Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
Martin Weidmann, Jack Trojan and 20 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: At the end of the day it was Oswald's rifle.  (Read 11592 times)

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 967
Re: At the end of the day it was Oswald's rifle.
« Reply #540 on: December 06, 2018, 12:53:09 AM »

Not at the moment. Fiction is relative, anyway. If you told someone that man would someday walk on the moon that person might believe you're crazy. What we discuss and argue about on the Oswald and JFK matter is history and we can make judgements based on the information available and our life experiences and so forth. What I see as cut and dry many others see as nebulous. Yeah, I suppose we all are also led to a degree by biases but I believe that there must come a time when logic has to step in a guide us in the right direction.

Fiction is relative, anyway.

So is reality, more often than not.

Yeah, I suppose we all are also led to a degree by biases but I believe that there must come a time when logic has to step in a guide us in the right direction.

It all just depends on what one considers "logic"?

For instance, is it logical to conclude that just because Oswald let himself be photographed with a rifle in March 1963, he must be the owner of that rifle and still have had it some 8 months later?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: At the end of the day it was Oswald's rifle.
« Reply #540 on: December 06, 2018, 12:53:09 AM »


Online Oscar Navarro

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
Re: At the end of the day it was Oswald's rifle.
« Reply #541 on: December 06, 2018, 01:15:25 AM »
That's not the way it works, Oscar.

Placed in a trial setting, this would be the prosecutor asking the jury what he needs to present to obtain a guilty verdict.

Besides, I'm not even sure what you mean by "solid" evidence. I assume you mean evidence that will convince, but again, that's not the way it works, as one single piece of physical evidence will not make or break the case one way or the other. And, it's often more complicated than that.

For example; I think that the BY pictures are authentic in as much as that they do show Oswald holding a rifle and a revolver. Having said that, I do have unanswered questions about the circumstances in which they were taken and for what purpose. Also, I am not convinced that the photos prove Oswald owned the rifle and/or revolver not that the rifle his is holding is in fact the same as the one found at the TSBD some 8 months later.

But, let's start with the first part.... Oswald has been described as a loner, not a great talker and secretive, right? Wouldn't one expect from such a person that the last thing he wants to happen is that his ownership of a rifle and a revolver, both allegedly purchased under an alias, is known or documented? So, how does one explain the making of the BY photos? What was the purpose?

Also, if he wanted to hide his ownership of the rifle and revolver (as the ordering under an alias suggests) how come George DeMohrenschildt ended up with a high quality print of yet another BY photo in his storage unit and who wrote on the back of that photo in Russian? Let's not forget that DeMohrenschildt testified that he did not know, until after the Walker shooting. that Oswald had a rifle;

Mr. JENNER. Mr. De Mohrenschildt, up to that moment, is it your testimony that you never knew and had no inkling whatsoever, that the Oswalds had a rifle or other weapon in their home?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Absolutely positive that personally I didn't know a damn thing about it, positive, neither did my wife.

Something, just doesnt'add up. And then there is Michael Paine who denied to the WC that he had ever seen the MC rifle prior to November 22, 1963

Mr. LIEBELER - I now show you Commission Exhibit 139, which is a rifle that was found in the Texas School Book Depository Building, and ask you if you at any time ever saw this rifle prior to November 22, 1963?
Mr. PAINE - I did not,

yet he confirmed in a TV interview, years later, that he had seen the BY photos shortly after they had been taken. And not only that, but when an FBI agent showed him a BY photo on Friday evening, he was able to confirm that the photo had been taken at Neely street.

In short, you've got this secretive man, who let's himself be photographed with a rifle and revolver and you have at least three people who knew about it; George DeMohrenschildt, Michael Paine and the person who wrote in Russian on the DeMohrenschildt photo, and none of that is odd to you?

Martin, it seems to me you're playing a game like asking me what do I want then, when I tell you, you tell me I can't have it. Let's give it another shot. You are willing to consider that Oswald was the lone gunman if you're provided with some of what you would consider as solid evidence. Don't worry about what my definition of solid evidence is as I'm not the one who's making the rules. I guess that the BY photos don't fall into the category of solid evidence as defined by you so we'll skip that one.


What would you consider as solid evidence as defined by you? The reason I ask is so that we can skip that piece of evidence and then concentrate on evidence that you don't consider as persuasive. I mean, you have to at least give me something to work with if I'm going to convince you of Oswald's guilt.


Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 904
Re: At the end of the day it was Oswald's rifle.
« Reply #542 on: December 06, 2018, 01:20:16 AM »
 
Is your name Cakebread?
The ODIA people here have all become de facto spokespersons for each other and you know it. As much as I would like to reply to your post to Martin I will refrain.
 

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 967
Re: At the end of the day it was Oswald's rifle.
« Reply #543 on: December 06, 2018, 01:42:08 AM »
Martin, it seems to me you're playing a game like asking me what do I want then, when I tell you, you tell me I can't have it. Let's give it another shot. You are willing to consider that Oswald was the lone gunman if you're provided with some of what you would consider as solid evidence. Don't worry about what my definition of solid evidence is as I'm not the one who's making the rules. I guess that the BY photos don't fall into the category of solid evidence as defined by you so we'll skip that one.

What would you consider as solid evidence as defined by you? The reason I ask is so that we can skip that piece of evidence and then concentrate on evidence that you don't consider as persuasive. I mean, you have to at least give me something to work with if I'm going to convince you of Oswald's guilt.

Martin, it seems to me you're playing a game like asking me what do I want then, when I tell you, you tell me I can't have it.

Sorry, Oscar, but I have a hard time understanding what you mean. I'm not playing games, that's for sure.

You are willing to consider that Oswald was the lone gunman if you're provided with some of what you would consider as solid evidence.

That's not the way it works, Oscar. Just because I am willing to entertain the possibility that Oswald was the lone gunman does not mean you merely look for evidence to justify a what would then be a predetermined conclusion. It's actually the other way around. The evidence presented should be persuasive enough to conclude that Oswald was the lone gunman.

Don't worry about what my definition of solid evidence is as I'm not the one who's making the rules.

Actually, for the purpose of this conversation it is at least useful to know what your definition of solid evidence is, as it seems likely to me that the significance of certain evidence will be exactly where we possibly will disagree about.

I guess that the BY photos don't fall into the category of solid evidence as defined by you so we'll skip that one. 

No, let's not. Let's try to answer the hard questions for once, shall we. I've basically accepted the authenticity of the BY photos, but that doesn't mean that I have also accepted what some LNs say they actually prove. So, now, instead of moving on to other things, we need to determine what the BY photos really prove.... Unless of course you are willing to conceed that they do not prove anything solid at all...

What would you consider as solid evidence as defined by you? The reason I ask is so that we can skip that piece of evidence and then concentrate on evidence that you don't consider as persuasive. I mean, you have to at least give me something to work with if I'm going to convince you of Oswald's guilt.

I'm really puzzled here, Oscar... It seems you want me to not only provide you with a set of evidence I have already accepted but also cherry pick other pieces of evidence for you so you can persuade me by presenting arguments about those. But that's not the way it works because it ignores completely the possibility that there was a conspiracy either with Oswald actively involved or merely as a patsy.

Now let me try to explain it; what you need to do is IMO concentrate on the decisive elements of the evidence and forget the window dressing, which would be most, if not all, of the assumptions arrived at to build a circumstantial case. An example; don't argue about how Oswald allegedly picked up a rifle at Irving and concealed it in a paper bag when you can not first show that he had a rifle to hide in Ruth Paine's garage or elsewhere to begin with. After all, if Oswald really owned a rifle, and it was the MC, than it is of little significance where he stored it, right?

With this said, do you have any idea what the purpose was of the BY photos and how do you (if you can) explain the connection with George DeMohrenschildt, Michael Paine as well as the unknown writer of the Russian tekst?

Since Oswald's alleged ownership of the MC rifle on 11/22/63 is crucial to any finding of his guilt, perhaps you can tell me what justifies the conclusion that Oswald owned the rifle found at the TSBD?
« Last Edit: December 06, 2018, 12:30:14 PM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 904
Re: At the end of the day it was Oswald's rifle.
« Reply #544 on: December 06, 2018, 07:27:10 PM »
  I've basically accepted the authenticity of the BY photos .....
Martin... I have linked this before, did you ever read it?'
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3
 

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: At the end of the day it was Oswald's rifle.
« Reply #544 on: December 06, 2018, 07:27:10 PM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 967
Re: At the end of the day it was Oswald's rifle.
« Reply #545 on: December 06, 2018, 07:47:56 PM »

Martin... I have linked this before, did you ever read it?'
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3
 

No, I haven't read it, but looking at it now it seems to be asking the same or similar questions as I am.

