JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jerry Freeman on September 25, 2018, 04:20:09 AM
-
At the top of Mrs Paine's calendar March 1963 [CE 401] there is a star and a note 'LHO purchase of rifle'. This calendar was confiscated in a search.
Ruth Paine testified that she had no idea Oswald had acquired a rifle and that it had been supposedly wrapped up in a blanket lying on the floor of her garage [all that time]....at least not until November 22 when police came to search her house.
But Hey! Marina knew about it all that time-supposedly-but didn't tell her friend Ruth about it in case she walked out and tripped over it or something. My...the secrecy there.
~~Michael Paine testified that he had noticed a blanket with items in it but merely felt around it and determined that it must be camping equipment...supposedly.~~
His lies are another story...the question remains, how did Ruthie know that Harv bought a rifle on Mar 20?
Al Jenner- Commission attorney- asked about this...
Mr. JENNER - Now, I turn to March, and I direct your attention to the upper left-hand corner of that card, and it appears to me that in the upper left-hand corner are October 23, then a star, then "LHO" followed by the words "purchase of rifle." Would you explain those entries?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. This was written after.
Mr. JENNER - After?
Mrs. PAINE - This was written indeed after the assassination.
Mr. JENNER - All right.
Mrs. PAINE - I heard on the television that he had purchased a rifle.
Mr. JENNER - When?
Mrs. PAINE - I heard it on November 23.
Mr. JENNER - Yes.
Mrs. PAINE - And went back to the page for March, put a little star on March 20 as being a small square, I couldn't fit in all I wanted to say. I just put in a star and then referring it to the corner of the calendar.
Mr. JENNER - That is to the entry I have read?
Mrs. PAINE - Put the star saying "LHO purchase of rifle." Then I thought someone is going to wonder about that, I had better put down the date, and did, but it was a busy day, one of the most in my life and I was off by a month as to what day it was.
The rest of Ruthie's garbage can be read here.......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_r3.htm
Good luck wading through it all with a shovel because it makes absolutely no sense either.
Mr Jenner failed to ask the real toughie ...Why???...Why did she write that note?
How could she have not remembered Nov 23 [of all days]?
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0041b.jpg)
-
At the top of Mrs Paine's calendar March 1963 [CE 401] there is a star and a note 'LHO purchase of rifle'. This calendar was confiscated in a search.
Ruth Paine testified that she had no idea Oswald had acquired a rifle and that it had been supposedly wrapped up in a blanket lying on the floor of her garage [all that time]....at least not until November 22 when police came to search her house.
But Hey! Marina knew about it all that time-supposedly-but didn't tell her friend Ruth about it in case she walked out and tripped over it or something. My...the secrecy there.
~~Michael Paine testified that he had noticed a blanket with items in it but merely felt around it and determined that it must be camping equipment...supposedly.~~
His lies are another story...the question remains, how did Ruthie know that Harv bought a rifle on Mar 20?
Al Jenner- Commission attorney- asked about this... The rest of Ruthie's garbage can be read here.......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_r3.htm
Good luck wading through it all with a shovel because it makes absolutely no sense either.
Mr Jenner failed to ask the real toughie ...Why???...Why did she write that note?
How could she have not remembered Nov 23 [of all days]?
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0041b.jpg)
At the top of Mrs Paine's calendar March 1963 [CE 401] there is a star and a note 'LHO purchase of rifle'. This calendar was confiscated in a search.
The calendar was confiscated on the afternoon of the coup d e'tat, 11 / 22/63....and it wasn't returned to Paine for several days.....(The police kept all of the evidence until they had time to examine it)
So Ruth Paine could NOT have made that entry on 11/23 /63..... She made that note on her calendar after visiting Marina at 214 Neeley when she noticed the Rifle in the Oswald's apartment. Since she was an informer for the FBI and assigned to keep an eye on them because Hoover suspected that they were communist spies, the rifle would have been something that she would want to report to Hoover. She made that note on her calendar so she would not forget it the next time the FBI called on her.
Good luck wading through it all with a shovel because it makes absolutely no sense either.
Mr Jenner failed to ask the real toughie ...Why???...Why did she write that note?
Jenner knew the situation.....LBJ's cover up committee wasn't ordered to find the truth...they were ordered to convince the public that the patsy was actually guilty, and cover up any evidence to the contrary.
-
I understand that Mrs. Paine added the note ?LHO purchase of rifle? to the top of the March 1963 page after November 22, 1963, after she learned about this from others.
Can anyone prove that she wrote this note before November 22, 1963? And not after the police returned the calendar to her?
It is important to note that the burden of proof is on the CT side. They are claiming that Mrs. Paine knew of the rifle before November 22. So, they must prove this not was written before November 22, 1963. Otherwise they have no proof.
-
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) assassinated President John F. Kennedy (JFK) on November 22, 1963. They also claimed that he used an Italian Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) to accomplish this deed.
They further claimed that the rifle had been ordered through the mail from a Chicago mail-order house by the name of Klein?s Sporting Goods (KSG). This topic has been covered in many ways in this series already, therefore, this post is going to focus on this topic from a different angle.
One of the main witnesses that the WC utilized to attempt to make LHO appear guilty was Ruth Paine. The purpose of this post is to look at the topic of the rifle order in conjunction with Ruth Paine.
******************************************
Ruth Paine was a key witness for the WC as she provided them with a lot of testimony. She also provided them with a lot of evidence from her house and garage even though the Dallas Police Department (DPD) had searched those areas twice already.
The evidence that she ?found? after the DPD had thoroughly searched her house and garage is as follows:
1) The Imperial Reflex camera. This camera was allegedly found by her in early December 1963, but instead of giving it to the DPD she gave it to LHO?s brother Robert Oswald. He then felt no compulsion to turn it over to the DPD until February 1964. This camera was alleged to belong to LHO and was used by the WC to try and tie him to the assassination and the General Edwin A. Walker (EAW) shooting. How? They claimed that the only two times that it was used by LHO was to allegedly take the reconnaissance photographs of EAW?s house and the Backyard photographs (BYPs).
2) The alleged note that LHO supposedly left for Marina Oswald telling her what to do in an emergency. The WC said this was left because LHO was planning on, and did, shoot at EAW. The main problem with this claim (besides there being no supporting evidence) was that the note never mentions EAW.
3) A suitcase that was needed to try and tie LHO to a bus headed for Mexico City. The problem that the WC faced regarding the one Ruth Paine ?found? is that not one witness could be found to say that they saw LHO carrying it.
4) The other piece of evidence that the WC utilized with Ruth Paine was her personal calendar. This calendar was taken by the FBI and never returned to Ruth Paine. The WC was simply given a version that had been photographed and they designated this Commission Exhibit (CE) 401.
CE 401: http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0039a.htm
We have been told that LHO allegedly ordered the rifle on March 13, 1963, by the WC in their Report.
