Ruthie Paine's Confusing Calendar

[John Iacoletti]

Nobody disputes that Marina thought it was a rifle wrapped up in the blanket.

The only reason “Richard” is belaboring this is because he knows he cannot demonstrate that what she saw was C2766 or that what she saw was still in that blanket on 11/21.

[Bill Chapman]

Q:  Did you eat an orange for lunch today?
A: Yes, I ate a slice of it.

This demonstrates your uncritical reasoning....because the answer should be "No, I didn't eat an orange, but I ate a slice of an orange"

You just showed us how to make a word salad out of 'just a slice'

Q: Did you eat an orange for lunch today?
A: Just a slice.

[Richard Smith]

You launched a false analogy and got instantly slammed, LOL.

Then try to blame it on Walt, embarrassing rasing!

So why was the scope missing?

Q:  Did you ride the bus today?

A: Yes, I rode it to work and sat in the front seat.

Otto interpretation:  This respondent is not confirming that they rode a bus because they did not use the word "bus."  They only made reference to "it" and a "seat". It is possible to ride other things like a bicycle or car because those have a "seat."  Thus there is doubt as to whether they rode a bus.  HA HA HA.  Comedy gold.


Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you? 

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.

[John Mytton]

Here's a valid analogy:

Q: And then you found that the truck was in the garage, did you?

A: Yes, I saw the chrome part of it, the chrome bumper.

Comparatively Marina saw much more than a chrome bumper, a better comparison is the following, what's behind the covering is unmistakably a car and even if the following graphic only exposed the bumper, nobody would confuse the hidden object as a "piece of metal/plastic".



JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Comparatively Marina saw much more than a chrome bumper,

How do you know what Marina saw?

[Martin Weidmann]

Comparatively Marina saw much more than a chrome bumper, a better comparison is the following, what's behind the covering is unmistakably a car and even if the following graphic only exposed the bumper, nobody would confuse the hidden object as a "piece of metal/plastic".



JohnM

Are you really this desperate?

[Richard Smith]

Comparatively Marina saw much more than a chrome bumper, a better comparison is the following, what's behind the covering is unmistakably a car and even if the following graphic only exposed the bumper, nobody would confuse the hidden object as a "piece of metal/plastic".



JohnM

If there was any doubt (and there is not), Marina goes on to say:  "I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle."  A rifle!  It's laughable that anyone suggests that there is any doubt that Marina saw a "rifle" in the blanket.  She is asked dozens of times about a "rifle".  Never once does she cast any doubt on the fact that saw a rifle and that is object that she is referring to in her testimony.  Contrarians latch onto one instance where she refers to the rifle as "it" and describes seeing a "wooden stock" to suggest that there is doubt when she confirms multiple times that Oswald owned a rifle and kept it in the Paine's garage.  A classic example of how the contrarian mind latches on to any straw and disregards the totality of evidence and circumstances.