Ruthie Paine's Confusing Calendar

[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.

[David Von Pein]

It's a simple matter of being able to add up and reasonably evaluate the evidence (including Lee Oswald's very important actions and movements on both Nov. 21 and 22).

IMO, conspiracy theorists never seem to want to do this "adding up" of the evidence at all. They want to keep everything isolated. And by doing that, they (of course) can say things like: How can a ring in a cup mean anything at all? and Oswald's unusual trip to Irving on a Thursday is irrelevant and Just because Oswald went home to get a pistol on 11/22 doesn't prove anything.

But when all these things (and many others) are placed together in the same basket, I think it becomes quite clear that Lee Oswald was not (and could not have been) anybody's innocent patsy on November 22, 1963.

What I want to know is:

Why won't the conspiracy theorists of the world invest in a cheap calculator and start to logically add up the evidence that exists in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases?

Please....buy that calculator!

[Martin Weidmann]

It's a simple matter of being able to add up the evidence (including Oswald's actions and movements on Nov. 21 and 22).

IMO, conspiracy theorists never seem to want to do this "adding up" of the evidence at all. They want to keep everything isolated. And by doing that, they (of course) can say things like: How can a ring in a cup mean anything at all? and Oswald's unusual trip to Irving on a Thursday is irrelevant and Just because Oswald went home to get a pistol on 11/22 doesn't prove anything.

But when all these things (and many others) are placed together in the same basket, I think it becomes quite clear that Lee Oswald was not (and could not have been) anybody's patsy on November 22, 1963.

What I want to know is:

Why won't the conspiracy theorists of the world invest in a cheap calculator and start to reasonably add up the evidence that exists in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases?

Please....buy that calculator!

Adding up evidence is fine. I have no problem with that, but there is a difference between actual evidence and mere assumptions.

The trip to Irving is a good example. If (and that's a very big if) there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63 than Oswald's unscheduled trip to Irving, him carrying a paper bag on Friday morning and perhaps even him leaving his wedding ring behind can indeed add up to something significant and of evidentiary value.

The problem is though that there is not a shred of evidence there was in fact a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63, which means that all you are adding up is nothing more than assumptions about benign events that could otherwise be explained.

It's all well and good to make one assumption after another and then add them up, but with enough assumptions you can get anybody convicted of anything.

And btw, I already have that calculator and it tells me things simply do not add up.

[David Von Pein]

Oh come on, Martin! You can't possibly believe this statement you just wrote (can you?)....

"The problem is though that there is not a shred of evidence there was in fact a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63."

Marina SAW the damn thing in the garage in October. She testified to that fact. (Or do you want to call her a liar on this point, Martin? A lot of other CTers do call her a liar, of course.)

Plus: We know that LHO had his rifle in New Orleans in the summer of '63. And we also know that all his possessions were transported to Irving in Ruth's car in Sept. '63. Nobody specifically saw the rifle at that time, that's true enough. But let's get out that calculator again and add some things up.....

1. Lee Oswald has possession of a rifle in New Orleans in Summer 1963. (And Marina sees Lee working the bolt of the gun on the screened-in porch in that city.)

2. The Oswald possessions are taken to Ruth Paine's house in Irving, Texas, in September '63.

3. Marina sees the butt end of a rifle in a blanket in the Paine garage in about October of '63.

4. Lee Oswald carries a long-ish paper package into the TSBD on the morning of 11/22/63. (And Lee lies to Buell Wesley Frazier about the contents of that package.)

5. The blanket in Ruth Paine's garage where Marina says Lee kept his rifle was empty when the police picked up that blanket on the afternoon of 11/22/63.

If the above five things are true (and the evidence and testimony demonstrates they are true), then is it reasonable to come to the conclusion that Lee's rifle WASN'T also present in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63? Why would anyone feel compelled to reach such a conclusion after adding up #1 thru #5 above?