Quote on
According to its microfilm records, Klein?s received an order for a rifle on March 13, 1963, on a coupon clipped from the February 1963 issue of the American Rifleman magazine. The order coupon was signed, in handprinting, ?A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas.? (WCR, p. 119)
http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0072a.htm
Quote off
If we go to Ruth Paine?s calendar for March 1963 we won?t find any notation regarding this alleged activity by LHO and rightly so. How would she know what he was doing then since Marina Oswald was not living with her at that time.
CE 401/March: http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0041b.htm
What we do find however is something very confusing and very enlightening. There is a ?☆? on the box for March 20, 1963. In the upper right hand corner we see ?☆ ? LHO purchase of rifle?. To the left of this notation we see another notation that says ?Oct. 23?. Here is Ruth Paine?s testimony regarding these notations.
Mr. JENNER - Now, I turn to March, and I direct your attention to the upper left-hand corner of that card, and it appears to me that in the upper left-hand corner are October 23, then a star, then "LHO" followed by the words "purchase of rifle." Would you explain those entries?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. This was written after.
Mr. JENNER - After?
Mrs. PAINE - This was written indeed after the assassination.
Mr. JENNER - All right.
Mrs. PAINE ? I heard on the television that he had purchased a rifle.
Mr. JENNER - When?
Mrs. PAINE ? I heard it on November 23.
Mr. JENNER - Yes.
Mrs. PAINE - And went back to the page for March, put a little star on March 20 as being a small square, I couldn't fit in all I wanted to say. I just put in a star and then referring it to the corner of the calendar.
Mr. JENNER - That is to the entry I have read?
Mrs. PAINE - Put the star saying "LHO purchase of rifle." Then I thought someone is going to wonder about that, I had better put down the date, and did, but it was a busy day, one of the most in my life and I was off by a month as to what day it was.
Mr. JENNER - That is you made the entry October?
Mrs. PAINE ? October 23 instead of November.
Mr. JENNER - It should have been November 23?
Mrs. PAINE ? It should have been November 23.
Mr. JENNER - And the entry of October 23, which should have been November 23, was an entry on your part indicating the date you wrote on the calendar the star followed by "LHO purchase of rifle" and likewise the date you made an entry?
Mrs. PAINE - On the 20th.
Mr. JENNER - This is the square having the date March 20
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Is that correct?
Mrs. PAINE - I might point out that I didn't know Lee had a middle name until I had occasion to fill out forms for Marina in Parkland Hospital.
Mr. JENNER - That is when you learned that his middle name was Harvey and his initial was H?
Mrs. PAINE - Right.
Where to begin? So she said that she heard on television on November 23, 1963, that LHO purchased a rifle on March 20, 1963. If she did she was given incorrect information as we have seen the date the WC claimed that the KSG records showed was March 13, 1963.
Even if November 23, 1963, was the busiest day of her life as she says, how do you forget the date since the previous day was one where the President had been assassinated? November 22, 1963, is one of the most important days of our country?s history. It is up there with May 1, 1776, April 12, 1861, December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001. But we are asked to believe that as she sat and watched television coverage of the president?s assassination, and DPD people were searching her house and garage she somehow thought that it was October? Really?
Then she makes the comment about ?someone wondering about this?. Why? Why would she think anyone would care about her calendar the day after the assassination? What did her calendar have to do with the assassination? Clearly the DPD had no interest in it since they did not seize it during their searches on November 22 and 23. So who was the ?someone? that she was worried about?
Another key question is when did she hear this on November 23? Since this supposed rifle order was in the name of ?A. Hidell? it wouldn?t have been until early evening that the media would have gotten word from the DPD that LHO was supposedly this person. If the media was so thorough in this area, why were they so poor in the alleged order date area?
What if she really did learn about the order on October 23, 1963, as her notation suggests? How could she have learned about the order before the assassination? One could say that LHO told her himself, but this is doubtful for several reasons. Firstly, he denied ever ordering or owning a rifle and the evidence that the WC provided us with supports his statement. Secondly, LHO and Ruth Paine had a cool relationship so it seems doubtful that he would share this kind of information with her. Thirdly, and most importantly, if she transported the rifle to New Orleans and back to Dallas as the WC claimed, why wouldn?t he have told her about the order sooner than October 23? To me it seems doubtful that LHO would have told her this kind of information due to their cool relationship and the fact that he never ordered CE 139 as claimed. If not LHO, then who could have told her about the alleged order?
Another question that has not been answered is the one about her comment regarding LHO?s middle name. She testified that she did not know his middle name until she filled out forms for Marina Oswald at Parkland Hospital (PH). The only time that she could have done this was following the shooting of LHO on November 24, 1963, as he was in the Dallas County jail the rest of his time of incarceration. Given this fact, how could she know that his middle initial was ?H? on November 23 to make the notation of ?LHO purchased rifle?? How could she know on November 23, or October 23 for that matter, that his monogram was L.H.O. if she didn?t know his middle name as she said in her testimony?
[Note: It was noted after I posted this on the old version of this board that perhaps Ruth Paine could have learned of Oswald's middle name during the birth of his second child. That is possible, but I still find it odd that she would use all three initials when it seems more normal to use "LO" on a personal calendar. The government is more known for using the middle initial. Was this part of her training?]
To me this is just another hint that her story is not truthful. Keep in mind that the FBI took this calendar and only provided the WC with a photographic copy for testimony. There is a possibility that things could have been added to the calendar while in their custody.
To me the incorrect date of the order is another possible hint as it is a week off, and it seems unlikely that this type of detailed information would have been transferred to the media that quickly. All the DPD had to say is that he owned the rifle. At most they could say that it was ordered in March, but there was no need for an exact date. Another important point was that the DPD had nothing to do with the ?discovery? of the rifle order. This was solely the work of the FBI and they were tightlipped about what they shared with the DPD.
KSG?s William Waldman testified that the FBI took the microfilm that supposedly contained the alleged order by LHO.
Mr. BELIN. I'm handing you what has been marked as an FBI Exhibit D-77 and ask you if you know what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is a microfilm record that---of mail order transactions for a given period of time. It was turned over by us to the FBI.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know when it was turned over to the FBI?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was turned over to them on November 23, 1963.
This was key evidence that the FBI took possession of wnen they had NO jurisdiction! There is serious doubt that Waldman ever saw this alleged order when it was ?found? on the morning of November 23, 1963. He wasn?t asked this important question by the WC when he testified, thus, that pretty much indicates that he wasn?t shown the alleged order by the FBI agents.
The other KSG employee present, Mitchell Scibor, wasn?t asked this question either when he testified. None of the three FBI agents were called by the WC. I wonder why? The rifle is the key piece of evidence as if you can?t put CE 139 in LHO?s hands, and they couldn?t, you have no case against LHO. Clearly, if the rifle order had been found in a legal and ethical manner then the WC would not have been so shy about this matter.
The evidence seen in this post again illustrates the lengths the authorities would go to in order to make LHO appear guilty of assassinating JFK. They also had some key witnesses like Ruth Paine ready and willing to help make LHO appear guilty.
Once again we see evidence that raises serious doubts about the WC?s claims and conclusion, thus, they are sunk.
-
if she didn?t know his middle name as she said in her testimony?
Mrs Paine knew Oswald's full name [probably before she ever met him]
This exclamation was blurted out to divert the questioning about the rifle purchase note...
