Two Wallets? Nope.

[Lance Payette]

Perhaps you can provide the "logic" behind ordering a gun using an alias, killing the president with it, and carrying around an ID that day with that very same name on it.

Or is it only CT scenarios that have to pass the Lance Payette "logic" test?

Gee, I'll try. This requires pretty heavy reasoning, but I'll give it a shot (pun!) ...

1. You order a rifle in March because (1) you're interested in guns and, (2) perhaps something like the Walker attempt is already a gleam in your eye.

                    Pretty logical so far, no?

2. When you make an almost spur-of-the-moment decision to shoot JFK in November, you choose to use the rifle you already own.

                    Still doing pretty well here, it seems to me - yes?

3. You are going to shoot from the sixth floor of your place of work, make no attempt to disguise yourself, leave your rifle with its serial number intact on the sixth floor, and have minimal likelihood of surviving anyway. You know there is already a paper trail establishing your purchase of the rifle, photos of you holding the rifle, and a wife and others who know of your ownership of the rifle. Ergo, whether you have a Hidell ID in your wallet is rather inconsequential. Indeed, the ID may even come in handy if the police are looking for one Lee Harvey Oswald from TSBD and you can produce an ID of Alek Hidell. If you are actually arrested for the murder of JFK or Tippit, the contents of your wallet are going to be the least of your problems.

                    Voila, our pristine chain of logic is complete - no?

Do not attempt to argue logic with the swami, especially if your reasoning does not extend beyond inane one-liners with which you flood the forum when "Martin" allows you out of the sock puppet closet.

The swami observes that Team Sock Puppet has still failed to provide anything resembling a rational and coherent explanation as to why a dark and sinister conspiracy-oriented theory of the Multi-Wallet Mystery makes any sense.

[Lance Payette]

Gerald Hill was interviewed on the day of the arrest and said, “The only way we found out what his name was, was to remove his billfold and check it ourselves; he wouldn’t even tell us what his name was.” Later in the interview a reporter asked, “What was the name on the billfold?” Hill replied, “Lee H. Oswald, O-S-W-A-L-D”. No mention of Hidell. Why not?

Oh, wow. these brain-twisters are so difficult that even the swami's head is aching, but he will give it another shot ...

1. Because Hill by this point knew the suspect's actual name was Oswald. Makes sense - no?

2. Because at this point the name Hidell was of no particular significance except as a fake ID in the wallet. Makes sense - no?

The sloppy Hill likewise failed to say "The wallet also contained photos of an unidentified woman and an infant wrapped in swaddling, which we believe may be additional disguises used by the suspect."

[Martin Weidmann]

Gee, I'll try. This requires pretty heavy reasoning, but I'll give it a shot (pun!) ...

1. You order a rifle in March because (1) you're interested in guns and, (2) perhaps something like the Walker attempt is already a gleam in your eye.

                    Pretty logical so far, no?

2. When you make an almost spur-of-the-moment decision to shoot JFK in November, you choose to use the rifle you already own.

                    Still doing pretty well here, it seems to me - yes?

3. You are going to shoot from the sixth floor of your place of work, make no attempt to disguise yourself, leave your rifle with its serial number intact on the sixth floor, and have minimal likelihood of surviving anyway. You know there is already a paper trail establishing your purchase of the rifle, photos of you holding the rifle, and a wife and others who know of your ownership of the rifle. Ergo, whether you have a Hidell ID in your wallet is rather inconsequential. Indeed, the ID may even come in handy if the police are looking for one Lee Harvey Oswald from TSBD and you can produce an ID of Alek Hidell. If you are actually arrested for the murder of JFK or Tippit, the contents of your wallet are going to be the least of your problems.

                    Voila, our pristine chain of logic is complete - no?

Do not attempt to argue logic with the swami, especially if your reasoning does not extend beyond inane one-liners with which you flood the forum when "Martin" allows you out of the sock puppet closet.

The swami observes that Team Sock Puppet has still failed to provide anything resembling a rational and coherent explanation as to why a dark and sinister conspiracy-oriented theory of the Multi-Wallet Mystery makes any sense.

inane one-liners with which you flood the forum when "Martin" allows you out of the sock puppet closet.

I was living rent free in John Mytton's head. Did I somehow move to your head now? Talk about obsession!

[Lance Payette]

I understand the meanings of "plausible" and "possible".

