JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Richard Smith on March 12, 2018, 12:34:09 AM ---
Nothing has to add up for a closet CTer like Martin. Like Sgt. Schultz he feigns to know nothing about a conspiracy while taking issue with all the evidence against Oswald. Does he believe the evidence proves Oswald ordered a MC rifle and was sent such a rifle with a specific serial number in March '63? No. But here we learn he believes any conspiracy didn't begin before Oct '63. So all the allegedly faked documents and BY photos relating to the rifle are left unexplained. Martin is just playing the lazy contrarian always arguing the evidence is deficient to his impossible subjective standard of proof so he never has to support anything. It just happens that the evidence he takes issue with is always that of Oswald's guilt. When Marina looks into the blanket and says she saw a "rifle" Martin interprets this to mean she saw some unspecified object made of wood. LOL. You can't make that sort of nonsense up. But remember he is not alleging anything like a conspiracy that requires proof or at least a coherent narrative! Oswald apparently just has the worst luck of anyone in history to be caught up in this plot like Mr. Magoo while going about his life in blissful ignorance.
--- End quote ---
But here we learn he believes any conspiracy didn't begin before Oct '63.
There are two possibilities here; either you have great difficulty understanding what I have written or you are just a plain liar who makes up stuff. Either way; I never said it.
BY photos relating to the rifle are left unexplained.
Another lie. I am on record as saying that I believe the BY photos are probably authentic. Since I am no photographic expert and never saw the originals of the photos, that's the best I can conclude. I just don't attach the same significance to the photos as you do.
always arguing the evidence is deficient to his impossible subjective standard of proof so he never has to support anything. It just happens that the evidence he takes issue with is always that of Oswald's guilt.
I am not here to support anything. I don't have a theory, I don't really care if Oswald did it, did it alone or if there was a conspiracy and the evidence being discussed here just happens to be predominantly material used to support the claim of Oswald's guilt. You just don't like that I find the evidence less persuasive than you do. But truth be told, your constant complaining like a cry-baby that I do not agree with you is getting pretty tiresome.
When Marina looks into the blanket and says she saw a "rifle" Martin interprets this to mean she saw some unspecified object made of wood. LOL.
Another misrepresentation, or shall I just call them outright lies from now on. I don't interpret anything of the kind.
In her testimony, Marina was told there was a rifle in the blanket. Rankin treated it as a given;
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that 1 was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, 1 saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.
Marina herself saw the wooden part of it. I just take her by her word.
But remember he is not alleging anything like a conspiracy that requires proof or at least a coherent narrative!
At least I don't have to lie or misrepresent stuff, as you do constantly.
John Mytton:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on March 12, 2018, 12:55:49 AM ---
When Marina looks into the blanket and says she saw a "rifle" Martin interprets this to mean she saw some unspecified object made of wood. LOL.
Another misrepresentation, or shall I just call them outright lies from now on. I don't interpret anything of the kind.
In her testimony, Marina was told there was a rifle in the blanket. Rankin treated it as a given;
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that 1 was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, 1 saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.
Marina herself saw the wooden part of it. I just take her by her word.
--- End quote ---
A rifle?
A rifle?
JohnM
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Joe Elliott on March 12, 2018, 12:54:39 AM ---As I predicted, Martin Weidmann has dodge my two questions. So, I will answer them for him.
Question 1:
Name me one real world plot that did work this way. Bypassing opportunities time and time again until they somehow found the perfect patsy, within one month.
No, Martin cannot name another such murder plot. Where someone was first selected to take part in a murder plot. And then they lucked into a job that gave them a good opportunity to commit the murder. Nor can anyone else name one.
Colin presented the Lincoln assassination as such a case, but this is false. Booth was not selected to take part in a plot to murder President Lincoln. And then lucked into a job as an actor in the Ford Theatre. Presenting him with a perfect opportunity to murder the President.
Instead, things happened in this order:
1. Booth became a famous actor.
2. Lincoln was elected President.
3. Booth started acting, some of the time, within Washington D. C. Possibly, he could have chosen to act in other theatres, with other acting groups, but chose an acting company that performed in Washington D. C.
4. Booth used his past employment at the Ford Theatre to murder President Lincoln.
The only parallel is that Booth was part of a conspiracy, but Booth was the recruiter of others in a plot, first to kidnap Lincoln and later to murder him. He started out as a lone nut.
Neither Martin nor Colin has given an example, in all history, of a conspiracy to commit a murder, recruited the assassin and/or patsy, or multiple assassins and/or patsies and waited from one of them to luck into a job that gives them a good opportunity to murder the President, or to be framed for doing so.
Question 2:
Name me one major CT book that makes this argument. That Oswald was not part of the plot all along but was chosen no earlier than mid-October 1963?
No one has come up with such a book.
Basically, CTers argue that Oswald was part of the conspiracy for several years. In the Marines, sent to the U. S. S. R., ordered to do suspicious things once he returned. But, when problems come up with his, they temporarily suggest that he was, or perhaps was, selected as part of the conspiracy a month before the assassination.
Honest arguments don?t argue things both ways. They have simply present the most likely scenario. And stick to it.
But if no good scenario can be found, they develop arguments that have schizophrenia. There is no solid scenario. Scenario A is first presented. When problems are pointed out to it, they switch to Scenario B. When problems are point out to it, they switch back to Scenario A.
Hence, after over 50 years, CTers have no coherent scenario. Oswald was part of this conspiracy for months or years. Although, to deal with logical problems with this, one could temporarily adopt the position that maybe he wasn?t. But basically, think that he was, or probably was.
--- End quote ---
As expected, you are having a conversation with yourself, repeating the same thing over and over again, and simply ignore what I have written in my reply. You are just playing pathetic games, asking nonsensical strawman questions and expecting a comprehensive reply on your terms, when you can't even define the term "part of a conspiracy".
Joe Elliott:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on March 12, 2018, 01:05:29 AM ---
As expected, you are having a conversation with yourself, repeating the same thing over and over again, and simply ignore what I have written in my reply. You are just playing pathetic games, asking nonsensical strawman questions and expecting a comprehensive reply on your terms, when you can't even define the term "part of a conspiracy".
--- End quote ---
Of course, people will repeat themselves when you dodge their questions. So, I will ask again, at the risk of repeating myself, when are you going to answer my questions one and two?
What does ?part of a conspiracy? mean? With Oswald it means that Oswald was selected, unknowing or unknowingly to by the assassin or patsy in the conspiracy to murder President Kennedy.
In the case of any conspiracy it means someone who was selected to take part in it, to help the conspiracy to succeed or to act as a patsy. Such a person would be ?part of the conspiracy? whether they knew it or not.
Richard Smith:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on March 12, 2018, 12:55:49 AM ---
In her testimony, Marina was told there was a rifle in the blanket. Rankin treated it as a given;
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that 1 was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, 1 saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.
Marina herself saw the wooden part of it. I just take her by her word.
--- End quote ---
This is rich. Martin still implying that Marina saw something other than a rifle by quoting her testimony in which she says that "I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle." A "rifle"! Not just an object made of wood like your head. Marina is "told" there was a rifle in the blanket and that is why she repeatedly affirms it was a rifle instead of saying I just saw a piece of wood? This is the same blanket that she directs the DPD to on Nov. 22 (long before her WC testimony) when asked if Oswald has a rifle. Why would Marina direct the DPD to the blanket when asked about - wait for it - A RIFLE if she thought it only contained some unspecified object made of wood? This kind of lazy disbarred defense attorney tactic is what you get from Martin and John I.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version