Why she made that note is something no one can even guess. It is strange...weird...but no matter how bizarre or unbelievable a puzzle is--if it supports the official yarn, the nutters will kneel down and worship it as the one true account.
Mr. JENNER - This is the square having the date March 20?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Is that correct?
Mrs. PAINE - I might point out that I didn't know Lee had a middle name until I had occasion to fill out forms for Marina in Parkland Hospital.
Mr. JENNER - That is when you learned that his middle name was Harvey and his initial was H?
Mrs. PAINE - Right.
Now who in hell asked Paine about that?
Jenner played along...change the subject. It was obvious.
In her resumed testimony, why did Mrs Paine call Lee... 'Harvey'?
Mr. JENNER - Whenever this doesn't include Lee Harvey Oswald would you be good enough to tell us?
Mrs. PAINE - When he was not present?
Mr. JENNER - That is right.
Mrs. PAINE - My recollection is that he was present most of the weekend. He went out to buy groceries, came in with a cheery call to his two girls, saying, "Yabutchski," which means girls, the Russian word for girls, as he came in the door. It was more like Harvey than I had seen him before. He remembered this time. I saw him reading a pocketbook.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/paine_r2.htm
See? She knew his name. She knew a lot of stuff.
-
Mrs Paine knew Oswald's full name [probably before she ever met him]
Evidence?
This exclamation was blurted out to divert the questioning about the rifle purchase note...
Evidence?
Why she made that note is something no one can even guess. It is strange...weird...but no matter how bizarre or unbelievable a puzzle is--if it supports the official yarn, the nutters will kneel down and worship it as the one true account.Now who in hell asked Paine about that?
Not strange at all. She heard that Oswald had ordered the rifle and later noted it in the calendar. Nothing unbelievable about that.
Jenner played along...change the subject. It was obvious.
Evidence?
In her resumed testimony, why did Mrs Paine call Lee... 'Harvey'?http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/paine_r2.htm
See? She knew his name. She knew a lot of stuff.
Millions knew Oswald as ?Lee Harvey Oswald? after November 22, 1963. You claim she called him Harvey because she knew his full name since before March 1963, which is why she shortened to ?Harvey?. Why couldn?t it be because she knew him by that name on November 22, 1963.
Question:
How does her referring to him as ?Harvey? show she first knew his full name before March 1963 and not that she first learned of his full name on November 22, 1963?
-
The cops said that they confiscated the calendar that afternoon.... The story is that one of the cops ( Gus Rose?) was looking at that calendar as hung on the wall and noticed the entry for "LHO purchase of rifle" and that's the primary reason they took the calendar. There is a photo of the "evidence" on the floor of the Police station and the calendar is in the photo ....
Any evidence for this story?
Was a photograph taken of the page for the month of March 1963 while the calendar was in police custody?
Who said ?LHO purchase of rifle? was the reason for taking the calendar? Who wrote down this quote?
-
Mrs Paine knew Oswald's full name [probably before she ever met him]
This exclamation was blurted out to divert the questioning about the rifle purchase note...
Why she made that note is something no one can even guess. It is strange...weird...but no matter how bizarre or unbelievable a puzzle is--if it supports the official yarn, the nutters will kneel down and worship it as the one true account.Now who in hell asked Paine about that?
Jenner played along...change the subject. It was obvious.
In her resumed testimony, why did Mrs Paine call Lee... 'Harvey'?http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/paine_r2.htm
See? She knew his name. She knew a lot of stuff.
Ruth Paine is one of the keys to this case. The calendar yarn is also interesting and informative.
-
Evidence?
Evidence?
Not strange at all. She heard that Oswald had ordered the rifle and later noted it in the calendar. Nothing unbelievable about that.Evidence?
Millions knew Oswald as ?Lee Harvey Oswald? after November 22, 1963. You claim she called him Harvey because she knew his full name since before March 1963, which is why she shortened to ?Harvey?. Why couldn?t it be because she knew him by that name on November 22, 1963.
Question:
How does her referring to him as ?Harvey? show she first knew his full name before March 1963 and not that she first learned of his full name on November 22, 1963?
Why not share with us, using the evidence, when and how Ruth Paine heard about the rifle order?
-
Author=Joe Elliott link=topic=1292.msg32503#msg32503 date=1537927788]
Evidence? Evidence? Not strange at all.
Further illustrating my point.
You claim she called him Harvey because she knew his full name since before March 1963, which is why she shortened to ?Harvey?. Why couldn?t it be because she knew him by that name on November 22, 1963.
Re-read the post..I made no such claim.
Read her testimony [which you apparently haven't]
Her use at that time of the name Harvey was referring to Oswald when they were all in New Orleans.
Question:How does her referring to him as ?Harvey? show she first knew his full name before March 1963 and not that she first learned of his full name on November 22, 1963?
Read her own testimony...she knew his name long before 11/22/63.
-
Have been trying to find more about what was in the metal filing cabinets taken from the Paine house...
Neither Michael or Ruth were asked about these files that contained 'names and activities of Cuban sympathizers'...
(https://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/17/60/28/90/filesc10.gif)
-
Ruth Paine is one of the keys to this case.
If Ruth who was a very intelligent eyewitness was so inclined she could have stopped all this BS 54 years ago.
If Ruth said Oswald beat Marina....
If Ruth said Oswald threatened her....
If Ruth said the rifle was in her garage...
If Ruth said Oswald took his blanket covered rifle out for a walk....
If Ruth said that Oswald hated Kennedy...
If Ruth said she heard Oswald plotting to kill Kennedy...
If Ruth said she saw Oswald wrapping his rifle in Brown paper....
If Ruth said she saw Oswald with a long brown paper package on the 22nd....
JohnM
-
It seems like Ruth was up to her eyeballs in the goings-on of this plot to kill JFK . She was CIA . No doubt !
-
.... Ruth who was a very intelligent eyewitness...
Evidence?
-
Not strange at all. She heard that Oswald had ordered the rifle and later noted it in the calendar. Nothing unbelievable about that.
On October 23rd??
-
If Ruth who was a very intelligent eyewitness was so inclined she could have stopped all this BS 54 years ago.
If Ruth said Oswald beat Marina....
If Ruth said Oswald threatened her....
If Ruth said the rifle was in her garage...
If Ruth said Oswald took his blanket covered rifle out for a walk....
If Ruth said that Oswald hated Kennedy...
If Ruth said she heard Oswald plotting to kill Kennedy...
If Ruth said she saw Oswald wrapping his rifle in Brown paper....
If Ruth said she saw Oswald with a long brown paper package on the 22nd....
JohnM
She could have made a bunch of unsupported claims like Marina did, but it wouldn't have made LHO guilty.
-
I understand that Mrs. Paine added the note ?LHO purchase of rifle? to the top of the March 1963 page after November 22, 1963, after she learned about this from others.
Can anyone prove that she wrote this note before November 22, 1963? And not after the police returned the calendar to her?
