Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Martin Weidmann]

Anyone who believes Oswald was not complicit is suffering from cognitive dissonance.  Period !!!  Oswald killed Kennnedy.  How could a 'silly little marxist' do all of that?

I take it you are unable to provide a plausible explanation for the question asked by Alan Ford. Duly noted!


Anyone who believes Oswald was not complicit is suffering from cognitive dissonance.

Anybody who says something as stupid and pathetic as this is suffering from delusions.

Oswald killed Kennnedy.

Well, let's see.

You can not place a broken down MC rifle in the paper bag Oswald carried that morning, without disregarding the testimony of Buell Frazier and Randle, who are the only two people who actually saw the bag.

You can not tie the MC rifle to Oswald, execept for the opinion of a FBI Questioned Documents Expert, who, claimed Oswald's handwriting is on the Klein's order form, the envelope and the money order, despite the fact that all he had were easily manipulated photocopies. But even if Oswald ordered the rifle, in March, that still doesn't mean he owned it, either back then or in November 1963

You can not place Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63 nor can you show that Oswald came down to the second floor by the stairs after the shots were fired. Dorothy Garner, who was on the 4th floor, told the office of Barefoot Sanders that she saw Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles go downstairs and saw Truly and Baker come up. In other words, she should have seen Oswald if he had gone down the stairs, which he clearly didn't.

So, your evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy is what exactly?

Or is this more of the "I can't prove it, but just take my word for it" LN stupidity?

[Martin Weidmann]

What's so difficult about pointing a firearm at someone and pulling a trigger?
Why would people believe this couldn't have happened?

Most conspiracy theorists are utterly deluded. They could only aspire to cognitive dissonance.
IMO, the greatest hindrance to resolving this case has always been the self-serving interests of those "Seeking the Truth".

the greatest hindrance to resolving this case has always been the self-serving interests of those "Seeking the Truth".

The same goes for those who claim they already know the truth, but in most cases are unable to prove it with actual evidence.

[Dan O'meara]

You can not place a broken down MC rifle in the paper bag Oswald carried that morning, without disregarding the testimony of Buell Frazier and Randle, who are the only two people who actually saw the bag.

Just playing Devil's Advocate...

The assassin suddenly breaks his routine and goes to the Paine household on Thursday. He shows up at Frazier's with a suspiciously long package. It's way too long for a lunch bag. Just because Frazier is out by his estimation of its length by a few inches doesn't mean anything as he's not really paying attention to it. Frazier sees Oswald collect the long package from the vehicle and make his way toward the TSBD:

"You can not place a broken down MC rifle in the paper bag Oswald carried that morning"

It's obvious the package contains the rifle and you can't prove it doesn't.

You can not tie the MC rifle to Oswald, execept for the opinion of a FBI Questioned Documents Expert, who, claimed Oswald's handwriting is on the Klein's order form, the envelope and the money order, despite the fact that all he had were easily manipulated photocopies. But even if Oswald ordered the rifle, in March, that still doesn't mean he owned it, either back then or in November 1963

'You've only got an expert from the FBI confirming the rifle is Oswald's'   
This is supposed to be an argument against Oswald owning the rifle?

You can not place Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63

And you can't place him anywhere else.
If, as you say, Oswald isn't on the sixth floor taking the shot, where is he?
You can't say with any certainty.

nor can you show that Oswald came down to the second floor by the stairs after the shots were fired. Dorothy Garner, who was on the 4th floor, told the office of Barefoot Sanders that she saw Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles go downstairs and saw Truly and Baker come up. In other words, she should have seen Oswald if he had gone down the stairs, which he clearly didn't.

All of this is predicated on the second floor lunchroom encounter between Baker, Truly and Oswald.
If, as many believe, this encounter doesn't take place there's no need for Oswald to be running anywhere.
After Baker and Truly pass by on their way to the roof he can just cruise down the stairs and out the front door before the building is locked down.

So, your evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy is what exactly?

