Conclusions or assumptions

[Jon Banks]

That's not a LN claim I'm familiar with. After shooting at Walker, Oswald left with the rifle. After shooting at Kennedy, the option to quietly leave with the rifle was no longer there. Oswald then left the building as quickly as he could; he was in flight from having committed murder.

One thing that has always bugged me about the Walker incident:

How did Oswald get to and back home from Walker's house carrying a rifle without being noticed by anyone? Walker's home was miles away from where Oswald lived and it's broadly assumed that Lee didn't know how to drive. Did he travel on foot? Did someone give him a ride? Did he take a rifle on a public bus without drawing attention to himself?

There are also conflicting stories about what Oswald did with the rifle immediately after the Walker shooting. I think Marina testified that Lee had buried the rifle somewhere near Walker's home and went back to retrieve it later. But that story conflicted with the DeMorenschildts testimony that they saw a rifle in the Oswald home immediately after the shooting.

[Jon Banks]

Wouldn't be that unusual in Texas to see a rifle being carried in a non-threatening or disassembled fashion on a bus. Could be the rifle was wrapped in the old raincoat he used to bury the rifle. Folks could assume he was transporting the rifle to go hunting or to get to friend's house so they could go hunting the following morning. Could be Oswald used a cab (he would spend money for his own needs while his children went hungry and shoeless, and his wife's teeth rotted).

That's 100% speculation on your part. Those who are sure that Oswald shot at Walker can never offer a coherent explanation of how he traveled to Walker's home with a rifle unnoticed.

And that's why it remains a big question mark for me even though I admit that there's more evidence of motive for Oswald in the Walker incident than the Kennedy assassination...

[Jon Banks]

You're holding our for some motion picture film of Oswald transporting the rifle? Imagine trying hardened criminals and the defense saying the prosecution first have to prove with motion picture film the defendants traveling to and arriving at the crime scene.

If you're ever on a jury, tell them the extraordinary level of proof you expect, and they'll send you home.

Part of establishing a case against a suspect involves presenting a theory of how the suspect might've did it.

[Martin Weidmann]

Your dumb question went: "So----Oswald used the Hidell name so that there would be absolutely no way to trace that order to him". 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 you have got a fat round face, suffer jaundice and can't focus your eyes. Perfect icon for you.   

What's wrong with the honest use of "probably" when something isn't known for sure? You expect motion picture quality film as proof, or to use time travel to verify it yourself?

How else would the Hidell papers get on his person? See how well your "probabilities" hold up.

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?

[Jerry Freeman]

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

Doesn't have a clue and doesn't really care. By the responses-has an obstinate attitude and just here to troll [PROBABLY] 

What's wrong with the honest use of "probably" when something isn't known for sure?

[Martin Weidmann]

Anything short of the event captured on movie picture film, or you being able to travel back in time to verify it personally, you don't accept or dismiss as assumption rather than a reasonable assessment of the available facts and evidence.

Why don't you simply try to answer the question instead of coming up with an already predicted diversion and ad hom attack?

When you claim that Oswald would not think the rifle was untraceable", you need to explain why he used an alias to order it.


And btw, what makes you think that the WC assumption is a "reasonable assessment of the available facts and evidence".
The mere fact that I can offer you two different explanations for the same event makes that so-called "reasonable assessment" a complete jump to a conclusion not supported by the evidence.

[Martin Weidmann]

What's wrong with the honest use of "probably" when something isn't known for sure?

If it isn't known for sure, it means it's speculation and it could actually be wrong. Would you want to be convicted based on something that probably happened?