JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
The All-Important Curtain Rods
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on April 18, 2026, 11:35:36 PM ---.... The location where the bag was found, which was a location very near the window from which the President was shot. (And despite the fact that no pictures exist of the bag before it was picked up, multiple police officers did nevertheless testify they did see the bag folded up in the corner, near the Sniper's Nest.)
You are speculating, where you demanded that others should argue based on fact. None of this provides evidence of Oswald ever carrying that bag or that it ever left the TSBD. All it does is showning that Oswald touched a bag made out of TSBD materials, found at the TSBD on the floor where he worked.
--- End quote ---
You're just being obstinate. You refuse to accept any evidence that Oswald was double murderer. You will find any excuse to dismiss any and all evidence of his guilt. Your statement that "None of this provides evidence of Oswald ever carrying that bag" might be the lamest excuse you have ever made, which is saying something. Oswald's palm print at the bottom of the bag is proof positive he carried that bag. That palm print is exactly where it should be if he carried the bag cupped in his right had as Frazier described. You excuses keep getting more and more pathetic.
--- Quote ---
.... The two finger and palm prints belonging to Lee Oswald that were found on the CE142 paper bag, which prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald was in possession of that particular paper bag at some point in time.
No it doesn't prove that Oswald ever had that bag in possession. All it shows is that he touched it.
--- End quote ---
Unbelievable!!!
--- Quote ---
.... The fibers found inside the otherwise empty bag, which were consistent with fibers also present in the blanket that Oswald's rifle was known to have been wrapped in during the time the rifle was being stored in Ruth Paine's garage in Irving.
This is not even evidence at all. There are at least three evidence photos showing the bag and blanket lying on a table next to eachother. In the real world that means that the possibility of contamination destroys whatever evidentary value you think these fibers might have had.
--- End quote ---
A person interested in the truth would weigh that likelihood against the likelihood that Oswald's rifle transmitted the fibers to the bag. But you have no interest in the truth. You want your silly beliefs to be true. It's not working.
--- Quote ---
Secondly, we know no such thing that it was "Oswald's rifle" (whatever that means) that was ever wrapped in that blanket or was stored in Ruth Paine's garage. All we really know is that Marina looked in the blanket about a week after returning from New Orleans and she saw the wooden stock of a rifle, which later morphed into "she saw a rifle". After late September 1963 nobody saw a rifle wrapped in that blanket, which means it could have been removed between late September and 11/21/63. Claiming that that rifle, or even "Oswald's rifle" was stored in Ruth Paine's garage until 11/21/63 is assuming "facts" that are not in evidence. As to the "Oswald's rifle" claim, Marina was shown the rifle found on the 6th floor on Friday after the assassination and she couldn't identify it. I thought you were all about dealing with facts instead of speculating?
--- End quote ---
The intelligent people who are aware of the evidence know Oswald rifle was in that blanket and later transferred to Oswald's makeshift bag. I guess that leaves you out.
--- Quote ---
One more thing; of course we all know that the official narrative makes all sorts of claims that are really not supported by the evidence but put together tells a circumstantial story regardless if it is true or not. If you want to honestly deal with evidence you can not let yourself be guided by a narrative that (IMO) simply isn't credible.
--- End quote ---
Irony alert!
--- Quote ---
.... Oswald lies to the police about carrying any large-ish bag to work on 11/22. I can think of no good reason for Oswald to want to lie to the cops about taking a paper bag into the TSBD unless that bag in question contained the Kennedy murder weapon. After all, curtain rods can't very well be considered a deadly weapon, can they?
Who said Oswald lied? Were you there when he was asked or do we now simply rely on the words of his interrogators, despite the fact that they contradict eachother on several points. Can you please define "large-ish bag"? When Oswald is asked if he brought a large bag to the TSBD when in fact he only carried a small bag and thus say "No" is is he lying? Now, things might have been different if he was actually shown the TSBD bag, but that never happened. One can only wonder why!
--- End quote ---
Sherlock Holmes you ain't. Columbo you ain't. Your powers of reasoning are more like Inspector Clouseau's.
--- Quote ---
The fact that you can't figure out why he would lie about bringing a bag into the TSBD, is utterly meaningless. There are a great many things in life I don't understand but that doesn't mean I can just attach some sort of speculative conclusion to that! Of course, your claim that "the bag in question contained the Kennedy murder weapon" is nothing but speculation for which you can not provide a shred of evidence. It was you who was complaining about "wild speculation" right? Go figure.
--- End quote ---
The ability to reason and draw logical inferences from the evidence is not speculation. I wouldn't expect someone like you to be able to understand that.
--- Quote ---
And when we combine all of the above things with the critical fact that Oswald's own rifle (found on that same 6th floor of the TSBD on Nov. 22) was a weapon that positively was used by someone on that day to fire shots at President Kennedy, it's not too difficult to connect the dots.
When you combine all the above things you end up with a contrived conclusion that in reality doesn't connect any dots at all. You can throw it the "Oswald's rifle" bit in it, but all you are doing there is trying to give more credibility to your speculation and assumption by stating something as fact that you can't even conclusively prove!
