevator being used and stopping before it got to the sixth floor and seconds later heard Norman and Jarman below him. He deduced that in order to get onto the elevators Norman and Jarman would [most likely, if you insist] have been within sight of the door of the domino room. And he included this as part of his lie.

My point is that it wasn’t necessary for him to see Norman and Jarman outside in order to deduce that they would [most likely, if you insist] have been in view from the door of the domino room.

Anything but the obvious, right? The less contrived answer is of course that Oswald simply did see both men on the 1st floor.

Your assumptions are based on the preconceived notion that (1) Oswald must have lied and (2) that he was indeed on the 6th floor. For neither you actually have any evidence.

[Richard Smith]

You are constantly confused....if indeed one can actually call it confusion.  You 'discuss' nothing... only ramble on about stuff only you could imagine.  You contradict yourself always. Different times? Yeah 7 months apart. What is similar about a pot shot into a crackpot generals house and the slaying of a man who's brother had said general committed to a nut house?

It's been explained to you.  You are simply asking the same question over and over.  The answer must by necessity contain a certain amount of logical inference.  Rejecting or ignoring that explanation on the basis that only Oswald can know the answer for why he did certain things is just going around in circles.  Oswald was a leftist political nut with an anti-American bent.  He would fit in nicely in the current America.  He had obvious reasons to target a right winger like Walker.  In addition, he had access to Walker because he also lived in Dallas.  Oswald would not likely have tracked Walker down had he lived somewhere else.  Similarly, JFK came to Dallas.  His motorcade literally drove right by Oswald's place of employment.  A golden opportunity.  As President, JFK was the literal and symbolic head of the country that Oswald detested.  Assassinating him was a revolutionary political act against that system.  It has nothing to do with JFK himself.  The act of a political nut job willing to die for the cause.

[John Iacoletti]

My point is that it wasn’t necessary for him to see Norman and Jarman outside in order to deduce that they would [most likely, if you insist] have been in view from the door of the domino room.

My point is that this deduction makes no sense whatsoever.

[John Iacoletti]

It's been explained to you.  You are simply asking the same question over and over.  The answer must by necessity contain a certain amount of logical inference.  Rejecting or ignoring that explanation on the basis that only Oswald can know the answer for why he did certain things is just going around in circles.  Oswald was a leftist political nut with an anti-American bent.  He would fit in nicely in the current America.  He had obvious reasons to target a right winger like Walker.  In addition, he had access to Walker because he also lived in Dallas.  Oswald would not likely have tracked Walker down had he lived somewhere else.  Similarly, JFK came to Dallas.  His motorcade literally drove right by Oswald's place of employment.  A golden opportunity.  As President, JFK was the literal and symbolic head of the country that Oswald detested.  Assassinating him was a revolutionary political act against that system.  It has nothing to do with JFK himself.  The act of a political nut job willing to die for the cause.

Your made-up, fanciful stories don’t “explain” anything.

[Richard Smith]

A class contrarian rabbit hole scenario.  They ask a question which must, by necessity, include a certain amount of logical inference from the facts to answer.  Like why would Oswald target Walker, a right winger, and JFK, a Dem.  Of course, only Oswald would know the answer with absolute certainty.  And he was a nut job meaning there isn't a tidy, logical explanation for his every action.  Everyone else must use what was known about Oswald and these events to formulate a logical inference.  When the answer is provided it is rejected as the produce of "story telling" or "speculation" but without any substantive rebuttal as to why they think it is wrong.  LOL.  And round and round we go.  The contrarian kooks don't like the answer to their question which necessitates drawing inferences from the facts and dismiss any answer on the basis of not having an Ouija board to contact Oswald.

[Martin Weidmann]

A class contrarian rabbit hole scenario.  They ask a question which must, by necessity, include a certain amount of logical inference from the facts to answer.  Like why would Oswald target Walker, a right winger, and JFK, a Dem.  Of course, only Oswald would know the answer with absolute certainty.  And he was a nut job meaning there isn't a tidy, logical explanation for his every action.  Everyone else must use what was known about Oswald and these events to formulate a logical inference.  When the answer is provided it is rejected as the produce of "story telling" or "speculation" but without any substantive rebuttal as to why they think it is wrong.  LOL.  And round and round we go.  The contrarian kooks don't like the answer to their question which necessitates drawing inferences from the facts and dismiss any answer on the basis of not having an Ouija board to contact Oswald.

a certain amount of logical inference from the facts

Before you make any kind of inference you first need to establish that the so-called "facts" are in fact facts. You just believe whatever they have told you about Oswald, regardless of it being true or not.

You are not making any kind of "logical inference". Instead you are making stuff up based on what you (often mistakenly) think you know.

[Charles Collins]

A class contrarian rabbit hole scenario.  They ask a question which must, by necessity, include a certain amount of logical inference from the facts to answer.  Like why would Oswald target Walker, a right winger, and JFK, a Dem.  Of course, only Oswald would know the answer with absolute certainty.  And he was a nut job meaning there isn't a tidy, logical explanation for his every action.  Everyone else must use what was known about Oswald and these events to formulate a logical inference.  When the answer is provided it is rejected as the produce of "story telling" or "speculation" but without any substantive rebuttal as to why they think it is wrong.  LOL.  And round and round we go.  The contrarian kooks don't like the answer to their question which necessitates drawing inferences from the facts and dismiss any answer on the basis of not having an Ouija board to contact Oswald.

Everyone else must use what was known about Oswald and these events to formulate a logical inference.  When the answer is provided it is rejected as the produce of "story telling" or "speculation" but without any substantive rebuttal as to why they think it is wrong.


I call it “holding for Hux”, they will “tool” with you as long as you let them.  Nothing that tends to incriminate their idol makes any sense to them. But, believing that everyone except their idol lied, and that all of the incriminating evidence is “highly questionable”, or outright fake, makes perfect sense to them. It’s more than simple confirmation bias. It’s insanity personified.

[John Iacoletti]

There’s a difference between a logical inference and assuming something is true and then inventing a story out of whole cloth to “explain” it.