Youtube Interview I Did, Tippit Case

[Bill Chapman]

I get the impression you're involved in a bitter LN vs CT situation that I'm not particularly interested in.

Not really. I just don't like the hypocrisy. I have tried many times to have a normal conversation with LNs but whenever it gets to a point where they can not explain something, they start playing games and the conversation is over.

The LN narrative is an entrenched position that can only be really challenged by a strong counter-narrative that accounts for aspects of the assassination LNers struggle with.

I disagree. You can never present a strong counter-narrative because as soon as you do the conversation is over.
Also, the LN narrative is the one claiming to be correct. The LNs should be able to defend it with convincing arguments. The LNs are the ones who are acting as prosecutors. They need to prove their case.

Endless arguments over little details have got nowhere, and never will (IMO)

It depends what one considers to be a little detail.

'They need to prove their case'
The witnesses @Tippit did that and cracked the code in the process.

'You can never present a strong counter-narrative because as soon as you do the conversation is over.'
Still waiting for a strong counter-narrative from you or any other CT 'conversationalist', Bubba.

[Martin Weidmann]

'They need to prove their case'
The witnesses @Tippit did that and cracked the code in the process.

'You can never present a strong counter-narrative because as soon as you do the conversation is over.'
Still waiting for a strong counter-narrative from you or any other CT 'conversationalist', Bubba.

Thanks for once again proving the point I was making.

You want a counter narrative? Since pictures seem to be the easiest way to communicate with you, watch the movie "Executive action" and the assassination scene in the movie "the International". 

[Bill Chapman]

Thanks for once again proving the point I was making.

You want some fries with that nothing-burger? 

And does your 'counter-narrative' include the comment about Earlene having only a couple of seconds to see what Oswald was wearing? It must be, since I've schooled you on this very point before, using a similar blurred, mocking image... and yet here you are repeating yourself.

And did you finally work out if the figure in my mocking-mockup (so-to-speak) is wearing a jacket or not?

[Bill Brown]

Just like you keep skipping over the part where Roberts testified that the jacket she saw was darker than CE 162.

Again, for the four millionth time...

Forget 162.  Got that now?

Forget Tenth and Patton.

Oswald left the rooming house zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.  Oswald is seen by Johnny Brewer on Jefferson with no jacket.  Why did Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?

[Bill Brown]

It doesn't matter when she said it. It shows that her employer was likely correct about her making up stories.
If you make up stories afterwards, you can also do so on the day itself.

Unreliable is unreliable. Period.

Btw, Frazier, was being polygraphed on Friday evening when he was shown the bag they found at the TSBD and he denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry that same day. By your "logic" he needs to be believed, right? Even more so, because he never was accused of making up stories.....

It doesn't matter when she said it.

Except, it does.  She told a reporter almost immediately that Oswald left in a jacket.  She didn't tell anyone about the supposed horn-honking incident until a week later and by that time, the alleged assassin was himself gunned down, sparking rumors of a plot.

Unreliable is unreliable. Period.

No.  Like it or not, there are grey areas.

Btw, Frazier, was being polygraphed on Friday evening when he was shown the bag they found at the TSBD and he denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry that same day. By your "logic" he needs to be believed, right? Even more so, because he never was accused of making up stories.....

Frazier is an obvious liar.  These days, I don't trust a single thing he said.

[Bill Chapman]

Weidmann should feel free to squint to his heart's content before he says 'how would you know how bad her eyesight was'

[Martin Weidmann]

You want some fries with that nothing-burger? 

And does your 'counter-narrative' include the comment about Earlene having only a couple of seconds to see if Oswald was wearing a jacket or not? It must be, since I've schooled you on this very point before, using a similar blurred, mocking image... and yet here you are repeating yourself.

And did you finally work out if the figure in my mocking-mockup (so-to-speak) is wearing a jacket or not?

Pathetic.

As you haven't got a clue on how blurred Roberts' vision really was, your blurred picture is meaningless.

There is a major difference between briefly seeing somebody walking behind you, needing only seconds to get from his room to the front door, while you try to get the television to work and a picture frame from a Gary Mack video which you can watch as long as you like.

But I'll play, just for fun. The video shows the man wearing a jacket, so there is no mystery there, but if this guy would walk passed you in a matter of two or three seconds, under the same circumstances as Roberts saw him, you could easily confuse the jacket for a vest, cardigan or sweater.

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, for the four millionth time...

Forget 162.  Got that now?

Forget Tenth and Patton.

Oswald left the rooming house zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.  Oswald is seen by Johnny Brewer on Jefferson with no jacket.  Why did Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?

There you go again, ignoring the evidence you don't like and assuming (1) that Oswald left the rooming house with a jacket and (2) that it was Oswald who ditched a jacket.

Only a fool asks the same question over and over again, expecting a different result.