Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket

[Martin Weidmann]

You really don't understand do you?, you put your theory on the table as your first response.

Exactly, because you have no argument.

Your theory that I'm incorrect requires evidence! Well?


I've had enough, you haven't even come close to refuting my original statement and presenting any relevant evidence is obviously beyond you, anyway Martin your continual downer comments are a real sad reflection on who you are, you're just not worth it.



JohnM

You really don't understand do you?, you put your theory on the table as your first response.

Lol... my first response was that you, as usual, were telling a lie.

Exactly, because you have no argument.

Unlike you, I'm not insecure and do not require constant confirmation, so I'll gladly leave you your delusion of grandeur

Your theory that I'm incorrect requires evidence! Well?

My statement that you are not correct is not a theory. It is fact....

I've had enough, you haven't even come close to refuting my original statement and presenting any relevant evidence is obviously beyond you, anyway Martin your continual downer comments are a real sad reflection on who you are, you're just not worth it.

Oh Johnny, you still don't get it, do you now? Just how naively stupid does one have to be to think you can persuade WC critics by presenting nothing more that the same old WC arguments to them over and over again. Because that's what you do all the time. You're like a vending machine that dispenses the same old stuff every time a button is pushed.

You are not here to argue. In fact, you don't know how to discuss and argue... You are here to repeat over and over again the same old rubbish you were given by the WC and Bugliosi no matter how often it has been debunked or exposed as a misrepresentation. That's all you do and all you know how to do. There is no point in arguing with you because your answers (mostly copy/paste or a gif) are always predictable and by your standards, nobody will ever come close to refuting anything you say, because you will automatically dismiss everything you don't like, no matter how relevant or correct the information is that you have been given.

   

[Richard Smith]

I'm surprised our resident nitwits haven't suggested that Oswald's jacket wasn't found in the theatre because there is no evidence that anyone searched for it.  Maybe it is still there somewhere like Frazier's two-foot long bag in the TSBD or Oswald's rifle at the post office.  It's laughable to watch these kooks dance like circus monkeys around the obvious evidence and then deny they are suggesting a vast conspiracy even though the implications of what they are suggesting mean that almost everyone - including many random people whose testimony they otherwise rely upon - intentionally lied or planted evidence to frame Oswald.  And they take themselves so seriously.  Like ghost hunters. 

[Bill Chapman]

Here we go again... the usual pathetic excuse to explain away why Markham did not recognize CE 162.

And she wasn't the only one.

If Markham had said she had seen a purple jacket you would probably be blaming it on the position of the moon relative to the sun as well as a thunderstorm 300 miles away...

Purple, huh. Nah, that far off in colour perception would either strongly suggest an extreme case of color blindness, or the jacket seen in shadow. Well at least according to my scientific non C&P-delivered research on the subject.

 

[Richard Smith]

LHO left the TSBD with NO jacket, but Whaley said that he had one on. Where did he get the jacket from?

How do you know that he left the TSBD with no jacket?   
 

[John Iacoletti]

How about quitting with the straw man and deal with what I actually did say.  The fibers found inside one of the sleeves of the jacket matched the microscopic fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt.

And by "matched" you mean similar.  So what?

[John Iacoletti]

This is your so called American Justice, I can murder someone in broad daylight in front of eyewitnesses and then get seen running away by almost a dozen people, most of which see me with the same type of gun that killed the man, drop shells that match my revolver, whack the Police Officer that tries to search me, then I try and kill him too and all I need is Iacoletti Inc. to misrepresent the eyewitnesses and I'm magically innocent. Holy WOW Batman!

Whereas you prefer a system of justice that railroads a guy with bogus lineups, shells with magic disappearing initials, and a gun that a cop pulls out of his pocket 2 hours later.

[John Mytton]

And by "matched" you mean similar.  So what?

The prohibitive probability is that those fibers came from Oswald's shirt.
RHVB

Another important consideration is coincidence. When fibers that match the clothing fibers of the suspect are found on the clothing of a victim, two conclusions may be drawn: The fibers originated from the suspect, or the fibers originated from another fabric source that not only was composed of fibers of the exact type and color, but was also in a position to contribute those fibers through primary or secondary contact. The likelihood of encountering identical fibers from the environment of a homicide victim (i.e., from his or her residence or friends) is extremely remote.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric3.htm



JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

The prohibitive probability is that those fibers came from Oswald's shirt.
RHVB

As I said, that's just Bugliosi-speak for "similar".  He pulled this "probability" out of his azz.