Conclusions or assumptions

[Richard Smith]

I said no LNer ever claimed Oswald would think the rifle was untraceable, and that he left the Walker shooting with the rifle, rather than abandon it there.

So, what was his reason for using the Hidell alias when he ordered the rifle?

Maybe that is something a closet CTer should answer instead of a LNer.   Using an alias is not something that a law-abiding citizen needs to do when buying a rifle.  It is the act of someone attempting to obscure the trail.  It doesn't make it "untraceable" per se, but an alias is more difficult to track.  It borders on the absurd that you are implying here that Oswald's use of an alias in the purchase of the murder weapon lends itself to his innocence instead of guilt.   Talk about the rabbit hole.  Oswald likely has no idea what information is retrievable when he orders his rifle.  He is simply making it as difficult as possible to trace it back to him by using an alias.  He has nothing to lose by doing so and, as explained by Jerry, his plan at the time did not entail leaving his rifle at any crime scene to be traced.  The alias is just an obvious layer of additional obfuscation to protect someone with bad intentions.

[Vincent Baxter]

So here are two questions for the LNs.

1. Let's suppose that Oswald did in fact write the orderform, envelope and money order, how does that justify the conclusion that he ordered the rifle for himself and actually received it?

2. Let's assume that the BY photos are indeed authentic, how do they justify the conclusion that Oswald is holding a rifle that is his property?

These are not trick questions. I really want to find out if any LN can provide a reasonable and plausible justification for the conclusions that Oswald ordered the rifle for himself, actually received it and that he owned it when the BY photos were taken.

To be honest, I expect not much more than diversions, logical fallacies and ad homs, but I am hoping at least one LN is genuinely willing and able to provide an honest answer to my questions.

The thing is they are kind of trick questions because you've worded and presented them in a way that a genuine honest answer to each is somehow meant to weaken the case of the LN theory.

Obviously there is no conclusive proof that Oswald purchased the rifle solely for himself, it's mere circumstantial evidence and a general assumption. Even if Oswald had said during interrogation that he 100% definitely purchased the rifle for himself and his sole use only, CTs would then ask the question "How do we know for sure that he wasn't lying or covering for someone else".

To sum it up an honest answer in simple and obvious terms; Assuming, as you said, that Oswald had indeed written the order form, envelope and money order we can conclude he definitely did order the rifle. We are told that the rifle was dispatched to a PO Box which Oswald had access to and addressed to an AJ Hiddell which we know Oswald had a fake ID for in his possession (If he was simply purchasing it for someone else, why bother trying to hide his identity?). And then he was later photographed holding the same rifle.
Now to me, they are fairly justifiable reasons to conclude that he bought the rifle for himself. Granted there is no definitive proof that this is the case  but if people took that attitude with everything they ever saw or heard, practically every murderer in history would have walked free.

The honest answer doesn't make any difference to the LN theory.

More to the point, with no conclusive evidence to suggest he purchased the rifle for someone else or was indeed photographed holding a gun that wasn't' his property, can you, as a CTer, genuinely and honestly answer your questions if they were flipped the other way?

1. How can you justify the conclusion that Oswald DIDN'T order the rifle for himself or actually receive it?

2. Let's assume that the BY photos are indeed authentic, how can you justify the conclusion that Oswald is holding a rifle that is NOT his property?

[Martin Weidmann]

Maybe that is something a closet CTer should answer instead of a LNer.   Using an alias is not something that a law-abiding citizen needs to do when buying a rifle.  It is the act of someone attempting to obscure the trail.  It doesn't make it "untraceable" per se, but an alias is more difficult to track.  It borders on the absurd that you are implying here that Oswald's use of an alias in the purchase of the murder weapon lends itself to his innocence instead of guilt.   Talk about the rabbit hole.  Oswald likely has no idea what information is retrievable when he orders his rifle.  He is simply making it as difficult as possible to trace it back to him by using an alias.  He has nothing to lose by doing so and, as explained by Jerry, his plan at the time did not entail leaving his rifle at any crime scene to be traced.  The alias is just an obvious layer of additional obfuscation to protect someone with bad intentions.

