How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD

[Joe Elliott]

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".

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]

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.

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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

Let's make this as easy to comprehend as possible for you.

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.

No, Martin is not implying anything. Martin is quoting from Marina's testimony in which she explains what she actually saw. It was Rankin who asked her a loaded question to which she responded with the line you selectively have quoted. However - what you being your usual dishonest self fail to mention - she becomes more specific after yet another loaded question from Rankin, by explaning what she actually saw, being the "wooden part of it".

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? 

You can read, can't you? Or... on second thought, perhaps not. It was obvious that by the time of her testimony Marina, based upon what she was told by investigators and the media, was convinced her husband was the gunman and so it must have been a rifle in the blanket. Do you really expect her to correct Rankin every time he brings up the rifle? You really are so gullible, it's beyond pathetic.

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? 

Really? So why didn't she confirm in her DPD affidavit that same day that Oswald owned a rifle? She talks about a rifle he owned in Russia and does not recognize the rifle shown to her. In reality it was Ruth (I've been expecting you, officers) Paine who "translated" and told the officers about the blanket.

This kind of lazy disbarred defense attorney tactic is what you get from Martin and John I.

Still beats the crap out of your misrepresentations, strawman arguments and outright lies!

[Richard Smith]

Let's make this as easy to comprehend as possible for you.

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.

No, Martin is not implying anything. Martin is quoting from Marina's testimony in which she explains what she actually saw. It was Rankin who asked her a loaded question to which she responded with the line you selectively have quoted. However - what you being your usual dishonest self fail to mention - she becomes more specific after yet another loaded question from Rankin, by explaning what she actually saw, being the "wooden part of it".

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? 

You can read, can't you? Or... on second thought, perhaps not. It was obvious that by the time of her testimony Marina, based upon what she was told by investigators and the media, was convinced her husband was the gunman and so it must have been a rifle in the blanket. Do you really expect her to correct Rankin every time he brings up the rifle? You really are so gullible, it's beyond pathetic.

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? 

Really? So why didn't she confirm in her DPD affidavit that same day that Oswald owned a rifle? She talks about a rifle he owned in Russia and does not recognize the rifle shown to her. In reality it was Ruth (I've been expecting you, officers) Paine who "translated" and told the officers about the blanket.

This kind of lazy disbarred defense attorney tactic is what you get from Martin and John I.

Still beats the crap out of your misrepresentations, strawman arguments and outright lies!

More nonsense and shell game.  Let's try again.  Forget Rankin.  Marina was asked on Nov. 22 (long before Rankin or anyone else could have"told" her that her husband owned a rifle) if her husband owned a rifle and she directed the DPD to the blanket because that is where she knew he kept his rifle.  There is no reasonable explanation for her having done this on Nov. 22 just hours after the assassination unless she had reason to believe herself that is where Oswald kept his rifle.  And why would she come to this conclusion?  Because she had looked into the blanket and "saw a rifle."  To interpret that any other way is the height of the silly, contrarian defense attorney approach you have taken to this case.   What you are suggesting doesn't even make chronological sense.  She confirms the rifle was kept in the blanket on Nov. 22, but your silly explanation is that she was convinced of this months later.   

[Richard Smith]

To get back to the OP.  In order for there to be some type of conspiracy here then the following must have been in on the plot.  Buell Frazier since he starts the TSBD chain by getting a job there.   Linnie Randle his sister since she takes Frazier in and conveys the job opening to Ruth/Marina.  Ruth Paine since she agrees to move into a house near LR and take in Oswald's family.  Marina since she agrees to move in with Paine.  Oswald himself since he accepts the job.  Roy Truly since he offers Oswald the job and retains him until the assassination.   Secret service agents since they must confirm a route that passes the TSBD.  Some high ranking members of the government to ensure that JFK even comes to Dallas.  And that is just to get this set up.  It doesn't even get into the framing, cover up, actual hit team etc.  But no one is suggesting a vast conspiracy - right?

[Martin Weidmann]

More nonsense and shell game.  Let's try again.  Forget Rankin.  Marina was asked on Nov. 22 (long before Rankin or anyone else could have"told" her that her husband owned a rifle) if her husband owned a rifle and she directed the DPD to the blanket because that is where she knew he kept his rifle.  There is no reasonable explanation for her having done this on Nov. 22 just hours after the assassination unless she had reason to believe herself that is where Oswald kept his rifle.  And why would she come to this conclusion?  Because she had looked into the blanket and "saw a rifle."  To interpret that any other way is the height of the silly, contrarian defense attorney approach you have taken to this case.   What you are suggesting doesn't even make chronological sense.  She confirms the rifle was kept in the blanket on Nov. 22, but your silly explanation is that she was convinced of this months later.

Never mind that she did not confirm Oswald owned a rifle in her DPD affidavit and did not recognize the rifle when it was shown to her, right?

Shall we just overlook that as well, Richard?

[Wesley Johnson]

Never mind that she did not confirm Oswald owned a rifle in her DPD affidavit and did not recognize the rifle when it was shown to her, right?

Shall we just overlook that as well, Richard?

Weak response Martin. The question for you is, "do you dispute how Oswald got the job at the TSBD?" Do you understand the importance of that? That was a powerful response by Richard and now I know who he is. And I know why you guys say the things you do about him. You are weak and the CTers have no evidence at all. I don't know what you do for a living but it better not involve having some common sense, logic or critical thinking. Most of the CTers have zero deductive reasoning skills. The shear magnitude of what it would take to set-up a conspiracy, as you and the CTers claim, is unsustainable. It all falls apart after a minutes scrutiny. I would love to have Oswald in the hot seat at court. At the end of it, I would pin the bag, the rifle, the revolver, the bullet, the fragments, the shell casings, the documents, proving Oswald's ownership of the weapons, and the eye witness testimonies, right to little old Oswaldovich's head. And after the defense, blew all the smoke and put up all the mirrors, the jury would see that they had zero, physical, or ballistic evidence to support their defense. It is hilarious.