Your evidence that he didn't is what?


The point of this exercise is to demonstrate the importance of the 'narrative'.
Any detail can be taken in isolation and interpreted almost any way you please. But all the details must fit into an overall 'narrative' and the LNers have their narrative provided for them. It can't be proven what was in the bag Oswald carried to the TSBD but in the LNer narrative it's obvious.
Any 'counter-narrative' must include the same details and, in my opinion, must be very close to what actually happened that day.

[Bill Chapman]

The only two people who saw the bag are the two people with everything to lose by describing a bag size that would be a fit for a broken-down Carcano.

[Richard Smith]

That's a misrepresentation of the facts. Klein's never confirmed that they sent a rifle to a PO box belonging to Oswald. What really happened was that William Waldman, who had no direct involvement in the rifle retail side of the business, was shown a number of (photocopies of) documents and was asked to explain their meaning. He confirmed that some of the markings on the document indicated that a rifle was shipped. Waldman was in no position to actually confirm that a rifle had really been shipped. So, he wasn't lying. He just told the WC what was on the documents. But maybe the difference between the two is difficult for you to understand.

Why did the WC not take testimony from the person who actually wrote the serial numbers on Waldman 7 and actually packed and shipped the rifle? That would have been direct evidence, yet, for some reason, the WC wasn't interested and you don't find that strange?

Show us the actual shipping documents by Parcel Post, something like a reciept made out by Parcel Post, and perhaps we'll find out together. Oh wait, there are no such documents. Oops!

Wow.  I couldn't conjure up a better example of the application of the impossible standard of proof to suggest false doubt than this one.  It is a real keeper.  Klein's received an order for a rifle from someone using an alias associated with Oswald.  The form also references a PO Box that belongs to Oswald.  Handwriting experts confirm that Oswald filled this form in.  Klein's processed payment for this rifle and documented that it had a specific serial number.  The same serial number that is on the rifle found at the TSBD.  Oswald's place of employment.  There are photos of Oswald holding his rifle.  See any theme?  And you are suggesting there is doubt because the specific person who shipped the rifle wasn't asked to testify?  A person whose job it would be to ship rifles all day long.  Instead Klein's relied upon its own documentation to support the fact.  It's incredible rabbit hole nonsense to suggest there is doubt because the documents were used.  Imagine that legal standard in any criminal investigation.  It would be deemed insufficient to link a suspect to a firearm based on documentation that they bought the weapon.  Instead we need the person who sold it to them to remember months or years later what happened or there would be "doubt." HA HA HA.  There is no doubt that Klein's sent this rifle to Oswald's PO Box.  None.   

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.

[Martin Weidmann]

Wow.  I couldn't conjure up a better example of the application of the impossible standard of proof to suggest false doubt than this one.  It is a real keeper.  Klein's received an order for a rifle from someone using an alias associated with Oswald.  The form also references a PO Box that belongs to Oswald.  Handwriting experts confirm that Oswald filled this form in.  Klein's processed payment for this rifle and documented that it had a specific serial number.  The same serial number that is on the rifle found at the TSBD.  Oswald's place of employment.  There are photos of Oswald holding his rifle.  See any theme?  And you are suggesting there is doubt because the specific person who shipped the rifle wasn't asked to testify?  A person whose job it would be to ship rifles all day long.  Instead Klein's relied upon its own documentation to support the fact.  It's incredible rabbit hole nonsense to suggest there is doubt because the documents were used.  Imagine that legal standard in any criminal investigation.  It would be deemed insufficient to link a suspect to a firearm based on documentation that they bought the weapon.  Instead we need the person who sold it to them to remember months or years later what happened or there would be "doubt." HA HA HA.  There is no doubt that Klein's sent this rifle to Oswald's PO Box.  None.   

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.

And you actually believe this fairytale?