History tells us, IMO, that the BY photos were used to influence negatively the mindset of the general public against Oswald and portray him as the lone killer looking for some sort of immortal fame. But this, unless it was part of some sort of scheme to set up Oswald, could not have been the purpose for which the photos were taken. After all, at the time the photos were taken, some eight months prior to the assassination, nobody could have known that Oswald would be working at the TSBD on 11/22/63 and/or that JFK would be passing by the building that day.

So, this begs the question; what was the actual purpose for having the BY photos made and what was done with those photos to fulfill that purpose?

 
« Last Edit: December 06, 2018, 07:49:50 PM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 904
Re: At the end of the day it was Oswald's rifle.
« Reply #546 on: December 07, 2018, 04:26:31 AM »
... do you believe John Wilkes Booth was guilty or innocent?
Booth was guilty. So were all the others involved in the ...What? Oh yeah conspiracy.
  Posted by: Martin Weidmann-----
   
Quote
After all, at the time the photos were taken, some eight months prior to the assassination
Were they? How do we really know this for sure when those pictures were produced?
   
 
 

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 967
Re: At the end of the day it was Oswald's rifle.
« Reply #547 on: December 07, 2018, 12:51:33 PM »
Booth was guilty. So were all the others involved in the ...What? Oh yeah conspiracy.
  Posted by: Martin Weidmann-----
    Were they? How do we really know this for sure when those pictures were produced?
 

Were they? How do we really know this for sure when those pictures were produced?

You tell me...


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: At the end of the day it was Oswald's rifle.
« Reply #547 on: December 07, 2018, 12:51:33 PM »


Online Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1630
Re: At the end of the day it was Oswald's rifle.
« Reply #548 on: December 07, 2018, 03:31:56 PM »
Fiction is relative, anyway.

So is reality, more often than not.

Yeah, I suppose we all are also led to a degree by biases but I believe that there must come a time when logic has to step in a guide us in the right direction.

It all just depends on what one considers "logic"?

For instance, is it logical to conclude that just because Oswald let himself be photographed with a rifle in March 1963, he must be the owner of that rifle and still have had it some 8 months later?

is it logical to conclude that just because Oswald let himself be photographed with a rifle in March 1963, he must be the owner of that rifle and still have had it some 8 months later?

Simply because Lee was photographed holding a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano does not prove that he owned the rifle.

And there is sound logical reason to believe that Lee never possessed the rifle on Wednesday April 24, 1963 when he boarded the bus to travel to New Orleans.   Lee carried no luggage that was long enough to contain the carcano, so he couldn't have had it in his possession when he traveled to New Orleans.    Marina testified that Lee had a fire arm of some kind in New Orleans, but she couldn't identify the difference between a BB gun, or a shot gun, or a rifle..... so there is solid reason to doubt that Lee had the carcano in New Orleans.       

If In fact Lee did have a rifle in New Orleans, it's entirely possible that it was David Ferries rifle and he allowed lee to borrow the rifle.  ( A good way to let the sucker get his finger prints on a gun.)
« Last Edit: December 07, 2018, 04:49:06 PM by Walt Cakebread »

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 967
Re: At the end of the day it was Oswald's rifle.
« Reply #549 on: December 07, 2018, 05:17:58 PM »
is it logical to conclude that just because Oswald let himself be photographed with a rifle in March 1963, he must be the owner of that rifle and still have had it some 8 months later?

Simply because Lee was photographed holding a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano does not prove that he owned the rifle.

And there is sound logical reason to believe that Lee never possessed the rifle on Wednesday April 24, 1963 when he boarded the bus to travel to New Orleans.   Lee carried no luggage that was long enough to contain the carcano, so he couldn't have had it in his possession when he traveled to New Orleans.    Marina testified that Lee had a fire arm of some kind in New Orleans, but she couldn't identify the difference between a BB gun, or a shot gun, or a rifle..... so there is solid reason to doubt that Lee had the carcano in New Orleans.       

If In fact Lee did have a rifle in New Orleans, it's entirely possible that it was David Ferries rifle and he allowed lee to borrow the rifle.  ( A good way to let the sucker get his finger prints on a gun.)

Wednesday April 24, 1963 when he boarded the bus to travel to New Orleans.   Lee carried no luggage that was long enough to contain the carcano, 

Walt,

I wasn't aware of this. Where did you get this information?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: At the end of the day it was Oswald's rifle.
« Reply #549 on: December 07, 2018, 05:17:58 PM »