It is important to note that the burden of proof is on the CT side. They are claiming that Mrs. Paine knew of the rifle before November 22. So, they must prove this not was written before November 22, 1963. Otherwise they have no proof.
The burning question to me is not "Did Mrs Paine write "the rifle was purchased" on the calendar before Nov 22?
The question I have is why did she even write something like that on her calendar at all?
It seems really like such a senseless thing to do.
-
The burning question to me is not "Did Mrs Paine write "the rifle was purchased" on the calendar before Nov 22?
The question I have is why did she even write something like that on her calendar at all?
It seems really like such a senseless thing to do.
Not senseless for an FBI informer..... She knew that Lee had ordered the rifle and she wanted to tell the FBI on their next visit to her house...Thus she made the note in March on her calendar.
PS..... The notation in the upper left corner of Ruthie's calendar does not look like "Nov 23" ......It seems to be Oct 23. The last letter is definitely a "T" .... And the abbreviation for November (Nov) does not end with a "T'
-
Not senseless for an FBI informer..... She knew that Lee had ordered the rifle and she wanted to tell the FBI on their next visit to her house...Thus she made the note in March on her calendar.
Were that true then she would have written...'Oswald orders guns'
Hidell 'ordered' the guns [allegedly]
The Red Herring-------------
(https://www.kennedysandking.com/images/2020/josephs-capa/CAPA_14.png)
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-the-carbine-on-the-6th-floor
-
Were that true then she would have written...'Oswald orders guns'
Hidell 'ordered' the guns [allegedly]
The Red Herring-------------
(https://www.kennedysandking.com/images/2020/josephs-capa/CAPA_14.png)
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-the-carbine-on-the-6th-floor
Were that true then she would have written...'Oswald orders guns'
I'm not following .... I don't understand.....
WHY? Would Ruthie have written Oswald orders "Guns".....
There's no evidence that Marina told Ruthie about her foolish husband ordering "Guns".... At at time when they barely had enough money to exist. I believe that Marina did complain to Ruthie about Lee spending money for a rifle....
-
I believe that Marina did complain to Ruthie about Lee spending money for a rifle....
Then why would Ms Paine deny any knowledge of this rifle?
Also Marina testified that she kept the existence of this alleged rifle from Ruth.
[Preposterous as this might all seem]
-
The burning question to me is not "Did Mrs Paine write "the rifle was purchased" on the calendar before Nov 22?
The question I have is why did she even write something like that on her calendar at all?
It seems really like such a senseless thing to do.
What difference does it make unless you are suggesting Paine was involved in a conspiracy? Something I recall that you deny despite being fixated on her and suspicious of her every action for some unspecified reason! LOL. Maybe check her WC testimony. She noted this information after seeing it reported on television meaning to note the date she learned of it as Nov. 23 instead of Oct. 23. Obviously, she was acquainted with Oswald and Marina and was interested in understanding the timeline of events. Placing the purchase date of the rifle in her calendar gave her some means of reference to her memory of events.
-
It seems like Ruth was up to her eyeballs in the goings-on of this plot to kill JFK . She was CIA . No doubt !
Ruthie not tell truthie .... Ruthie may have been affiliated with the both the CIA, and FBI....
I'm quite sure she was an informer for the FBI.
-
What difference does it make ....?
Apparently it depends upon how much fat you have between your ears. Placing the purchase date of the rifle in her calendar gave her some means of reference to her memory of events.
Really? Why would she need that? I would think a copy of the newspapers would be enough.
With you there's naive or absolutely nothing at all. Mostly the latter.
Why not quit while you're still behind?
-
Apparently it depends upon how much fat you have between your ears. Really? Why would she need that? I would think a copy of the newspapers would be enough.
With you there's naive or absolutely nothing at all. Mostly the latter.
Why not quit while you're still behind?
Why not quit while you're still behind?
What?? Quit and lose that nice addition to his bank account every month...... You silly boy.
-
I'm quite sure she was an informer for the FBI.
Here is a snippet of pickled red herring for you...
(https://i.ibb.co/9sh1Pdt/oswald-letter.png)
Mr. JENNER - When was the first time that you heard, or had any notice of the fact that this man had been in Mexico, or possibly may have been in Mexico?
Mrs. PAINE - They are two different questions. I will answer the first one. I heard that he had been in Mexico after the assassination in one of the papers.
You don't "hear" from reading a newspaper.
Mr. JENNER - Was that the first time?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; that was the first time. Looking back then, with that knowledge, I could see that I might have guessed this from two other things, that had happened.
Mr. JENNER - All right, give us them in sequence, please.
Mrs. PAINE - One was, I can describe by an incident that took place at our home, I am not certain which weekend, one of the times that Lee was out. He wanted to drill a hole in a silver coin for Marina so she could wear it around her neck, and presumed to use my husband's drill press, which is one of the many things in the garage, and I complained. But he convinced me that he knew how to operate it and knew just what he was doing.
So I said, all right, and he proceeded to drill a hole in this coin, and then Marina showed it to me later. I didn't look closely at it. It wasn't until--although I could have perfectly well in this situation. I did see that it was a foreign coin.
Mr. JENNER - It was a what?
Mrs. PAINE - It was a foreign coin. It was not a coin I recognized. It was about the size of a silver dollar, but not as thick, as I remember it. And it was not then until perhaps a week or something less after the assassination when an, FBI agent asked me was there anything left in the house that would be pertinent, and he and I went together and looked in the drawer in the room where Marina had been staying, and found there this drilled coin, looked at it closely, and it was a peso, the Republic of Mexico. This is the first I had looked at it closely. Also, with this peso was a Spanish-English Dictionary.
My tendency to be very hesitant to look into other people's things was rather put aside at this point, and I was very curious to see what this book was, and I observed that the price of it, or what I took to be the price was in a corner at the front was not in English money, and at the back in his hand or somebody's hand in small scribble was the notation, "Buy tickets for bull fight, get silver bracelet for Marina" and there in the drawer also was a silver bracelet with the name Marina on it, which I took to be associated with this notation.
Mr. JENNER - Was it inscribed on the bracelet?
Mrs. PAINE - It was inscribed, the name Marina. And some picture post-cards with no message, just a picture of Mexico City in this dictionary, and these I gave to the FBI agent.
Mr. JENNER - Had you seen any of these items in your home at anytime prior to this occasion that you have now described?
Mrs. PAINE - None of these items except the peso which I had not noticed to be that, seen it, of course.
Mr. JENNER - Now, that is one incident.
Mrs. PAINE - That is one incident. Another refers to a rough draft of a letter that Lee wrote and left this rough draft on my secretary desk.
Mr. JENNER - Would you describe the incident? In the meantime, I will obtain the rough draft here among my notes.
Mrs. PAINE - All right. This was on the morning of November 9, Saturday. He asked to use my typewriter, and I said he might.
Mr. JENNER - Excuse me. Would you please. state to the Commission why you are reasonably firm that it was the morning of November 9? What arrests your attention to that particular date?
Mrs. PAINE - Because I remember the weekend that this note or rough draft remained on my secretary desk. He spent the weekend on it. And the weekend was close and its residence on that desk was stopped also on the evening of Sunday, the 10th, when I moved everything in the living room around; the whole arrangement of the furniture was changed, so that I am very clear in my mind as to what weekend this was.
