She never said anything like this.
You haven't misrepresented what she said, you've invented it!
That you can defend such an action speaks volumes about your "truth-seeking" credentials.
It appears you will do literally anything to bolster your intensely flawed outlook on the Tippit murder.
Where does this leave rational, reasoned debate?
You invent testimony, put it in the mouth of a witness then complain about "word games". Priceless.
This speaks of the amount of work you've put into this.
WFAA, Dallas local news, was broadcasting about the assassination long before 1PM.
Here, I've done the work for you (it took 10 seconds):
The word "seems" indicates speculation or assumption on my behalf. It's an honest thing to do rather than present assumption as fact.
The speculation is based on the video you posted in which Roberts reports seeing the bulletin and her testimony regarding trying to find out more information on another channel. It "seemed" unlikely she would just settle back into her program after the bulletin.
"Now, who is making stuff up?"
Is this a tacit admission of your own behaviour? 
Roberts testimony about Oswald leaving the house zipping up a jacket is emphatic and unequivocal, there is nothing ambivalent about it.
Speculation - as the dark blue jacket is in the TSBD and Oswald only has two jackets it is safe to assume which jacket he was zipping up as he left the rooming house.
I thought you were familiar with Frazier's testimony?
My "truth-seeking" credentials are established.
What about yours?
An entire post attacking me in a pathetic way and ignoring just about every point I have raised. Oh yes, you are really trying to have a "rational, reasoned debate".
The word "seems" indicates speculation or assumption on my behalf. It's an honest thing to do rather than present assumption as fact. The speculation is based on the video you posted in which Roberts reports seeing the bulletin and her testimony regarding trying to find out more information on another channel. It "seemed" unlikely she would just settle back into her program after the bulletin.
Why would you even speculate, when she told you when Oswald came in. Anyway you were wrong and the video I just posted in my previous post proves it. Just in case you missed it or just ignored it, here it is again.
It's a far better assumption than to assume that Roberts was searching for a channel with news about Kennedy after 12:41. You seem to conveniently forget that she got a telephone call from a friend
who told her Kennedy had been killed and to put the TV on. Kennedy wasn't declared dead until 1 PM!
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
Now, why would a friend have to tell her that, and why would she have to turn on the television, if she was already searching for a station with news about Kennedy? It seems that you are the one making up your own reality. But don't get me wrong. I think I understand where the confusion comes from. On the one hand you have Roberts talking about a special bulletin that came on during "As the world turns" which suggests that she was already watching TV, but then on the other hand you have her saying that she turned the TV on after a friend called her on the telephone and told her to put the television on. This seems to be classic Roberts as described by her employer, Mrs. Johnson, making up stories as she goes along.
Roberts testimony about Oswald leaving the house zipping up a jacket is emphatic and unequivocal, there is nothing ambivalent about it.
Speculation - as the dark blue jacket is in the TSBD and Oswald only has two jackets it is safe to assume which jacket he was zipping up as he left the rooming house.
I never said that Roberts testimony about the jacket was ambivalent. I said the evidence was ambivalent. If you don't understand the difference, than I can't help you.
You claimed as fact that Oswald left the TSBD wearing a jacket and that Roberts was wrong ("mistaken" is the correct LN term, I believe) when she said he entered the house wearing only a shirt. As this concocted story only matched (in a contrived way) some of the known evidence it most certainly did not match all the known evidence. It was a pathetic story to "explain" how the grey jacket could have been in the rooming house on Friday afternoon and it doesn't pass the smell test.
So, you can make assumptions about which jacket Oswald was zipping up as he left the rooming house, but it is meaningless as long as the discrepancy between Frazier's and Robert's statements on the subject hasn't been resolved.
I thought you were familiar with Frazier's testimony?You claim that Frazier's emphatically identified the light grey jacket Oswald wore to work that morning. The same jacket he was wearing when Frazier dropped him off! That's not an assumption, it's an invented claim. So, I ask you where I can find Frazier making that identification and all you can come up with is this? Really?
All that tells me is that you can't show me where Frazier made that emphatic identification, because it doesn't exist!
My "truth-seeking" credentials are established.
What about yours? I refer back to my comments about when Roberts switched the TV on, your made up story about Oswald leaving the TSBD wearing a jacket and Frazier alleged emphatic identification of the jacket. That tells us all we need to know about your "truth-seeking credentials".
I've been long resigned to the fact that on this forum difference of opinions goes hand in hand with insults and petty games being played. The only reason for me to hang around is that once in a while something is said in a discussion that I did not know. Our discussion about the Tippit time line was constructive and interesting, and then you fall back to this.... It's a shame, really!
Btw. you said;
It appears you will do literally anything to bolster your intensely flawed outlook on the Tippit murder.That sounds like you have your mind made up about the Tippit murder (which would explain a few things) but please tell me what is my "intensely flawed outlook on the Tippit murder" because I haven't got a clue what you are on about.
What do you think (assume, perhaps) that my outlook on the Tippit murder is?
