Did Captain Fritz show Mr Oswald a Mauser?

[Alan Ford]

When we challenge the conspiracy claims we often see that these same "skeptics" - who say they are just challenging allegations against Oswald - fight us not the conspiracists. Their skepticism suddenly disappears.

When we say, "If Marina was coached then why didn't she say she saw Oswald leave with the rifle that morning?" or when we say, "If Oswald was framed why not have 4-6 people in Dealey Plaza say they saw him shoot JFK?" or "If Oswald was setup then how did the conspirators know he was in the building at the time?" or "If the WC report was a deliberate lie then why did distinguised men like Redlich or Ball do this"?...

We get angry replies. Their skepticism stops when those questions are asked.

Raising questions about Oswald's guilt is okay for them; raising them about conspiracy claims is not.

When we say, "Can you explain the dates on this form?", Mr Galbraith runs away!

[Martin Weidmann]

'When you need a video to explain something as basic as this, and when you admit that you are "not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law", you probably, for lack of sufficient knowledge and understanding, shouldn't voice so many "opinions" about the JFK murder.'

1) JFK 'murder' lol. Tell us just how important one has to be before one's 'murder' gets bumped up to 'assassination' status. Just sayin'.
2) Where did I 'admit' that I was not familiar with dealing with the nuances of the law' you fkn liar? I clearly said those not familiar
3) You dismiss that which does not follow Oswald-Cultism
4) Opinions are usually welcome on discussion platforms

1) JFK 'murder' lol. Tell us just how important one has to be before one's 'murder' gets bumped up to 'assassination' status. Just sayin'.

Pathetic. No matter what you call it, Kennedy was murdered, was he not?

2) Where did I 'admit' that I was not familiar with dealing with the nuances of the law' you fkn liar? I clearly said those not familiar

You admitted it implicitly in your previous post, as you clearly wrote that as being one of "those not familiar". But I can understand why you now want to backpeddle.

3) You dismiss that which does not follow Oswald-Cultism

BS, but I'll play along.... Tell me, how do you explain that I accept the BY photos as authentic and that it is very will possible that Oswald did indeed write the order form from Klein's for the purchase of the rifle?

4) Opinions are usually welcome on discussion platforms

When they are not falsely presented as statements of fact, I agree.

[Martin Weidmann]

When we challenge the conspiracy claims we often see that these same "skeptics" - who say they are just challenging allegations against Oswald - fight us not the conspiracists. Their skepticism suddenly disappears.

When we say, "If Marina was coached then why didn't she say she saw Oswald leave with the rifle that morning?" or when we say, "If Oswald was framed why not have 4-6 people in Dealey Plaza say they saw him shoot JFK?" or "If Oswald was setup then how did the conspirators know he was in the building at the time?" or "If the WC report was a deliberate lie then why did distinguised men like Redlich or Ball do this"?...

We get angry replies. Their skepticism stops when those questions are asked.

Raising questions about Oswald's guilt is okay for them; raising them about conspiracy claims is not.

When you ask a question like the ones you asked you are asking for speculation. You are not challenging, or raising questions about, conspiracy claims. Instead you are merely defending the official narrative with questions nobody can answer without speculation.

When you say: "If Marina was coached then why didn't she say she saw Oswald leave with the rifle that morning?", you are really saying that Marina wasn't coached, unless somebody can prove to you that she was, which btw would be proof you would likely never accept.

The answer to a question can only be just as good as the quality of the question itself. "What if" questions have no value either way. The fact that they are not answered doesn't mean that question is a valid one or that the opposite of the premise of the question is true.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

If Marina was coerced into testifying against Oswald then why wasn't she ordered to say he hated JFK?

If she was coerced then why didn't they coerce her to say she saw him wrap the rifle and take it with him to work Friday?

If she is coerced into framing him for the assassination these are the obvious statements they would force her to make. They would provide motive and a direct connection from him to the rifle found in the TSBD.

But they didn't because she said none of the above. Why?

Conspiracists cannot answer these questions. They don't even want to try. For even to try forces them to reconsider their claims. And this is something they don't want to do.

If one is skeptical of the evidence against Oswald, if one says he wants to challenge that evidence then one should apply that skeptical standard to the conspiracy claims. And that includes, it seems obvious, questions like the above.

It's difficult to prove a negative but not impossible (I can prove I didn't shoot Oswald). But one way to try and prove a negative - that Oswald wasn't framed - is to look into questions like this. These are serious legitimate and logical questions a true skeptic would ask.

If, again, one was a true skeptic.

[Martin Weidmann]

If Marina was coerced into testifying against Oswald then why wasn't she ordered to say he hated JFK?

If she was coerced then why didn't they coerce her to say she saw him wrap the rifle and take it with him to work Friday?

If she is coerced into framing him for the assassination these are the obvious statements they would force her to make. They would provide motive and a direct connection from him to the rifle found in the TSBD.

But they didn't because she said none of the above. Why?

Conspiracists cannot answer these questions. They don't even want to try. For even to try forces them to reconsider their claims. And this is something they don't want to do.

If one is skeptical of the evidence against Oswald, if one says he wants to challenge that evidence then one should apply that skeptical standard to the conspiracy claims. And that includes, it seems obvious, questions like the above.

