Ruthie Paine's Confusing Calendar

[Richard Smith]

Okay....



Well, there's no way of knowing what she actually saw if she even looked in the blanket.

There isn't?  LOL.

"I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle." Marina Oswald.

[Walt Cakebread]

Okay....

So there was no need to stress she saw part of the rifle if she actually saw a rifle.

So far no ownership has been established.

I also noticed it, which obviously is causing you a great deal of frustration.

Well, there's no way of knowing what she actually saw if she even looked in the blanket. She couldn't place it correctly in the garage.

Well, some have wooden stock...

Because I didn't.

How would you know Oswald owned the object in the blanket?

Your favorite spot, right?

How about the rifle without a scope?

I haven't got a clue and Marina didn't indicate she ever saw it again.

I've kept it real short to make it easier for you to comprehend 

So far no ownership has been established.

This a key statement.....   Who can prove that Lee Oswald "OWNED" a caracano???   It seems that he did have possession of a carcano in the spring of 1963..... But WHO owned that carcano??   

And simply because Marina said that she saw a weapon with a wooden stock in the blanket does not in anyway establish that the gun she saw was a carcano.....and it certainly doesn't establish ownership of that weapon.

[Richard Smith]

Uncorroborated testimony is inherently weak.

Brutal being left with only Marina to support your fantasy.

Oh, did you work out how Oswald's rifle without a scope vanished?

Marina is Oswald's own wife.  The best possible witness other than Oswald himself to confirm the contents of the blanket.  I can understand why you are conflating different issues.  The point under discussion here is whether Oswald owned a rifle and kept it the Paine's garage.  Marina's testimony, as corroborated by photos, prints, and third-party documents that pre-date the assassination confirms this beyond any doubt.  We also know from her testimony, as corroborated by the police search, that Oswald's rifle was no longer in the blanket on 11.22 and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the rifle found in the TSBD.  We also know that Oswald lied about his ownership of any rifle.  The most obvious explanation of a lie in that circumstance is to avoid implicating himself in the assassination.  If he had owned some other rifle not used in a crime and could account for it in a way that was exculpatory, then he would have every incentive to tell the truth and direct the police to that rifle.  So we know from Marina's testimony (as corroborated by other evidence) that:

1) Oswald owned a rifle;
2) it had a scope on it because that is the rifle shown in the photos that Marina took (even if Marina had no particular cause to remember the scope);
3) he kept the rifle in the Paine's garage in the months leading up to the assassination;
4) that rifle was not in the blanket just hours after the crime and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the rifle found in the TSBD: and
5) Oswald lied about the ownership of any rifle.

Does all that necessarily prove it was THE rifle standing alone?  Perhaps not definitively, but of course there is other evidence to link Oswald to the rifle found in the TSBD including a serial number and print.   The totality of facts and circumstances when taken together leaves no doubt that Oswald owned the rifle found in the TSBD.

[Walt Cakebread]

Marina is Oswald's own wife.  The best possible witness other than Oswald himself to confirm the contents of the blanket.  I can understand why you are conflating different issues.  The point under discussion here is whether Oswald owned a rifle and kept it the Paine's garage.  Marina's testimony, as corroborated by photos, prints, and third-party documents that pre-date the assassination confirms this beyond any doubt.  We also know from her testimony, as corroborated by the police search, that Oswald's rifle was no longer in the blanket on 11.22 and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the rifle found in the TSBD.  We also know that Oswald lied about his ownership of any rifle.  The most obvious explanation of a lie in that circumstance is to avoid implicating himself in the assassination.  If he had owned some other rifle not used in a crime and could account for it in a way that was exculpatory, then he would have every incentive to tell the truth and direct the police to that rifle.  So we know from Marina's testimony (as corroborated by other evidence) that:

1) Oswald owned a rifle;
2) it had a scope on it because that is the rifle shown in the photos that Marina took (even if Marina had no particular cause to remember the scope);
3) he kept the rifle in the Paine's garage in the months leading up to the assassination;
4) that rifle was not in the blanket just hours after the crime and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the rifle found in the TSBD: and
5) Oswald lied about the ownership of any rifle.

Does all that necessarily prove it was THE rifle standing alone?  Perhaps not definitively, but of course there is other evidence to link Oswald to the rifle found in the TSBD including a serial number and print.   The totality of facts and circumstances when taken together leaves no doubt that Oswald owned the rifle found in the TSBD.

Does all that necessarily prove it was THE rifle standing alone?  Perhaps not definitively, but of course there is other evidence to link Oswald to the rifle found in the TSBD including a serial number and print.

How does the rifle's serial number prove that Lee owned the rifle?    And since the authorities lied about finding Lee's palm print  on the carcano, one is compelled to question their need to lie about finding Lee's palm print on the 5/8 inch diameter barrel.

It is a physical impossibility for an adult male to deposit an identifiable palm print on a cylinder ( Carcano barrel) that is only 5/8 of in inch in diameter, when that barrel is partially covered by a bayonet lug.