Maybe that is something a closet CTer should answer instead of a LNer. 

BS, as per usual

Using an alias is not something that a law-abiding citizen needs to do when buying a rifle.

True, but what makes you think he used an alias to order the rifle for himself?

It borders on the absurd that you are implying here that Oswald's use of an alias in the purchase of the murder weapon lends itself to his innocence instead of guilt.   

First of all, where did I imply that (other than in your paranoid mind) and secondly, it's absolutely absurd to claim that Oswald used an alias to purchase a rifle, while there are other possibilities as well that he never been explored.

[Martin Weidmann]

The thing is they are kind of trick questions because you've worded and presented them in a way that a genuine honest answer to each is somehow meant to weaken the case of the LN theory.

Obviously there is no conclusive proof that Oswald purchased the rifle solely for himself, it's mere circumstantial evidence and a general assumption. Even if Oswald had said during interrogation that he 100% definitely purchased the rifle for himself and his sole use only, CTs would then ask the question "How do we know for sure that he wasn't lying or covering for someone else".

To sum it up an honest answer in simple and obvious terms; Assuming, as you said, that Oswald had indeed written the order form, envelope and money order we can conclude he definitely did order the rifle. We are told that the rifle was dispatched to a PO Box which Oswald had access to and addressed to an AJ Hiddell which we know Oswald had a fake ID for in his possession (If he was simply purchasing it for someone else, why bother trying to hide his identity?). And then he was later photographed holding the same rifle.
Now to me, they are fairly justifiable reasons to conclude that he bought the rifle for himself. Granted there is no definitive proof that this is the case  but if people took that attitude with everything they ever saw or heard, practically every murderer in history would have walked free.

The honest answer doesn't make any difference to the LN theory.

More to the point, with no conclusive evidence to suggest he purchased the rifle for someone else or was indeed photographed holding a gun that wasn't' his property, can you, as a CTer, genuinely and honestly answer your questions if they were flipped the other way?

1. How can you justify the conclusion that Oswald DIDN'T order the rifle for himself or actually receive it?

2. Let's assume that the BY photos are indeed authentic, how can you justify the conclusion that Oswald is holding a rifle that is NOT his property?

The thing is they are kind of trick questions because you've worded and presented them in a way that a genuine honest answer to each is somehow meant to weaken the case of the LN theory.

Partially right. My questions are indeed worded to get a genuine honest answer. If that answer weakens the case of the LN theory, then so be it. If you want to find the truth, you shouldn't be worried about the possible weakness of the LN case.

Obviously there is no conclusive proof that Oswald purchased the rifle solely for himself, it's mere circumstantial evidence and a general assumption.

Now, there's an honest answer! Kudos! And I agree. The problem is that once you say that, the next question is going to be; If there is no conclusive proof that Oswald purchased the rifle for himself, how can anyone claim his alleged ownership of that rifle as a foundation for the accusation that he shot Kennedy with it?

Even if Oswald had said during interrogation that he 100% definitely purchased the rifle for himself and his sole use only, CTs would then ask the question "How do we know for sure that he wasn't lying or covering for someone else".

That's a moot LN talking point which is of no value, as Oswald didn't say that during interrogation.

To sum it up an honest answer in simple and obvious terms; Assuming, as you said, that Oswald had indeed written the order form, envelope and money order we can conclude he definitely did order the rifle.

If you mean by "he definitely did order the rifle" that he ordered it for himself, then I have to disagree with that conclusion as it is also possible (although I admit there is no evidence for it) that he was manipulated into writing the the order documents and making available his P.O. box address for someone else. Perhaps even for somebody he knew as A. Hidell, who asked him for a favor.

The available evidence does not, in any way, shape or form, show us conclusively that Oswald used an alias to order the rifle for himself, but it does also not show he ordered it for somebody else. Nevertheless, if you are honest, you will agree that both options are possible, right?