It's difficult to prove a negative but not impossible (I can prove I didn't shoot Oswald). But one way to try and prove a negative - that Oswald wasn't framed - is to look into questions like this. These are serious legitimate and logical questions a true skeptic would ask.

If, again, one was a true skeptic.

If, again, one was a true skeptic looking for speculation.

There, I fixed it for you

But one way to try and prove a negative - that Oswald wasn't framed - is to look into questions like this.

No it isn't, because the question requires speculation and even when the question is not answered it still does not justify the conclusion you desperately want to attach to it, i.e. that Oswald wasn't framed!

You're playing games and you know it. But we can easily turn this around. You can't answer (or refuse to do so) Alan's question about the DPD document. By your own "logic" that means Oswald was framed, right?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

"Oswald told Frazier that the bag he brought to work that day contained curtain rods he obtained from Mrs. Paine. Many conspiracy theorists contend that Oswald did have curtain rods. The question then becomes: could the bag have contained curtain rods and not the rifle, regardless of length?

There were indeed curtain rods in the garage of the Paine residence, but both Mr. and Mrs. Paine testified their curtain rods were still in their garage on the day of the assassination after Oswald had taken his "curtain rods" to work. Oswald did not ask Mrs. Paine if he could use her curtain rods. Oswald did not discuss redecorating his room with his wife. He did not get the needed permission from his landlady, Mrs. Arthur Johnson, or her husband, to hang curtain rods and both testified there was no need for curtain rods in his room as there were curtain rods already up."

Source/link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm

Oswald's room needed no rods. He had no apartment that needed rods. He had not looked for an apartment that needed rods. There is no evidence from any eyewitnesses that saw him with rods after he left the building. He denied to the police, according to their account, that he brought rods to work.

Or you can believe all of this were lies meant to frame him. In which case, it doesn't matter how much evidence is presented; you will dismiss it all as lies.

Oswald's room below (no rods are needed):

[Martin Weidmann]

"Oswald told Frazier that the bag he brought to work that day contained curtain rods he obtained from Mrs. Paine. Many conspiracy theorists contend that Oswald did have curtain rods. The question then becomes: could the bag have contained curtain rods and not the rifle, regardless of length?

There were indeed curtain rods in the garage of the Paine residence, but both Mr. and Mrs. Paine testified their curtain rods were still in their garage on the day of the assassination after Oswald had taken his "curtain rods" to work. Oswald did not ask Mrs. Paine if he could use her curtain rods. Oswald did not discuss redecorating his room with his wife. He did not get the needed permission from his landlady, Mrs. Arthur Johnson, or her husband, to hang curtain rods and both testified there was no need for curtain rods in his room as there were curtain rods already up."

Source/link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm

Oswald's room needed no rods. He had no apartment that needed rods. He had not looked for an apartment that needed rods. There is no evidence from any eyewitnesses that saw him with rods after he left the building. He denied to the police, according to their account, that he brought rods to work.

Or you can believe all of this were lies meant to frame him. In which case, it doesn't matter how much evidence is presented; you will dismiss it all as lies.

Oswald's room below (no rods are needed):

I take it this is your way of "answering" Alan's question?

Or you can believe all of this were lies meant to frame him. In which case, it doesn't matter how much evidence is presented; you will dismiss it all as lies.

I don't believe "all of this were lies", just that the narrative you present is only one biased side of the story. The fact that Ruth Paine's curtain rods were still in her garage, does not preclude the possibility that there had been more (for instance in Oswald's possession) and it certainly does not prove that Oswald did not carry curtain rods to the TSBD on Friday morning.

Oswald did not discuss redecorating his room with his wife. He did not get the needed permission from his landlady, Mrs. Arthur Johnson, or her husband, to hang curtain rods and both testified there was no need for curtain rods in his room as there were curtain rods already up."

So what? It's only an assumption that Oswald needed the curtain rods to redecorate his room. There isn't a shred of evidence for it. Last week I picked up some removal boxes from a friend. But that doesn't mean that I was going to move! One can just as easily assume that Oswald went to Irving on Thursday to ask Marina to live with him again in a new appartment. Marina and Ruth Paine actually testified that they both thought this was his reason for the trip. The lack of evidence for the existing of such an appartment, for which Oswald could have brought to curtain rods, does not preclude that such an appartment did exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! 

For all we know, Oswald wanted to sign the rental agreement the next day. We will never know, because it was never investigated. Another alternative that was never considered is that Oswald brought the curtain rods for somebody else, who collected them during Friday morning. I'm not saying any of this is actually true or that it really happened. All I am saying is that when you start making assumptions you can always arrive where you want to end up.

He had no apartment that needed rods. He had not looked for an apartment that needed rods.

You shouldn't present something as fact what you can only assume and for which you have not a shred of evidence.

Now, to get back to Alan's question, which you haven't answered at all. Here's a logical conclusion justified by the evidence as we know it to date; if we accept that Ruth Paine's curtain rods were in her garage on the 23rd, when her testimony was taken, then they can not be the curtain rods who were in the custody of Lt Day until the 24th, which is when SSA Howlett collected them. It follows that the curtain rods Howlett submitted to the DPD identification bureau on the 15th are not Ruth Paine's curtain rods.