Time for Truth

[John Iacoletti]

The LN-evangelist credo:  witnesses are unreliable, except for those times when we want to rely on them.

[Zeon Mason]

Well just to make things interesting, Markam could NOT ID the light gray Jacket as the one she saw the Tippit shooter wearing. Just like the landlady Earlene Roberts could NOT  ID the light gray jacket either, as the one Oswald was wearing when he left the boarding house.

Mr.Mytton has previously suggested that light gray could be seen as almost white or a darker shade of gray given the intensity of light or lack thereof.

What was the level of illumination inside the boarding house that Earlene Roberts experienced vs what the level of illumination was for Markam OUTSIDE at 1:07 pm , (including shade from trees and was it  cloudy or sunny at 1:07 pm Nov 22/63?)

Imo if Myttons variable range gray scale idea is correct then the outside area at the Tippit police car would have to have   tree shade plus overcast sky to produce the equivalent level of lower illumination as in the boarding house so that Markam and Roberts both saw  approx same darker gray hue or causing Markam to see “tan” rather that light gray hue.

[John Mytton]

Well just to make things interesting, Markam could NOT ID the light gray Jacket as the one she saw the Tippit shooter wearing. Just like the landlady Earlene Roberts could NOT  ID the light gray jacket either, as the one Oswald was wearing when he left the boarding house.

Mr.Mytton has previously suggested that light gray could be seen as almost white or a darker shade of gray given the intensity of light or lack thereof.

What was the level of illumination inside the boarding house that Earlene Roberts experienced vs what the level of illumination was for Markam OUTSIDE at 1:07 pm , (including shade from trees and was it  cloudy or sunny at 1:07 pm Nov 22/63?)

Imo if Myttons variable range gray scale idea is correct then the outside area at the Tippit police car would have to have   tree shade plus overcast sky to produce the equivalent level of lower illumination as in the boarding house so that Markam and Roberts both saw  approx same darker gray hue or causing Markam to see “tan” rather that light gray hue.

At the end of the day your eyewitnesses didn't say Oswald had no jacket or a longer jacket but agreed that Oswald was wearing a similar jacket but the shade was slighty different, BFD!

The exact same jacket will have a different appearance because of lighting and contrast and don't forget where the WC showed the Jacket would have different lighting as well.



Btw this attempt to provide doubt through the perception of a shade of clothing is imo amateurish and pathetic.

JohnM

[Zeon Mason]

It’s a shame the  jacket that was found under the car couldn’t be verified as to whom actually found it.

It’s a shame that jacket was not tested to see if any gunpowder residue was on it.

It’s a shame that the paraffin test on Oswald’s cheek  to try prove Oswald had fired a rifle that day , turned out to be negative.

It’s a shame  that in an experiment where  7 people who fired an MC rifle  and then given paraffin test to test their cheek, ALL were POSITIVE.

But those only refute 3 out of Mr Bugs 50+item mountain of evidence.

Mr. Iacotti probably  has refuted  the other 50+ points of the mountain in some other thread on this forum, but there may be a way to refute some of those refutations with another look at them again ..

Like with this gray scale thing  causing Roberts and Markam to deny that  the CE 162 light gray jacket was the one they saw…

 And it was a jacket with a zipper in both cases..

And Markam eventually got around to finally say that Oswald WAS the man she saw thru her fingers covering her face, when he walked towards her before he then left…

Maybe ignoring  the anomalous stuff and just listing those parts of the WC findings that 2/3rds of  the American public can agree on, those parts that have been tested by experiment that 2/3rds agree supports the WC, will finally resolve this controversy and then if it can be ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures, a Constitutional Amendment can be added that declares that the WC theory is a self evident truth.

[John Mytton]

It’s a shame the  jacket that was found under the car couldn’t be verified as to whom actually found it.

Westbrook retrieved the jacket from under the car, why does it matter so much to you who originally saw it and how does that add to your conspiracy?

Mr. WESTBROOK. Actually, I didn't find it--it was pointed out to me by either some officer that--that was while we were going over the scene in the close area where the shooting was concerned, someone pointed. out a jacket to me that was laying under a car and I got the jacket and told the officer to take the license number.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Westbrook retrieved the jacket from under the car, why does it matter so much to you who originally saw it and how does that add to your conspiracy?

Mr. WESTBROOK. Actually, I didn't find it--it was pointed out to me by either some officer that--that was while we were going over the scene in the close area where the shooting was concerned, someone pointed. out a jacket to me that was laying under a car and I got the jacket and told the officer to take the license number.

