Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket

[Bill Chapman]

You're actually quite good at making up stuff....

But, come to think of it, that was already obvious, so never mind.

Hey, what am I... chopped liver? My mockery is every bit as good as Oscar's.

[Bill Chapman]

It's obvious you don't understand what happened, Bill. There were multiple Oswalds. There's the real Oswald Mrs. Bledsoe saw get in the Marsalis bus, went to his rooming house, quickly put on a jacket, discarded the jacket at the parking lot, was seen by Brewer entering the Texas theater and was  arrested at the Texas theater. There's the decoy Oswald that got on Whaley's taxi wearing two jackets. Then there's the decoy Oswald that Roger Craig saw get in the Rambler 15 minutes after the assassination. The decoy Oswald that Whaley gave a ride to then gave one of his jackets to the decoy Oswald that Roger Craig saw and that's the Oswald that shot officer Tippit. Simple, really. 

Good one

[Bill Brown]

It's obvious you don't understand what happened, Bill. There were multiple Oswalds. There's the real Oswald Mrs. Bledsoe saw get in the Marsalis bus, went to his rooming house, quickly put on a jacket, discarded the jacket at the parking lot, was seen by Brewer entering the Texas theater and was  arrested at the Texas theater. There's the decoy Oswald that got on Whaley's taxi wearing two jackets. Then there's the decoy Oswald that Roger Craig saw get in the Rambler 15 minutes after the assassination. The decoy Oswald that Whaley gave a ride to then gave one of his jackets to the decoy Oswald that Roger Craig saw and that's the Oswald that shot officer Tippit. Simple, really. 

Ha  Nice.

The real question is... why do some try their best to clear the name of a proven cop-killer?

That day, a policeman lost his life while on duty.

[Oscar Navarro]

Ha  Nice.

The real question is... why do some try their best to clear the name of a proven cop-killer?

That day, a policeman lost his life while on duty.

I don't know? It is weird isn't? Some will go as far as implicating Officer Tippitt in the assassination of JFK as being part of the conspiracy! I have come to the conclusion that
 (1) even if there had been several witnesses that saw Oswald shoot JFK
(2) saw Oswald leave the scene of the shooting
(3) saw Oswald go into the place where he was eventually captured
 (4) was identified to the police as that same man inside the place where he was capture
 (5) that Oswald then tried to kill another police officer while being apprehended
 (6) was found in possession of the gun later identified as the weapon used to kill JFK
 (7) and while under interrogation by the police admitted he was carrying that gun for the hell of it

( The bullets found on his person were identified as being the same as those used to kill JFK


Even then, these yahoos would still question, or go as far as exonerate Oswald from having committed the crime.

What can be assumed is the yahoos believe their mission is to act as defense attorneys for Oswald because he wasn't afforded that opportunity, and not as serious and objective observers of the evidence and/or the man who committed these crimes. Or, perhaps, their obssessed with the subject to the point where rational thinking is replaced by a stubburn and imaginary quest for justice even to the point where the most minute detail that has nothing to do with anything becomes a subject of intense and deep exploration. Then it's their research that becomes the main focus of attention in order to achieve recognition  in the kook commmunity.

[Martin Weidmann]

I don't know? It is weird isn't? Some will go as far as implicating Officer Tippitt in the assassination of JFK as being part of the conspiracy! I have come to the conclusion that
 (1) even if there had been several witnesses that saw Oswald shoot JFK
(2) saw Oswald leave the scene of the shooting
(3) saw Oswald go into the place where he was eventually captured
 (4) was identified to the police as that same man inside the place where he was capture
 (5) that Oswald then tried to kill another police officer while being apprehended
 (6) was found in possession of the gun later identified as the weapon used to kill JFK
 (7) and while under interrogation by the police admitted he was carrying that gun for the hell of it

( The bullets found on his person were identified as being the same as those used to kill JFK

Even then, these yahoos would still question, or go as far as exonerate Oswald from having committed the crime.

What can be assumed is the yahoos believe their mission is to act as defense attorneys for Oswald because he wasn't afforded that opportunity, and not as serious and objective observers of the evidence and/or the man who committed these crimes. Or, perhaps, their obssessed with the subject to the point where rational thinking is replaced by a stubburn and imaginary quest for justice even to the point where the most minute detail that has nothing to do with anything becomes a subject of intense and deep exploration. Then it's their research that becomes the main focus of attention in order to achieve recognition  in the kook commmunity.

I don't know

Indeed!

It seems you main complaint is that other people are less gullible than you and question the evidence more than you would like.