Mr. JENNER - All right, go ahead.
Mrs. PAINE - He was using the typewriter. I came and put June in her high-chair near him at the table where he was typing, and he moved something over what he was typing from, which aroused my curiosity.
Mr. JENNER - Why did that arouse your curiosity?
Mrs. PAINE - It appeared he didn't want me to see what he was writing or to whom he was writing. I didn't know why he had covered it. If I had peered around him, I could have looked at the typewriter and the page in it, but I didn't.
Mr. JENNER - It did make you curious?
Mrs. PAINE - It did make me curious. Then, later that day, I noticed a scrawling handwriting on a piece of paper on the corner at the top of my secretary desk in the living room. It remained there.
Sunday morning I was the first one up. I took a closer look at this, a folded sheet of paper folded at the middle. The first sentence arrested me because I knew it to be false. And for this reason I then proceeded--
Mr. JENNER - Would you just hold it at that moment. This is for purposes of identification....
Jenner failed to allow Paine to complete her statement "For this reason I then proceeded". Why did he do that?
To shorten the post somewhat Mrs Paine stated that she first "heard" of Oswald's Mexico trip when she read it in the newspapers AFTER the assassination. Yet she saw the letter that Oswald was working on referring to the same incident BEFORE the assassination.
Can someone clarify that?
Who typed that final draft [above] of the letter?
-
Who typed that final draft [above] of the letter?
OK yes I know the FBI typed it but who exactly was not identified and then again...why retype it anyway?
There was this---
(https://i.ibb.co/6w2zzqJ/Screenshot-2022-06-05-at-23-41-44-show-Doc-html.png) (https://ibb.co/1Q3114J)
And this 'draft' [which Mrs Paine claimed she saw] and by all means revealed a certain recent travel to Mexico.
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/a7ff/2iqc47nb6wy30onzg.jpg)
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/a62b/29mi8qxajawmbmlzg.jpg)
Why would Oswald write...."the birth of a daughter to my wife" instead of 'the birth of my daughter'?
-
Apparently it depends upon how much fat you have between your ears. Really? Why would she need that? I would think a copy of the newspapers would be enough.
With you there's naive or absolutely nothing at all. Mostly the latter.
Why not quit while you're still behind?
Again, why does it matter if you don't believe she was involved in any conspiracy? What point are you trying to make by understanding her subjective motivation for this action (whether you think it makes sense or not)? Can you tell us that much instead of personal commentary and insults? By noting the date in her calendar, it provides her a context to remember the timeframe by associating it with other events going on in her life. Most people can't remember daily details of events that took place months beforehand without some prompting like a calendar. She was likely curious if there was anything she could remember about Oswald's conduct that was noteworthy around that timeframe.
-
At the top of Mrs Paine's calendar March 1963 [CE 401] there is a star and a note 'LHO purchase of rifle'. This calendar was confiscated in a search.
The calendar was confiscated on the afternoon of the coup d e'tat, 11 / 22/63....and it wasn't returned to Paine for several days.....(The police kept all of the evidence until they had time to examine it)
So Ruth Paine could NOT have made that entry on 11/23 /63.....
Yet through the ordeal of her days of testimony...she was asked absolutely nothing about it after a tedious search as there were hours spent exploring the history of her life. Why that was... is anyone's guess.
.... it depends upon how much fat you have between your ears.
..it depends upon how much fat.. air.. ozone.. vacuum you have between your ears.
No insults there are directed to anyone in particular.
-
Yet through the ordeal of her days of testimony...she was asked absolutely nothing about it after a tedious search as there were hours spent exploring the history of her life. Why that was... is anyone's guess. ..it depends upon how much fat.. air.. ozone.. vacuum you have between your ears.
No insults there are directed to anyone in particular.
She was specifically asked about the calendar notation by the WC and explained. Again, though, after you had a tantrum denying that you ever suggested that Paine had been involved in a conspiracy, why does this matter? It's unclear what point you are trying to make in understanding her subjective motivations. And you have thus far refused to explain.
-
I stand corrected on the relevant testimony--
Mr. JENNER - Now, I turn to March, and I direct your attention to the upper left-hand corner of that card, and it appears to me that in the upper left-hand corner are October 23, then a star, then "LHO" followed by the words "purchase of rifle." Would you explain those entries?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. This was written after.
Mr. JENNER - After?
Mrs. PAINE - This was written indeed after the assassination.
Mr. JENNER - All right.
Mrs. PAINE - I heard on the television that he had purchased a rifle.
Mr. JENNER - When?
Mrs. PAINE - I heard it on November 23.
Mr. JENNER - Yes.
Mrs. PAINE - And went back to the page for March, put a little star on March 20 as being a small square, I couldn't fit in all I wanted to say. I just put in a star and then referring it to the corner of the calendar.
Mr. JENNER - That is to the entry I have read?
Mrs. PAINE - Put the star saying "LHO purchase of rifle." Then I thought someone is going to wonder about that, I had better put down the date, and did, but it was a busy day, one of the most in my life and I was off by a month as to what day it was.
Mr. JENNER - That is you made the entry October?
Mrs. PAINE - October 23 instead of November.
Mr. JENNER - It should have been November 23?
Mrs. PAINE - It should have been November 23.
Mr. JENNER - And the entry of October 23, which should have been November 23, was an entry on your part indicating the date you wrote on the calendar the star followed by "LHO purchase of rifle" and likewise the date you made an entry?
Mrs. PAINE - On the 20th.
Mr. JENNER - This is the square having the date March 20?
-
She was specifically asked about the calendar notation by the WC and explained. Again, though, after you had a tantrum ..
The testimony was already posted on the first page of this thread and I missed it.
I had a "tantrum"? :D
Forgot to mention that Ms Paine did not explain why she made that entry.
-
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
And we haven't even gotten to the most bizarre point of all: the calendar with the rifle delivery marking.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If Ruth Paine was really the vile patsy-framing vixen and conspirator that Jim DiEugenio thinks she was, then why on Earth would Ruth, PRIOR to President Kennedy's murder, have written a note on her March 1963 calendar saying "LHO purchase of rifle"?
Does Jimbo think "Ruthy" was leaving a little bread crumb of conspiratorial proof for future researchers to find, so that those researchers can scream these words with delight -- "Aha! I told you Ruth Paine was a liar!"?
Can anyone (even conspiracy mongers like Jim D.) REALLY believe Ruth would do something so utterly stupid?
Evidently Jimbo CAN believe that Mrs. Paine would be so foolish -- because it's obvious that DiEugenio DOES believe that Ruth Paine wrote the words "LHO purchase of rifle" on her calendar BEFORE the assassination ever took place.
Which, therefore, must also mean that DiEugenio believes that Ruth was privy to the "March 20th" date of Oswald's rifle purchase PRIOR to the time when Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry made that date of 3/20/63 known to the public on national television on November 23, 1963.
