Ruthie Paine's Confusing Calendar

[David Von Pein]

An appropriate addendum to my last post....

"Oliver Stone, in his movie 'JFK', never saw fit to present for his audience's consideration one single piece of evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy! So a murder case (the Kennedy assassination) where there is an almost unprecedented amount of evidence of guilt against the killer (Oswald) is presented to millions of moviegoers as one where there wasn't one piece of evidence at all. There oughta be a law against things like this." -- Vincent Bugliosi

[David Von Pein]

Why would you need to quote a whackjob like Bugliosi to support your fantasy?

Otto shows up (right on cue). It's just as I said above....

"Most of the time CTers just simply ignore all of this important stuff."

So tell me, Otto, do you think Bugliosi's quote above is an accurate one or not? If you don't think it's accurate, then please provide us with just one piece of LHO-incriminating evidence that Mr. Stone utilized in his 1991 film.

[David Von Pein]

I haven't seen the movie so why don't you list the evidence missing?

All of it.

(And you're not going to pretend that there's no evidence at all against Mr. Oswald, are you Mr. Beck?)

http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com

[David Von Pein]

Does "All of it" refer to the numbered "subtle tidbits" in your bowl of word salad in the link provided?

I guess you don't recognize sarcasm when you see it, huh?

[Martin Weidmann]

The fact that Oswald left his wedding ring behind at the Paine house on the morning of November 22nd (something he had never done before) is most definitely one of the pieces of circumstantial evidence that leads in the direction of Oswald's guilt. Only a staunch CTer would think otherwise.

But I'm not surprised that hardened conspiracists are unable to admit that such a change in Oswald's behavior is indicative of LHO's guilt. Just as no CTer on Earth will admit that Oswald's first-ever Thursday trip to Irving or his carrying a large-ish paper bag into the TSBD on 11/22 and lying about the contents of that bag to Buell Frazier are significant things at all. All of these things just roll off the backs of the ABO CT crowd. And most of the time CTers just simply ignore all of this important stuff. Just like Oliver Stone did in his 1991 movie. Which are just more examples of CTer Denial At Its Finest.

Oh boy...

The fact that Oswald left his wedding ring behind at the Paine house on the morning of November 22nd (something he had never done before) is most definitely one of the pieces of circumstantial evidence that leads in the direction of Oswald's guilt.

But I'm not surprised that hardened conspiracists are unable to admit that such a change in Oswald's behavior is indicative of LHO's guilt.

In order to even make this ridiculous claim, you need to first explain how leaving a wedding ring behind and probably concluding his marriage was over (after Marina refused to live with him again) constitutes regular or normal behavior for Oswald to deviate from. When you can not do this, your entire argument goes nowhere!

Just as no CTer on Earth will admit that Oswald's first-ever Thursday trip to Irving or his carrying a large-ish paper bag into the TSBD on 11/22 and lying about the contents of that bag to Buell Frazier are significant things at all.

Oswald only travelled to Irving a couple of times. Granted, he normally did so on Friday, but in this particular case he had not been the prior weekend and he (according to Marina and Ruth) wanted to convince his wife to live with him again. There is nothing sinister about that. It only could be significant when the argument is made that he really went to Irving on Thursday to collect a rifle, but the major problem with that is that  there isn't a shred of evidence that on 11/21/63 there was even a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage for him to collect. Without that rifle, the trip on Thursday is nothing more than a surprise visit to his wife.

As for the large-ish paper bag, that too only becomes significant if it can be shown to have contained the rifle, and the weight of the evidence is against that. The only two witnesses who actually saw the bag described it in several ways that justify the conclusion that the bag wasn't and could not have been big enough to conceal a broken down MC rifle.

And as far as the lying to Frazier goes, you do not know what he actually said. All you are doing is basing one flawed, biased, conclusion upon another flawed, biased, conclusion.

It is in fact a sign of utter weakness to try and build a highly questionable circumstantial case based on flawed conclusions that can not be proven and are merely part of a concocted story. When a prosecutor has to stoop to this level, it is a clear sign that his case isn't a very strong one.

And most of the time CTers just simply ignore all of this important stuff.

Pray tell, what in the world is so important about any of these events, when you can't even offer a scintilla of evidence that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63. What, if anything, do you think CTs are missing here?

[David Von Pein]

Pray tell, what in the world is so important about any of these events, when you can't even offer a scintilla of evidence that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63. What, if anything, do you think CTs are missing here?

CTers are missing the whole boat, Martin. (As usual.)

[Martin Weidmann]

CTers are missing the whole boat, Martin. (As per usual.)

That's not an answer. It's a cop out.

If you want to whine about CTs being in denial (as you are) you should at least be able to explain what you think it is they are missing.

I can explain exactly where I think your arguments are flawed and incorrect. You should be able to do likewise, don't you think? If not, then you are the one who is actually in denial.