[Oscar Navarro]

I don't know

Indeed!

It seems you main complaint is that other people are less gullible than you and question the evidence more than you would like.

Perhaps, but I doubt that! The gullible part goes both ways. You, and a couple of others I've seen on this forum, question just about every piece of evidence even when you ask for evidence to be produced. Yet, when asked to give an alternative explanation or, better yet, your theory of what happened you punt. Question after question but no answers. According to your ilk it's up to the LNers to provide the answers while you CTers sit back and ignore or reject the answers. I have more respect for the CTers who at least offer an alternative theory no matter how bizarre. At least they put their heads in the guillotine, even if some of them just like to pontificate and ignore request to explain their theories.

[Martin Weidmann]

Perhaps, but I doubt that! The gullible part goes both ways. You, and a couple of others I've seen on this forum, question just about every piece of evidence even when you ask for evidence to be produced. Yet, when asked to give an alternative explanation or, better yet, your theory of what happened you punt. Question after question but no answers. According to your ilk it's up to the LNers to provide the answers while you CTers sit back and ignore or reject the answers. I have more respect for the CTers who at least offer an alternative theory no matter how bizarre. At least they put their heads in the guillotine, even if some of them just like to pontificate and ignore request to explain their theories.

Perhaps, but I doubt that!

No surprise there...

You, and a couple of others I've seen on this forum, question just about every piece of evidence 

Yes, so what? Is it your position that evidence should be accepted at face value?

Yet, when asked to give an alternative explanation or, better yet, your theory of what happened you punt.

I'm not going to play your game, just because you want me to. You want me to have and present alternative explanations or theories of what happened so you can attack, mock and dismiss them. But that's not why I am here. There is no point to having a theory based on a hunch. I want to find out if the known evidence supports the conclusions about Oswald's guilt, and the only way to do that is by asking questions. That's it! Too bad if you don't like it. 

I don't have alternative explanations of theories of what happened, because that would make me like you (and your ilk) who first draw a conclusion and then look for anything that supports the conclusion.

Question after question but no answers.

See... you're complaining again.

According to your ilk it's up to the LNers to provide the answers

Indeed... the LNs are making the claims. The onus of proof lies with those making the claims.

while you CTers sit back and ignore or reject the answers.

If your answer isn't persuasive why shouldn't it be rejected?

I have more respect for the CTers who at least offer an alternative theory no matter how bizarre.

And I would have more respect for an LNer who just tries to support his claims with evidence and enters into an open and honest discussion about it instead of one who constantly throws around claims like "It has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt, just read the WC and HSCA reports".

[Oscar Navarro]

Perhaps, but I doubt that!

No surprise there...

You, and a couple of others I've seen on this forum, question just about every piece of evidence 

Yes, so what? Is it your position that evidence should be accepted at face value?

Yet, when asked to give an alternative explanation or, better yet, your theory of what happened you punt.

I'm not going to play your game, just because you want me to. You want me to have and present alternative explanations or theories of what happened so you can attack, mock and dismiss them. Besides, that's not why I am here. I want to find out if the known evidence supports the conclusions about Oswald's guilt, and the only way to do that is by asking questions. That's it!

I don't have alternative explanations of theories of what happened, because that would make me like you (and your ilk) who first draw a conclusion and then look for anything that supports the conclusion.

Question after question but no answers.

See... you're complaining again.

According to your ilk it's up to the LNers to provide the answers

Indeed... the LNs are making the claims. The onus of proof lies with those making the claims.

while you CTers sit back and ignore or reject the answers.

If you answer isn't persuasive why shouldn't it be rejected?

I have more respect for the CTers who at least offer an alternative theory no matter how bizarre.

And I would have more respect for an LNer who just tries to support his claims with evidence and enters into an open and honest discussion about it instead of one who constantly throws around claims like "It has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt, just read the WC and HSCA reports".

And I would have more respect for an LNer who just tries to support his claims with evidence and enters into an open and honest discussion about it instead of one who constantly throws around claims like "It has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt, just read the WC and HSCA reports".



First of all, they're not my claims. What I do is to base my opinion on the conclusions reached by investigative bodies such as the WC and the HSCA based on the evidence these august bodies have uncovered and provided. I also rely on additional sources which validate the evidence provided by the WC and the HSCA or that invalidate or update on the evidence and conclusions reached by the WC and the HSCA.

Second, Bill Brown has given you the opportunity to enter "into an open and honest discussion" on just one topic and you have run away from it. But here you're contradicting yourself. You don't want to have any type of discussion because you don't want to play the game.