So, Jimbo, tell us how Ruth became aware of that "March 20" information prior to 11/23/63? Was she in cahoots with Klein's Sporting Goods too? Or did the evil FBI furnish her with that exact date? Or could it be that it was Ruth Paine HERSELF who faked and manufactured Waldman Exhibit No. 7? Maybe it was Ruth herself who wrote "3/20/63" on that Klein's document. Is that how she knew the date prior to November 23rd, Jimbo?
JIM DiEUGENIO LATER SAID:
More blather.
I am waiting for someone to show me where I was wrong [re: Ruth Paine]. .... Please show me with specifics from the book [Destiny Betrayed, 2nd Edition].
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're wrong about everything relating to JFK's assassination, Jim. That's fairly obvious.
And I want YOU, Jimbo, to prove to me that Ruth Paine had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with "planting" Lee Harvey Oswald in the Book Depository Building as part of a pre-arranged plot to frame Oswald for the murder of John F. Kennedy.
Because as far as I can see, if THAT critical portion of your silly "Paine Framed Lee" plot collapses (as it certainly must collapse when the facts surrounding Oswald getting his TSBD job are evaluated in a reasonable manner), then the rest of your suspicions about Ruth and her sister and the DeMohrenschildts and the CIA and the camera (which is a really silly extension of your theory, since we KNOW, scientifically, that that camera DID take the backyard photos of LHO) crumbles into that foundation of mush that you've built it on in the first place.
In other words -- Jim DiEugenio has his suspicions. Nothing more.
And as we all should know by now when talking about the suspicions put forth by JFK conspiracy theorists, "suspicions" about someone do not equal "facts". Far from it, in fact. Particularly when the person who has those suspicions is James DiEugenio of Los Angeles.
I mean, come on, Jimbo thinks Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Frazier lied about Oswald having ANY BAG AT ALL on the morning of 11/22/63. That theory of Jimbo's, all by itself, should cause anyone to cast some "suspicion" on Jim DiEugenio's ability to reasonably assess ANY evidence connected with the death of JFK. (Shouldn't it?)
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
Yawn.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I'm sleepy too, Jimbo. Especially after reading your latest batch of "suspicions" in your last post.
Lurkers -- Please note how Jimbo will never be able to REASONABLY put Ruth Paine in the middle of a "Let's Frame Oswald" plot when it comes to the topic of how (and WHEN) Oswald obtained his Depository job.
Key word there -- "Reasonably".
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
LOL. ROTF.
This is the guy who tried to distract from the Adams affidavit. Until I blew that up.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Jimbo likes to think he has blown things up, when, in fact, he hasn't even lit the match.
This whole "Adams" thing goes directly to Jimbo's theory that Ruth Paine (some how, some way--even though we know it was impossible, as already proven) had a desire to PLANT Lee Oswald in the TSBD for the express purpose of framing him for JFK's murder.
Let me repeat that (just in case some people reading this don't realize the sheer craziness of such a notion; not to mention the fact that it's a disgusting and vile allegation against a woman who did NOTHING of the kind; but such allegations against innocent people don't seem to bother DiEugenio in the slightest):
James DiEugenio thinks that Ruth Paine was able to plant (and DID plant) Lee H. Oswald in the Depository for the specific purpose of being able to frame Oswald for the 11/22/63 murder of the President of the United States.
Whew!
And Jimbo doesn't even BLUSH! That's remarkable.
More:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html
-
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
And we haven't even gotten to the most bizarre point of all: the calendar with the rifle delivery marking.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If Ruth Paine was really the vile patsy-framing vixen and conspirator that Jim DiEugenio thinks she was, then why on Earth would Ruth, PRIOR to President Kennedy's murder, have written a note on her March 1963 calendar saying "LHO purchase of rifle"?
Does Jimbo think "Ruthy" was leaving a little bread crumb of conspiratorial proof for future researchers to find, so that those researchers can scream these words with delight -- "Aha! I told you Ruth Paine was a liar!"?
Can anyone (even conspiracy mongers like Jim D.) REALLY believe Ruth would do something so utterly stupid?
Evidently Jimbo CAN believe that Mrs. Paine would be so foolish -- because it's obvious that DiEugenio DOES believe that Ruth Paine wrote the words "LHO purchase of rifle" on her calendar BEFORE the assassination ever took place.
Which, therefore, must also mean that DiEugenio believes that Ruth was privy to the "March 20th" date of Oswald's rifle purchase PRIOR to the time when Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry made that date of 3/20/63 known to the public on national television on November 23, 1963.
So, Jimbo, tell us how Ruth became aware of that "March 20" information prior to 11/23/63? Was she in cahoots with Klein's Sporting Goods too? Or did the evil FBI furnish her with that exact date? Or could it be that it was Ruth Paine HERSELF who faked and manufactured Waldman Exhibit No. 7? Maybe it was Ruth herself who wrote "3/20/63" on that Klein's document. Is that how she knew the date prior to November 23rd, Jimbo?
JIM DiEUGENIO LATER SAID:
More blather.
I am waiting for someone to show me where I was wrong [re: Ruth Paine]. .... Please show me with specifics from the book [Destiny Betrayed, 2nd Edition].
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're wrong about everything relating to JFK's assassination, Jim. That's fairly obvious.
And I want YOU, Jimbo, to prove to me that Ruth Paine had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with "planting" Lee Harvey Oswald in the Book Depository Building as part of a pre-arranged plot to frame Oswald for the murder of John F. Kennedy.
Because as far as I can see, if THAT critical portion of your silly "Paine Framed Lee" plot collapses (as it certainly must collapse when the facts surrounding Oswald getting his TSBD job are evaluated in a reasonable manner), then the rest of your suspicions about Ruth and her sister and the DeMohrenschildts and the CIA and the camera (which is a really silly extension of your theory, since we KNOW, scientifically, that that camera DID take the backyard photos of LHO) crumbles into that foundation of mush that you've built it on in the first place.
In other words -- Jim DiEugenio has his suspicions. Nothing more.
And as we all should know by now when talking about the suspicions put forth by JFK conspiracy theorists, "suspicions" about someone do not equal "facts". Far from it, in fact. Particularly when the person who has those suspicions is James DiEugenio of Los Angeles.
I mean, come on, Jimbo thinks Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Frazier lied about Oswald having ANY BAG AT ALL on the morning of 11/22/63. That theory of Jimbo's, all by itself, should cause anyone to cast some "suspicion" on Jim DiEugenio's ability to reasonably assess ANY evidence connected with the death of JFK. (Shouldn't it?)
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
Yawn.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I'm sleepy too, Jimbo. Especially after reading your latest batch of "suspicions" in your last post.
Lurkers -- Please note how Jimbo will never be able to REASONABLY put Ruth Paine in the middle of a "Let's Frame Oswald" plot when it comes to the topic of how (and WHEN) Oswald obtained his Depository job.
Key word there -- "Reasonably".
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
LOL. ROTF.
This is the guy who tried to distract from the Adams affidavit. Until I blew that up.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Jimbo likes to think he has blown things up, when, in fact, he hasn't even lit the match.
