Et tu, Bonnie?

[Martin Weidmann]

Just saying the story has flaws over and over doesn't make it so.  And obviously, you can't argue both that CE 142 matches Frazier's description of the bag Oswald carried that morning and that CE 142 was not the bag Oswald carried but was planted on the 6th floor.  Those are mutually exclusive claims.  Either Oswald carried CE 142 that morning or he did not.  And even if Oswald for some inexplicable reason lied to both Frazier and the DPD about the long bag and its contents, it does not preclude Oswald from having smuggled the gun into the TSBD by some other means at some other time.  He didn't because it was in the bag he carried that morning but going down the CTer rabbit hole, Oswald could have brought the rifle to his boardinghouse on some occasion prior to Nov. 22 and taken that rifle to work at any time that week.  Again, he didn't because his rifle was in the bag but if CTers simply want to play the game of possibilities, then that can't be excluded.  The important thing is that Oswald's rifle is found at the crime scene (however he brought it there) and he provides no explanation for its presence.  In fact, he lies about his ownership of the rifle.  A slam dunk of guilt.

The important thing is that Oswald's rifle is found at the crime scene

Oswald's rifle LOL

(however he brought it there)

however he or anybody else brought it there!

and he provides no explanation for its presence. 

Who asked Oswald for an explanation of the MC rifle being found at the TSBD?

In fact, he lies about his ownership of the rifle.

Oswald was never shown the MC rifle. He was merely asked if he owned a rifle, which he denied.
Why do you always insist on misrepresenting the facts?

A slam dunk of guilt.

A premature jump to a flawed conclusion

[Richard Smith]

The important thing is that Oswald's rifle is found at the crime scene

Oswald's rifle LOL

(however he brought it there)

however he or anybody else brought it there!

and he provides no explanation for its presence. 

Who asked Oswald for an explanation of the MC rifle being found at the TSBD?

In fact, he lies about his ownership of the rifle.

Oswald was never shown the MC rifle. He was merely asked if he owned a rifle, which he denied.
Why do you always insist on misrepresenting the facts?

A slam dunk of guilt.

A premature jump to a flawed conclusion

The contrarian logic at work.  Oswald denied owning ANY rifle but the contrarian takes issue with the suggestion Oswald denied ownership of the MC rifle found on the 6th floor!  Even after being shown a picture of himself holding the rifle.  Wow.

[Alan J. Ford]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1thgfDT6J0DCMaiKRdG9aJq9cDElhMJQW/view?usp=sharing

Thank You!, Mr. Davidson, appreciate your time sir.

[Martin Weidmann]

The contrarian logic at work.  Oswald denied owning ANY rifle but the contrarian takes issue with the suggestion Oswald denied ownership of the MC rifle found on the 6th floor!  Even after being shown a picture of himself holding the rifle.  Wow.

The misrepresentation continues....

Yes, Oswald denied owing a rifle (if the reports are to be believed), which obviously includes the MC rifle found at the TSBD, but you claimed that Oswald lied about his ownership of the rifle (by which you clearly mean the MC rifle), to which I replied that he was never shown the MC rifle or asked about the ownership. Your little wordgame didn't work!

You also falsely claimed that Oswald provided no explanation for the presence of the MC rifle at the TSBD.

So I asked you who asked Oswald for an explanation of the MC rifle being found at the TSBD?

Since you claim was obviously false, you can't answer and thus pathetically try to pivot away to another false claim.

[Alan J. Ford]

Nobody "confirmed" Oswald was on a bus.  A landlady who could not prove she ever rented to Oswald or that she was even on a bus at that time claimed she saw Oswald on a bus.

An excellent point, Mr. Iacoletti, once again here's yet another instance highlighting the prevailing fallacious of a hastily contrived script to frame the wrongly accused.

[Alan J. Ford]

Soooo encouraging to read the astute assessments shared within this thread by Mr. Weidmann & Mr. Ford as it relates to more than a few "witnesses" changing their statements. This is encouraging because the absolute truth has been concealed from public consumption far too loooong now, but light, truth & justice shall prevail.

Critical-thinking researchers like these two and a great many others are quite capable of discerning the difference between a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure and reality. The wrongly accused was Framed. The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.

[Richard Smith]

The misrepresentation continues....

Yes, Oswald denied owing a rifle (if the reports are to be believed), which includes the MC rifle found at the TSBD, but that wasn't the point I replied to.

You falsely claimed that Oswald provided no explanation for the presence of the MC rifle at the TSBD.

So I asked you who asked Oswald for an explanation of the MC rifle being found at the TSBD?

Since you claim was obviously false, you can't answer and thus pathetically try to pivot away to another false claim.

Good grief.  Oswald denied he owned ANY rifle or carried any long bag that morning - including by implication the MC rifle found on the 6th floor and shown in the BY photo which he claimed was faked.  That is his answer regarding the rifle.  He was also asked if he had ever seen any rifle in the building and he comes up with the rifles that were brought to the building a couple days beforehand.  He says nothing about seeing the MC rifle or knowing how it came to be there when asked about a seeing a rifle in the building.  If he had indicated that he had seen the MC rifle, I'm sure the DPD would have asked him further questions.  But Oswald's position is that he did not own any rifle and had no information about any other rifle in the building except those brought by Castor earlier that week.   As a result, he provided no explanation for his rifle's presence in the building despite many obvious opportunities to explain it.  Instead he lies and denies any knowledge of it.