We are told that the rifle was dispatched to a PO Box which Oswald had access to and addressed to an AJ Hiddell

Indeed... We are told that the rifle was dispatched based on a marking on an internal document of Klein's (iirc Waldmann 7), but there is no evidence whatsoever that a rifle was actually shipped (there is no record of postage, which seems odd for a postal sale company not to have, in case they had to show a product had indeed been sent). So, yet again, we get to assume that what we are told is in fact true, when we have no evidence to confirm that.

which we know Oswald had a fake ID for in his possession

Do we really know that? Let's consider the facts we do know for a moment. Paul Bentley was the officer who took Oswald's wallet from him in the car, during the ride to DPD HQ. In a television interview, the next day, he was asked about the content of that wallet and he answered that it contained an ID, in Oswald's name, a credit card and a driver's license. Not a word about an ID in the name of Hidell! In fact, there isn't one report of any DPD officer that mentions the discovery of an Hidell ID in that wallet.

So, now enter Detecive Rose, who was off duty but recalled to help out after the assassination. When he arrived at DPD HQ, Oswald was being brought in and Rose was the first officer to talk to him. Just before that Rose was given a wallet, which he was told belonged to Oswald and that wallet contained a fake Hidell ID. The weird thing is that nobody knows who the person was that gave Rose the wallet. It couldn't have been Bentley, because he had injured his leg during the arrest and had been taken to hospital after his arrival at DPD HQ. So, where did that wallet come from and who gave it to Rose? Where is the chain of custody for that wallet?

(If he was simply purchasing it for someone else, why bother trying to hide his identity?).

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here. If Oswald (possibly being manipulated) did somebody he knew as A. Hidell a favor by ordering the rifle and the revolver, then he wasn't trying to hide his identity, right?

And then he was later photographed holding the same rifle.

First of all, I'm not so sure that it was the same rifle, but having said that, the fact that Oswald was photographed with a rifle doesn't tell us anything about the ownership of that rifle. I don't have any weapons myself, but I was once photographed holding a rifle that belonged to a friend of mine. That did not make it my rifle!

Now to me, they are fairly justifiable reasons to conclude that he bought the rifle for himself.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. There is no way near sufficient evidence to justify that conclusion.

Granted there is no definitive proof that this is the case 

So, if there is no definitive proof, as you say, how in the world can you nevertheless reach your conclusion?

but if people took that attitude with everything they ever saw or heard, practically every murderer in history would have walked free.

That's an extremely weak LN argument. In most cases ownership of a weapon is not crucial to obtain a conviction. If it was every murderer would use a weapon owned by somebody else to do the killing. The ownership the MC rifle is so crucial in this case simply because there is no other evidence to link Oswald to the Kennedy murder. When you take him owning the rifle out of the equation, you are left with very little else.

The assumption (because that's what it is) that Oswald ordered the rifle for himself and received it, allows for the conclusion that he was seen with the same rifle in the BY photos. It subsequently allows for the conclusion that he used  this particular rifle to shoot at General Walker, thus demonstrating his willingness to kill and for the conclusion (based on absolutely nothing) that he stored this particular rifle in Ruth Paine's garage for 2 months. All of this and more goes out the window, if the assumption that Oswald ordered the rifle for himself and thus owned it is wrong! It's a house of cards!

The honest answer doesn't make any difference to the LN theory.

If that were true, why are you the first LN to try to answer the questions? The others have all stayed away from this thread or simply avoided answering the questions.

More to the point, with no conclusive evidence to suggest he purchased the rifle for someone else or was indeed photographed holding a gun that wasn't' his property, can you, as a CTer, genuinely and honestly answer your questions if they were flipped the other way?

1. How can you justify the conclusion that Oswald DIDN'T order the rifle for himself or actually receive it?

2. Let's assume that the BY photos are indeed authentic, how can you justify the conclusion that Oswald is holding a rifle that is NOT his property?

First of all, I'm not a CT. I couldn't care less either way. If Oswald did it alone, so be it, and if he didn't there is no other alternative then that there was indeed a conspiracy. I merely want to find out if the case against Oswald holds up under scrutiny.