This whole "Adams" thing goes directly to Jimbo's theory that Ruth Paine (some how, some way--even though we know it was impossible, as already proven) had a desire to PLANT Lee Oswald in the TSBD for the express purpose of framing him for JFK's murder.
Let me repeat that (just in case some people reading this don't realize the sheer craziness of such a notion; not to mention the fact that it's a disgusting and vile allegation against a woman who did NOTHING of the kind; but such allegations against innocent people don't seem to bother DiEugenio in the slightest):
James DiEugenio thinks that Ruth Paine was able to plant (and DID plant) Lee H. Oswald in the Depository for the specific purpose of being able to frame Oswald for the 11/22/63 murder of the President of the United States.
Whew!
And Jimbo doesn't even BLUSH! That's remarkable.
More:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html
CTers are impervious to the use of facts and logic or they would not be JFK CTers in the first place. The Catch-22 of these exchanges You can tell as much when their normally long winded responses become short and dismissive. Like a small child being told there is no Santa Claus.
-
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're wrong about everything relating to JFK's assassination, Jim. That's fairly obvious.
Is this to postulate that everything that DVP and all who agree with him are correct about everything relating to such?
I will [as noted earlier] stand corrected when I am in error.
From another thread---
Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #1693 on: October 25, 2019, 12:54:23 AM »Quote from: John Iacoletti on October 22, 2019, 07:37:42 PM
Now where does it say what you claimed it does? Where does it say that Tippit was pronounced DOA at 1:15?
And yet such is documented....
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/jfk20-20tippit20pronounced20dead.jpg)
The above is an [obviously] altered police report.
Why it was 'adjusted' is open to speculation just like many other anomalies in this case.
-
What’s with the childish “Jimbo” stuff, David? And he’s not even here. So why are you regaling us with conversations you saved that caused you to get kicked out of the other forum?
Do you honestly not find it odd as to why Ruth needed to make an annotation in her calendar about this at all, much less on the October page? And where does March 20 come from anyway, when the alleged purchase was on March 12?
And if suspicions about someone do not equal facts, then there goes your entire case against Oswald. Nice job!
-
And where does March 20 come from anyway.....?
March 20, 1963: The rifle and the revolver are shipped.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/parnell/chrono.htm
Let's all mark this on our calendars :-\
-
What’s with the childish “Jimbo” stuff, David?
That's due to the fact that DiEugenio was constantly referring to me as "Davy". So I would often reciprocate with Jimbo or Jimmy. Fair is fair, right?
And why don't you ask Jim about his childish way of referring to Ruth Paine. He would regularly attempt to demean her by calling her "Ruthy" and even "Ruthy baby". I just want to slap him silly when he does that.
I sure do wish Ruth would sue some of these crackpot CTers for slander before she leaves this Earth.
And he [DiEugenio] is not even here. So why are you regaling us with conversations you saved that caused you to get kicked out of the other forum?
Why not? Seemed fitting for this topic.
Why do you care anyway?
Do you honestly not find it odd as to why Ruth needed to make an annotation in her calendar about this at all, much less on the October page?
She didn't do it on the October calendar page. It was on her March page, which was the appropriate page for such a notation.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0041b.htm
Was it odd? Well, I think it's even odder for CTers to think Ruth could be as stupid as they apparently do think she was. (See my last post for my thoughts on this.)
And where does March 20 come from anyway, when the alleged purchase was on March 12?
Again, see my last post. Ruth got the March 20 date from the news media (from Jesse Curry's Nov. 23rd hallway press gatherings).
Yes, the purchase date was March 12th, but Curry was referring to the shipping date, which was March 20th (which is the date that is shown on the "Waldman No. 7" internal Klein's form). Nothing sinister about that at all. But CTers think otherwise (naturally).
And if suspicions about someone do not equal facts, then there goes your entire case against Oswald. Nice job!
Attaboy, John! Just keep pretending that I have nothing at all to go on but "suspicions" and a gut feeling that Oswald was guilty, as you totally ignore (or deem as all fake) all of this stuff (http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com) which hangs your favorite patsy twenty times over.
-
And why don't you ask Jim about his childish way of referring to Ruth Paine. He would regularly attempt to demean her by calling her "Ruthy" and even "Ruthy baby". I just want to slap him silly when he does that.
I sure do wish Ruth would sue some of these crackpot CTers for slander before she leaves this Earth.
I did not wish to demean. Apologies for any abject references....BTW I spelled it RUTHIE in the subject title. Can't change that [please don't slap]
Doubtful that she reads this forum anyway.
Ms Paine is 90 this year... is it feasible for her to sue now?
She was asked over 5000 questions in WC testimony. More even than Marina!
Why so ridiculously many? What an ordeal.... She witnessed absolutely no criminal activity at all concerning the events [as she testified]
-
Yes, the purchase date was March 12th, but Curry was referring to the shipping date, which was March 20th (which is the date that is shown on the "Waldman No. 7" internal Klein's form). Nothing sinister about that at all. But CTers think otherwise (naturally).
March 20, 1963: The rifle and the revolver are shipped.
March 25, 1963: LHO picks up the weapons.
Am I the only one who wonders how it is that the weapons [though ordered supposedly around 8-9 weeks apart] could have been shipped on the same exact day from seemingly opposite ends of the country?
Was it so Harvey Hidell could conveniently pick them up together?
Might as well save him a trip huh?
-
Am I the only one who wonders how it is that the weapons [though ordered supposedly around 8-9 weeks apart] could have been shipped on the same exact day from seemingly opposite ends of the country?
Oswald very likely mailed both of the forms (for the rifle and the revolver) at the same time on March 12th, even though he wrote "January 27" on the Seaport Traders order form.
-
Why not? Seemed fitting for this topic.
Seems fitting to try to drive more traffic to your website.
Attaboy, John! Just keep pretending that I have nothing at all to go on but "suspicions" and a gut feeling that Oswald was guilty, as you totally ignore (or deem as all fake) all of this stuff (http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com) which hangs your favorite patsy twenty times over.
“All this stuff” which is mostly a series of suspicions and gut feelings. Like a wedding ring in a cup.
-
Oswald very likely mailed both of the forms (for the rifle and the revolver) at the same time on March 12th, even though he wrote "January 27" on the Seaport Traders order form.
Like you know that Oswald mailed either of those, much less when.
-
Oswald very likely mailed both of the forms (for the rifle and the revolver) at the same time on March 12th, even though he wrote "January 27" on the Seaport Traders order form.
Was there not a record of the orders received and processed?
Or do we otherwise presume stuff ...in other words these orders ...regardless of whoever mailed them...one to Chicago and the other to an LA California supply company...were mailed [very likely] on the same exact day...presumably received on the same exact day...presumably filled on the same exact day....presumably shipped the same exact day....presumably arrived in Dallas the same exact day...and were picked up at the same exact time?
??? ??? ???
-
We had a poster in the thread who states that Ms Paine's notation on her calendar with a-- March 20 purchase of rifle--- was just as normal as the birthdays and dental appointments were.
I believe now that she made the note in an attempt to figure something out like where it fit somehow in the timeline of events.