[John Iacoletti]

No matter how many times “Richard’s” BS is refuted, he ignores it and just parrots the same mantra over again. This is why “Richard” is useless.

Marina’s day one affidavit says “I told them Lee used to have a rifle to hunt with in Russia”. Shotguns were legal to own in the Soviet Union but not rifles. Marina also told the Warren commission that she didn’t know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun. So no, her thinking the portion of the wooden stock that she actually saw was a rifle does not “confirm” that there was a rifle in the garage that belonged to Lee. Much less C2766. “Can’t be accounted for in any other way” is BS rhetoric and proves nothing. It’s yet another shifting the burden fallacy that “Richard” is so fond of.

[Richard Smith]

Does all that necessarily prove it was THE rifle standing alone?  Perhaps not definitively, but of course there is other evidence to link Oswald to the rifle found in the TSBD including a serial number and print.

How does the rifle's serial number prove that Lee owned the rifle?    And since the authorities lied about finding Lee's palm print  on the carcano, one is compelled to question their need to lie about finding Lee's palm print on the 5/8 inch diameter barrel.

It is a physical impossibility for an adult male to deposit an identifiable palm print on a cylinder ( Carcano barrel) that is only 5/8 of in inch in diameter, when that barrel is partially covered by a bayonet lug.

How does the serial number prove that LHO owned the rifle?  LOL.  You can't be serious.  The documentation from Klein's (which pre-dates the assassination) confirms that a MC rifle with that specific serial number was sent to a person using a known alias of Oswald at his PO box!  If Klein's sent this specific rifle to Oswald's PO Box, then that is compelling evidence that this is the rifle owned by LHO.  It is the same rifle later found in Oswald's place of the employment.  His print was found on the rifle.  Sensing any theme? It's a slam dunk.   If you simply dismiss the evidence as the products of "lies", then, of course, nothing could ever be proven.   That is just going round in circles. 

The better CTer line of argument is to concede the evidence (i.e. Oswald owned this particular rifle and carried it in the bag to the TSBD) and focus on his whacky background.  There is no evidence to link him to any conspiracy but is much more difficult to rebut claims that perhaps Oswald was some low-level intelligence asset who got recruited into the plot and then hung out to dry.  But the pedantic nitpicking of a mountain of evidence against is laughable.   When Marina says, for example, that she saw "a rifle" and contrarians desperately spin that to try to find a way to claim she saw something made of wood, it destroys any credibility.  That is tin foil hat territory. 

[Richard Smith]

Own, LOL, but okay...

Not really, as she didn't have a clue about weapons (or cameras) AND nobody else reports seeing the contents of the blanket which means that she can't confirm an otherwise unsupported claim.

"conflating", LOL, stop using words you don't understand the meaning of.

See above.

"corroborated ", LOL, don't use words when you're clueless as to their meaning.

False, no photos document a blanket and its contents in the garage.

False, no prints document a blanket and its contents in the garage.

"third-party", LOL.

Prove they do, then get back to us.

See above, you're not quite there yet -- ROFL

Oh boy, on your face again, as the police search didn't corroborate anything about the contents of the blanket prior to their arrival.

There's nothing to account for unless you can prove the TSBD rifle was ever in that blanket.

No, "we" don't know that.

False, see above.

Irrelevant, see above.

No, it wasn't corroborated as explained above.

No verified evidence of that claim.

Based on "gouge science", LOL. BTW, there isn't a shred on evidence that Marina took any photos.
 
So now you don't trust Oswald's wife when reporting Oswald's rifle had NO scope -- ROFL

You mean the one without the scope?

Already dealt with.

Um, WTF is that supposed to mean?

Like....?

I just left you with a bag of zero facts and circumstances which add up to a nice, round ZERO.

So many words for so little purpose.  Imagine the effort behind breaking down every comment?  In Otto land, the fact that Marina couldn't specifically recollect the scope on the rifle has significance.  Keep in mind Otto also suggests that Marina is the same person involved in the plot to frame Oswald and "lying" for that purpose.  But instead of just saying the rifle had a scope per his fantasy that she is complicit in the plot, she does her best to recall.  In desperation Otto clings to this real or imagined ambiguity in her testimony (again from the same person who he believes is lying to frame Oswald).  When it is pointed out that Marina took a picture of Oswald holding this very rifle that she was asked to describe, and those photos clearly show it had a scope, rendering any debate about the subject moot, it has no effect.  Otto's narrative is impervious to facts and evidence that stand in contradiction.   Otto has some insecurity issue with "big" words but maybe he can look those up.  Marina tells us that Oswald owned a rifle.  She couldn't specifically remember the scope but took photos of that rifle in which the scope can be seen.  So there is no relevance to her inability to recall the scope because we can confirm from the pictures that it was there.

[John Iacoletti]

The usual false BS from “Richard”.

There’s no evidence of anything being sent through the mail to a PO Box. Hidell was not a “known alias of Oswald”. His print was actually found on an index card a week later. There’s no evidence he carried it in “the bag”, or any bag. You cannot demonstrate that it is “this very rifle” in any photo.