The answer to your question is; I don't have to. I am not the one proclaiming Oswald to be guilty or innocent. What you are asking me to do is actually prove two negatives, which is near impossible to do.

Based in the available evidence you can not conclude that Oswald did not order the rifle for himself. But you also can not conclude that he actually did buy it for himself, which is exactly the point I was making. And the same goes for the BY photos. The only way you can conclude that Oswald ordered, received and owned that rifle is if you assume he did and there is not even enough circumstantial evidence to justify such an assumption.

[Richard Smith]

Maybe that is something a closet CTer should answer instead of a LNer. 

BS, as per usual

Using an alias is not something that a law-abiding citizen needs to do when buying a rifle.

True, but what makes you think he used an alias to order the rifle for himself?

It borders on the absurd that you are implying here that Oswald's use of an alias in the purchase of the murder weapon lends itself to his innocence instead of guilt.   

First of all, where did I imply that (other than in your paranoid mind) and secondly, it's absolutely absurd to claim that Oswald used an alias to purchase a rifle, while there are other possibilities as well that he never been explored.

Just because you can dream up abstract "possibilities" that you claim "never have been explored" doesn't create any doubt that Oswald ordered the rifle.  This is the most investigated case in history.  What fantasy are you entertaining about Oswald ordering the rifle for someone else?  LOL. The rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.  There are photos of him holding that rifle.  His wife confirmed he owned a possessed a rifle during this entire timeframe.  The rifle found on the 6h floor has the same serial number as the one sent to Oswald's PO Box.  That rifle is found at Oswald's place of employment.  Oswald's prints were the only prints found on that rifle.  What here could lend itself to Oswald ordering the rifle for someone else?  Nothing.  Why would Oswald himself lie about the rifle instead of confirming that he ordered it to give to someone else if that were the case?  Rabbit hole nonsense.   

[Martin Weidmann]

Just because you can dream up abstract "possibilities" that you claim "never have been explored" doesn't create any doubt that Oswald ordered the rifle.  This is the most investigated case in history.  What fantasy are you entertaining about Oswald ordering the rifle for someone else?  LOL. The rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.  There are photos of him holding that rifle.  His wife confirmed he owned a possessed a rifle during this entire timeframe.  The rifle found on the 6h floor has the same serial number as the one sent to Oswald's PO Box.  That rifle is found at Oswald's place of employment.  Oswald's prints were the only prints found on that rifle.  What here could lend itself to Oswald ordering the rifle for someone else?  Nothing.  Why would Oswald himself lie about the rifle instead of confirming that he ordered it to give to someone else if that were the case?  Rabbit hole nonsense.   

Just because you can dream up abstract "possibilities" that you claim "never have been explored" doesn't create any doubt that Oswald ordered the rifle.

So, Oswald doing somebody a favor by ordering a rifle in his name and using his P.O. box for it is an "abstract possibility" for you but concluding that he ordered the rifle for himself using an alias isn't?

Do you ever think before you write?

We don't know everything there is to know about Oswald and we never will. All we know about the people around him is what the WC told us. It is most certainly possible that somebody introduced himself to Oswald in New Orleans and called himself A. Hidell. Once that was done, it would have been easy to tell Oswald some story that resulted in Oswald ordering the rifle and revolver for his "friend". Having received both weapons the BY photos could have been taken, as a bit of fun, before "Hidell" collected them. There are all sorts of variables of how something like that could have gone down and to dismiss it all out of hand is a clear sign of how little you are in touch with what goes on in the real world.

In 2017, Kim Jong-un's half-brother was killed at Kuala Lumpur airport by being sprayed nerve gas on him by two women who were tricked in doing that because they were told they were taking part in a TV prank.

This is the most investigated case in history.

So what? It is in fact the most investigate case based on the available evidence. Investigating the same evidence over and over again and expecting a different outcome is a fool's errand.

The rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.

There is no evidence for that. Just an assumption of Waldmann based on a marking on a document.

There are photos of him holding that rifle. 