If I typed "plausible", it was intentional.

In what sense - other than "Well, it coulda happened" - is Oswald carrying two wallets or someone planting an Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene "plausible"?

The Wikipedia entry on "Plausible Reasoning" is actually quite good.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_reasoning "Plausible reasoning proceeds from premises that are more plausible [or known] to a conclusion that was less plausible before the plausible argument." "Well, it coulda happened" is not the basis of a plausible inference.

Is there any foundation whatsoever for the speculation that Oswald was carrying two wallets? Is there any foundation whatsoever for someone having planted two wallets? Isn't the CT logic simply "There seems to be some confusion about a wallet [not necessarily an Oswald wallet at all] at the Tippit scene ... and, therefore, Oswald 'coulda' been carrying two wallets [which is of no help to CTers] or someone 'coulda' planted an Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene."

The fact that the Tippit scene wallet was an Oswald wallet is not a known premise or even a "more plausible" premise. It is in fact an exceedingly weak premise based on dubious and long-after-the-fact claims. If we KNEW the wallet was Oswald's and another one was found on him at the Texas Theater, then either of your scenarios might indeed be plausible - but we don't. You are speculating from an unknown and calling the speculation plausible. Given the chaos and confusion of 11-22-63, by far the more plausible scenario is that a wallet was indeed examined at the Tippit scene, as we might well have expected given all the citizen involvement, but was simply not an Oswald wallet.

The two things CTers never seem to do is (1) consider all the other implausibilities required to sustain their CT-oriented speculation, and (2) explain what sense their speculation would have made in the context of the JFKA as a whole. This was the point of my goofy little attempt above. Perhaps take us through your "Oswald was carrying two wallets" and "an Oswald wallet was planted" scenarios and see if they still sound plausible. The scenario has to include all the police confusion as well - i.e., why they didn't simply say Oswald was carrying two wallets?

[Martin Weidmann]

1. Yes Oswald's wallet.

2. ...found in the house of Ruth Paine LOL! You can't make this up!

3. ...found in the house of Ruth Paine Double LOL!! You really can't make this up.!!

4. Marina's wallet.

5. What, the decades old memory of a wallet of a potential murderer that was never broadcast on the Police radio and was never recorded, that wallet?? Hahahaha!

Btw Iacoletti, next time try harder, MUCH harder.

JohnM

a wallet of a potential murderer that was never broadcast on the Police radio

How could Westbrook know that the wallet Croy found belonged to a potential murderer?

and was never recorded, that wallet??

Just like the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car, which was never recorded in any contemporary report, right?

[Lance Payette]

inane one-liners with which you flood the forum when "Martin" allows you out of the sock puppet closet.

I was living rent free in John Mytton's head. Did I somehow move to your head now? Talk about obsession!

You raise an interesting metaphysical question: Who is the "you" who is living rent-free inside anyone's head?

An obsession? No, more of a fascination with what the psychology of the Multiple Sock Puppet Game could possibly be.

If "you" are actually denying that "you" are the various sock puppets that have been associated with "you" - surely "you" are not, are "you"? - this elevates the psychological issue to a whole new level.

I am currently running numerous algorithms through my High-Speed Swami PC in hopes of developing and marketing Sock Puppet Identifer software.

My current hypothesis is that all CTers on this forum are in fact "you." Those who wish to dispute this hypothesis will be required to provide birth certificates, which they may do by private message.

[Martin Weidmann]

You raise an interesting metaphysical question: Who is the "you" who is living rent-free inside anyone's head?

An obsession? No, more of a fascination with what the psychology of the Multiple Sock Puppet Game could possibly be.

If "you" are actually denying that "you" are the various sock puppets that have been associated with "you" - surely "you" are not, are "you"? - this elevates the psychological issue to a whole new level.

I am currently running numerous algorithms through my High-Speed Swami PC in hopes of developing and marketing Sock Puppet Identifer software.

My current hypothesis is that all CTers on this forum are in fact "you." Those who wish to dispute this hypothesis will be required to provide birth certificates, which they may do by private message.

You raise an interesting metaphysical question: Who is the "you" who is living rent-free inside anyone's head?

That's easy. I am the "you" that you, in your delusion, want me to be.

My current hypothesis is that all CTers on this forum are in fact "you."

Of course they are.... and a few LNs as well.