JohnM

A unidentified police officer finding a jacket under a car does not add to anything, when it can't be connected to Oswald. As there is nobody who actually saw a person placing the jacket under a car, it can only be assumed that it was a jacket that belonged to Oswald. Assumptions are not evidence.

The initial description of the jacket was that it was white and Oswald did not own a white jacket. The FBI tried as hard as they could to link Oswald to the jacket now in evidence by trying to track down the origin of a laundry shop label and failed. A few hours after Oswald's arrest, Captain Westbrook presented a grey colored jacket to the DPD evidence room and claimed it was Oswald's. However, there is no information or evidence on how and when Westbrook obtained that jacket or that it is the same one he left with yet another unidentified officer at the carpark. Another strange feature of the grey jacket is that it was initialed by several DPD officers who in reality never handled it or ever were part of the chain of custody.

So, at the end of the day all we have is a white jacket found under a car which can not be linked to Oswald in any other way but by pure assumption and a grey jacket,  without a solid chain of evidence, which somehow ended up in Westbrook's possession at the DPD police station and for which there is also no credible evidence that it did belong to Oswald or that he wore it that day leaving the roominghouse.

[John Mytton]

A unidentified police officer finding a jacket under a car does not add to anything, when it can't be connected to Oswald. As there is nobody who actually saw a person placing the jacket under a car, it can only be assumed that it was a jacket that belonged to Oswald. Assumptions are not evidence.

The initial description of the jacket was that it was white and Oswald did not own a white jacket. The FBI tried as hard as they could to link Oswald to the jacket by trying to track down the origin of a laundry shop label and failed. A few hours after Oswald's arrest, Captain Westbrook presented a grey colored jacket to the DPD evidence room and claimed it was Oswald's. However, there is no information or evidence on how Westbrook obtained that jacket for the second time, after having left it with yet another unidentified at the carpark. Another strange feature of the grey jacket is that it was initialed by several DPD officers who in reality never handled it or ever were part of the chain of custody.

So, at the end of the day all we have is a white jacket found under a car which can not be linked to Oswald in any other way but pure assumption and a grey jacket,  without a solid chain of evidence, which somehow ended up in Westbrook's possession at the DPD police station and for which there is also no credible evidence that it did belong to Oswald or that he wore it that day leaving the roominghouse.

Someone(you) once told me to follow the dots and the answer will become clear and here every dot perfectly and logically leads to the next dot, whereas the CT alternative is just a mess of unconnected coincidences that require too many leaps of faith. 

Fact: Roberts saw Oswald zipping up his jacket when leaving the rooming house.
Fact: A number of eyewitnesses either at or close to the Tippit crime scene described Oswald holding a gun wearing a jacket.
Fact: Oswald was seen entering the car park where the jacket was retreived.
Fact: The same jacket was positively identified by his wife.
Fact: Oswald was arrested without his jacket.
Fact: Oswald was a double murderer who when arrested tried to kill more cops.



JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Someone(you) once told me to follow the dots and the answer will become clear and here every dot perfectly and logically leads to the next dot, whereas the CT alternative is just a mess of unconnected coincidences that require too many leaps of faith. 

Fact: Roberts saw Oswald zipping up his jacket when leaving the rooming house.
Fact: A number of eyewitnesses either at or close to the Tippit crime scene described Oswald holding a gun wearing a jacket.
Fact: Oswald was seen entering the car park where the jacket was retreived.
Fact: The same jacket was positively identified by his wife.
Fact: Oswald was arrested without his jacket.
Fact: Oswald was a double murderer who when arrested tried to kill more cops.



JohnM

A perfect example of assumptions leading to a massive leap of faith to desperately reach a "conclusion"

Fact: Roberts saw Oswald zipping up his jacket when leaving the rooming house.

And Wesley Buell Frazier saw Oswald wearing his grey jacket to Irving on Thursday evening, which, if true, means that jacket could never have been at the roominghouse on Friday morning.

Fact: A number of eyewitnesses either at or close to the Tippit crime scene described Oswald holding a gun wearing a jacket.

Where and when did they do that?

Fact: Oswald was seen entering the car park where the jacket was retreived.

People walk into car parks all the time. Nobody saw Oswald leaving a jacket under a car

Fact: The same jacket was positively identified by his wife.

Marina only identified the grey jacket that was shown to her. She never identified or was even shown the white jacket that was found under a car. There is no evidence whatsoever that these two jackets were in fact one and the same.

Calling an assumption a "fact" doesn't make it one. Following dots that are actually there is fine, but making up dots isn't.