--- End quote ---
Not to you, Clouseau.
--- Quote ---
And I'll again ask this question, which I've asked previously in forum posts but never have received a reasonable answer (or any answer, for that matter):
On any given day of the year (whether it be 11/22/63 or some other day), who is more likely to use Lee Harvey Oswald's very own Carcano rifle .... Lee Oswald himself or some unknown person?
Which assumes that the Carcano was in fact "Oswald's very own rifle", when all you have is questionable evidence that Oswald ordered it for himself, you have no evidence he ever received the weapon and you have Oswald being photographed apparently with a rifle that is not the one he allegedly ordered. And all that happened in March 1963. What happened to the rifle in the photos is anybody's guess.
[/quote}
This is getting comical. Just how dense are you if you are going to dispute that it's Oswald's rifle. There's a paper trail a mile long proving he ordered it. He had several photographs of himself taken with the rifle. His palm print was on the underside of the barrel. Fibers matching his shirt were on the butt plate. If that isn't enough to convince you it's Oswald's rifle. nothing ever could. You will continue to deny what is obvious to any reasonable person.
--- End quote ---
Your reply is disappointing, David
[/quote]
So is your inability to find the right answer for 2 + 2.
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: David Von Pein on April 19, 2026, 12:04:31 AM ---But your reply to my reply is even more disappointing, Martin. Especially this part (which is just downright laughable):
"No it doesn't prove that Oswald ever had that bag in [his] possession. All it shows is that he touched it."
(Oh brother!)
-------------------------------
Also see these related links:
--- End quote ---
Does this mean you can not counter anything I have said with credible comments?
"No it doesn't prove that Oswald ever had that bag in [his] possession. All it shows is that he touched it."
Without speculating, prove to me that Oswald ever had the 6th floor bag in his possession. I bet you can't!
Oh btw, David, I don't do propaganda!
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on April 19, 2026, 12:19:48 AM ---You're just being obstinate. You refuse to accept any evidence that Oswald was double murderer. You will find any excuse to dismiss any and all evidence of his guilt. Your statement that "None of this provides evidence of Oswald ever carrying that bag" might be the lamest excuse you have ever made, which is saying something. Oswald's palm print at the bottom of the bag is proof positive he carried that bag. That palm print is exactly where it should be if he carried the bag cupped in his right had as Frazier described. You excuses keep getting more and more pathetic.
Unbelievable!!!
A person interested in the truth would weight that likelihood against the likelihood that Oswald's rifle transmitted the fibers to the bag. But you have no interest in the truth. You want your silly beliefs to be true. It's not working.
The intelligent people who are aware of the evidence knows Oswald rifle was in that blanket and later transferred to Oswald's makeshift bag. I guess that leaves you out.
Irony alert!
Sherlock Holmes you ain't. Columbo you ain't. Your powers of reasoning are more like Inspector Clouseau's.
The ability to reason and draw logical inferences from the evidence is not speculation. I wouldn't expect someone like you to be able to understand that.
Not to you, Clouseau.
Your reply is disappointing, David
So is your inability to find the right answer for 2 + 2.
--- End quote ---
Could you please try to stay out the conversation when two grown ups are having a conversation.
David Von Pein:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on April 19, 2026, 12:29:30 AM ---Without speculating, prove to me that Oswald ever had the 6th floor bag in his possession. I bet you can't!
Oh btw, David, I don't do propaganda!
--- End quote ---
And I can see you don't do reasonable inferences or logical conclusions either.
Can you really not see how desperate you look when you say things like this?:
"No it doesn't prove that Oswald ever had that bag in [his] possession. All it shows is that he touched it."
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: David Von Pein on April 19, 2026, 12:48:11 AM ---And I can see you don't do reasonable inferences or logical conclusions either.
Can you really not see how desperate you look when you say things like this?:
"No it doesn't prove that Oswald ever had that bag in [his] possession. All it shows is that he touched it."
--- End quote ---
And I can see you don't do reasonable inferences or logical conclusions either.
With enough speculation and assumption you can create any "reality" you want. Doesn't mean it is reality!
Can you really not see how desperate you look when you say things like this?:
No, all I see is you expecting me to accept your speculation and assumptions as if they are fact.
Why are you not answering my question and show me the proof that Oswald ever had the 6th floor bag in his possession, instead of just touching it at some point?
Or is all you have is "reasonable inferences or logical conclusions"? You know, the kind you asked about;
--- Quote ---do you think it's possible to come up with a "reasonable and sensible" scenario that explains every piece of evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases WITHOUT having to resort to any of the things I mentioned in my last post?
Those things being: Fantasy, wild speculation, and tons of planted evidence and coerced witnesses.
Good luck in your efforts. For I don't think it's even remotely possible to accomplish that task.
--- End quote ---
It seems you have proven your own point! Without speculation you can't get to a "reasonable and sensible" scenario.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version