No. There are photos of him holding a rifle.

His wife confirmed he owned a possessed a rifle during this entire timeframe.

No, she didn't. That's an outright lie.

The rifle found on the 6h floor has the same serial number as the one sent to Oswald's PO Box.

No, the rifle found on the 6th floor has a serial number that is the same as the one handwritten on Waldmann 7. There is not a shred of evidence that that rifle was ever sent to Oswald's PO box or that Oswald owned it.

That rifle is found at Oswald's place of employment.

So what? Does that prove Oswald put it there?

Oswald's prints were the only prints found on that rifle.

You keep repeating this lie, but no matter how often you claim that, it will never be true. Oswald's palm print was allegedly found on an evidence card that Day did not provide to anybody until a week after the assassination.

What here could lend itself to Oswald ordering the rifle for someone else?  Nothing.

Agreed. The problem is that you can not provide a shred of evidence for any of it being true.

Why would Oswald himself lie about the rifle instead of confirming that he ordered it to give to someone else if that were the case?

What makes you think he lied? There is no verbatim record of what he told the investigators and the reports of the investigators  contradict eachother too much to be considered even remotely reliable.

Having said that, I'm not surprised you instantly dismiss all other possibilities out of hand. It is what you do.... Narrowmindedness fits you like a glove!

[Richard Smith]

Just because you can dream up abstract "possibilities" that you claim "never have been explored" doesn't create any doubt that Oswald ordered the rifle.

So, Oswald doing somebody a favor by ordering a rifle in his name and using his P.O. box for it is an "abstract possibility" for you but concluding that he ordered the rifle for himself using an alias isn't?

This is the most investigated case in history.

So what? It is in fact the most investigate case based on the available evidence.

The rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.

There is no evidence for that.

There are photos of him holding that rifle. 

No. There are photos of him holding a rifle.

His wife confirmed he owned a possessed a rifle during this entire timeframe.

No, she didn't.

The rifle found on the 6h floor has the same serial number as the one sent to Oswald's PO Box.

No, the rifle found on the 6th floor has a serial number that is the same as the one handwritting on Waldmann 7. There is not a shred of evidence that that rifle was ever sent to Oswald's PO box.

That rifle is found at Oswald's place of employment.

So what? Does that prove Oswald put it there?

Oswald's prints were the only prints found on that rifle.

You keep repeating this lie, but no matter how often you claim that, it will never be true. Oswald's palm print was allegedly found on an evidence card that Day did not provide to anybody until a week after the assassination.

What here could lend itself to Oswald ordering the rifle for someone else?  Nothing.

Agreed. The problem is that you can not provide a shred of evidence for any of it being true.

Why would Oswald himself lie about the rifle instead of confirming that he ordered it to give to someone else if that were the case?

What makes you think he lied? There is no verbatim record of what he told the investigators and the reports of the investigators  contradict eachother too much to be considered even remotely reliable.

Having said that, I'm not surprised you instantly dismiss all other possibilities out of hand. It is what you do.... Narrowmindedness fits you like a glove!

This is the old impossible contrarian standard of proof nonsense.  You claim to suggest a possibility (i.e. that Oswald ordered the rifle for someone else) to provide a potentially innocent explanation for Oswald to order the rifle but then dismiss as fake all the evidence cited that links Oswald to the rifle.  There are photos that experts have confirmed show him holding the rifle found on the 6th floor.  There are documents that show that rifle was ordered with a shipping address that is Oswald's PO Box.  There is the testimony of the DPD that Oswald's prints were found on the rifle.  All that evidence confirms beyond any doubt that Oswald ordered and possessed a specific rifle.  There is no point in discussing alternative theories to Oswald ordering and possessing the rifle if you simply dismiss all this evidence as the product of fakery.  If it is all fake, then Oswald didn't order the rifle at all much less give it to anyone else.  You are not contending that there was some alternative explanation like Oswald ordered for the rifle for someone else but taking issue with the underlying evidence linking him to this specific rifle.   Those are entirely different and even contradictory claims.