Klein's received an order for a rifle from someone using an alias associated with Oswald.  The form also references a PO Box that belongs to Oswald.  Handwriting experts confirm that Oswald filled this form in.  Klein's processed payment for this rifle and documented that it had a specific serial number.  The same serial number that is on the rifle found at the TSBD.  Oswald's place of employment.  There are photos of Oswald holding his rifle.  See any theme? 

Oh yes... I see a theme that could have been completely avoided by bying a rifle in any gunshop in Texas without the need for an ID.

And I also see the usual misrepresentations of the evidence that is so common place for you.

And you are suggesting there is doubt because the specific person who shipped the rifle wasn't asked to testify?  A person whose job it would be to ship rifles all day long.  Instead Klein's relied upon its own documentation to support the fact.  It's incredible rabbit hole nonsense to suggest there is doubt because the documents were used. 

Of course there is doubt when a VP testifies about a transaction and/or documents he had no part in, instead of somebody who actually handled the order. Had this case come to trial, the defense would have instantly called the person who actually had first hand knowledge of the transaction, if indeed there is such a person.

Imagine that legal standard in any criminal investigation.  It would be deemed insufficient to link a suspect to a firearm based on documentation that they bought the weapon.  Instead we need the person who sold it to them to remember months or years later what happened or there would be "doubt." HA HA HA.

Complete BS... You think it is silly to call the person who actually handled the transaction (who could be identified easily) because that person might not remember details of the transaction as few months after the event, but you think nothing of a VP giving testimony about a transaction he wasn't part of at all. Yeah, that makes perfect sense 

There is no doubt that Klein's sent this rifle to Oswald's PO Box.  None.   

As per usual, only in you biased opinion.... Which of course is also why you ignored the part where I questioned why there are no shipping documents of Parcel Post in evidence!

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.

Waldman and Belin are talking about what a microfilm copy of a internal document of Klein's shows. Wow, that's some powerful testimony, right there.... Just about anybody who is not blind could have stated what was written on the document!

[Walt Cakebread]

Just playing Devil's Advocate...

The assassin suddenly breaks his routine and goes to the Paine household on Thursday. He shows up at Frazier's with a suspiciously long package. It's way too long for a lunch bag. Just because Frazier is out by his estimation of its length by a few inches doesn't mean anything as he's not really paying attention to it. Frazier sees Oswald collect the long package from the vehicle and make his way toward the TSBD:

"You can not place a broken down MC rifle in the paper bag Oswald carried that morning"

It's obvious the package contains the rifle and you can't prove it doesn't.

'You've only got an expert from the FBI confirming the rifle is Oswald's'   
This is supposed to be an argument against Oswald owning the rifle?

And you can't place him anywhere else.
If, as you say, Oswald isn't on the sixth floor taking the shot, where is he?
You can't say with any certainty.

All of this is predicated on the second floor lunchroom encounter between Baker, Truly and Oswald.
If, as many believe, this encounter doesn't take place there's no need for Oswald to be running anywhere.
After Baker and Truly pass by on their way to the roof he can just cruise down the stairs and out the front door before the building is locked down.

Your evidence that he didn't is what?


The point of this exercise is to demonstrate the importance of the 'narrative'.
Any detail can be taken in isolation and interpreted almost any way you please. But all the details must fit into an overall 'narrative' and the LNers have their narrative provided for them. It can't be proven what was in the bag Oswald carried to the TSBD but in the LNer narrative it's obvious.
Any 'counter-narrative' must include the same details and, in my opinion, must be very close to what actually happened that day.

 Just because Frazier is out by his estimation of its length by a few inches doesn't mean anything as he's not really paying attention to it.

Pay attention Mr O....  Not only did Mr Frazier and his sister swear that the paper sack that Lee carried was no longer than 28 inches.... Mr Frazier has always maintained that the sack that he saw on the seat of his 53 Chevy, was constructed from LIGHT WEIGHT "FLIMSY" brown paper ...  The bag in evidence is constructed from HEAVY WEIGHT paper.