Many [myself included] kept a scrap book and magazines of the occasion...
(https://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Enmeshes.jpg)
Note that the price in the news article stated $12.78 just like this Klein's ad....
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339018/m1/3/high_res/)
(https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/3/lee-harvey-oswald-1963-money-order-used-to-purchase-the-gun-that-killed-president-john-f-kennedy-peter-ogden-gallery.jpg)
The Feds then went in search of either an ad that fit the money order or a money order that fit the ad.
____________________________________________________
If Ruth Paine was part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald she would have testified that Marina told her that she was beaten by him every day.
She didn't. See---
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,907.msg130991.html#msg130991
-
Was there not a record of the orders received and processed?
Sure there was. But that doesn't tell us exactly WHEN Oswald dropped the revolver order in the mail. Seaport didn't save a microfilmed copy of the postmarked envelope like Klein's did. So we can only guess as to when Oswald mailed the Seaport form. But since we know the Seaport form got to L.A. on the exact same day as the Klein's order (March 13) and was shipped the exact same day as the Klein's order (March 20), it's probably a good guess to say that he dropped both order forms in a mailbox on March 12th.
-
“All this stuff” which is mostly a series of suspicions and gut feelings. Like a wedding ring in a cup.
Yeah, John, just ignore the "stuff" like the rifle, the Tippit murder, Oswald's prints all over the Sniper's Nest, the paper bag in the Nest, the C2766 bullet shells in the Nest, the C2766 bullet fragments in the limousine, the many lies that Oswald told to the police....etc., etc.
Are all of those things on my list to be categorized as merely "suspicions" and "gut feelings" as well?
Conspiracy believers who think Oswald was a patsy on 11/22/63 will lose the "Evidence" battle every time. And that's because the evidence that exists in the JFK and Tippit cases will forever continue to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was, in fact, a double-murderer.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Photos-And-Other-Evidence
-
Seems fitting to try to drive more traffic to your website.
“All this stuff” which is mostly a series of suspicions and gut feelings. Like a wedding ring in a cup.
Or kneeling at Oswald's grave
-
Yeah, John, just ignore the "stuff" like the rifle, the Tippit murder, Oswald's prints all over the Sniper's Nest, the paper bag in the Nest, the C2766 bullet shells in the Nest, the C2766 bullet fragments in the limousine, the many lies that Oswald told to the police....etc., etc.
Are all of those things on my list to be categorized as merely "suspicions" and "gut feelings" as well?
Yes. Not a single one of those things tells you anything about who shot Kennedy — even if the shells and the fragments had been properly handled as evidence. And the only reason you consider what he allegedly told police to be “lies” is because you think he did it. How circular.
P.S. *what* “paper bag in the nest”? The dotted line in the police photo? :D
-
Sure there was. But that doesn't tell us exactly WHEN Oswald dropped the revolver order in the mail. Seaport didn't save a microfilmed copy of the postmarked envelope like Klein's did. So we can only guess as to when Oswald mailed the Seaport form. But since we know the Seaport form got to L.A. on the exact same day as the Klein's order (March 13) and was shipped the exact same day as the Klein's order (March 20), it's probably a good guess to say that he dropped both order forms in a mailbox on March 12th.
“We” don’t know when these orders were received.
-
Yes. Not a single one of those things tells you anything about who shot Kennedy — even if the shells and the fragments had been properly handled as evidence. And the only reason you consider what he allegedly told police to be “lies” is because you think he did it. How circular.
P.S. *what* “paper bag in the nest”? The dotted line in the police photo? :D
This, folks, is called Denial (a common malady amongst conspiracy fantasists). The biggest example of which can be seen HERE (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html).
-
“We” don’t know when these orders were received.
Yes we do. Both were received on March 13, 1963, as proven by the dates on the internal forms.....
KLEIN'S (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm)
and
SEAPORT TRADERS INC. (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0318b.htm)
-
“We” don’t know when these orders were received.
Yes we do. Both were received on March 13, 1963, as proven by the dates on the internal forms.....
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0318b.htm
But were those not order shipping dates and not order received dates?
Also...re http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
I have never heard of this Rob't Prudhomme before but he is not my spokesman nor is he a spokesperson for all skeptics everywhere ::)
I believe CE 399 was fired by someone through the 6th fl rifle but not through a president and a governor.
-
But were those not order shipping dates and not order received dates?
Both dates (March 13 and 20) are on both invoices (Klein's & Seaport).
Also...re http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
I have never heard of this Rob't Prudhomme before but he is not my spokesman nor is he a spokesperson for all skeptics everywhere ::)
And I never said that he was. I just said it was the biggest example of CTers being in denial that I can think of. When you skip down deeper into that discussion, that's when the SBT Denial really starts to take shape. It's quite remarkable....and humorous.
-
But were those not order shipping dates and not order received dates?
Also...re http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
I have never heard of this Rob't Prudhomme before but he is not my spokesman nor is he a spokesperson for all skeptics everywhere ::)
I believe CE 399 was fired by someone through the 6th fl rifle but not through a president and a governor.
I believe CE 399 was fired by someone through the 6th fl rifle but not through a president and a governor.
YOU DO??? How can you believe that ??
-
Was there not a record of the orders received and processed?
Or do we otherwise presume stuff ...in other words these orders ...regardless of whoever mailed them...one to Chicago and the other to an LA California supply company...were mailed [very likely] on the same exact day...presumably received on the same exact day...presumably filled on the same exact day....presumably shipped the same exact day....presumably arrived in Dallas the same exact day...and were picked up at the same exact time?
Seaport didn't save a microfilmed copy of the postmarked envelope like Klein's did. So we can only guess as to when Oswald mailed the Seaport form. But since we know the Seaport form got to L.A. on the exact same day as the Klein's order (March 13) and was shipped the exact same day as the Klein's order (March 20), it's probably a good guess to say that he dropped both order forms in a mailbox on March 12th.
You forgot to add that the shipments and/or notice to acquire arrived on the same day too.
we can only guess....it's probably a good guess
:D
I would love to see an actuary calculate the odds of such a series of occurrences randomly happen as mentioned above... I believe it would be just totally unbelievably astrofriggen-nomical.
-
You forgot to add that the shipments and/or notice to acquire arrived on the same day too.
I have no idea why you're saying this. AFAIK, there's nothing in the records to show exactly what date the Seaport revolver or the Klein's rifle arrived at the post office. What are you basing your above comment on?
But even if you are correct on this, why would it be surprising to you at all? Since we know that both guns were shipped to Oswald's P.O. Box on the very same day, then why couldn't they easily have both arrived at the Dallas post office on the same day? That probably should have happened given those circumstances.
-
I believe CE 399 was fired by someone through the 6th fl rifle but not through a president and a governor.
YOU DO??? How can you believe that ??
I have expressed this [it is speculation] before. I know that you have read it.
That C2766 rifle found on the 6th floor had a round fired through it into a mattress or a block of gelatin previous to the Dallas parade. It could have been hours or days.
The round was recovered and subsequently planted so that the FBI lab could trace it to the rifle.
It hit nothing of substance because it just looks too damn good.
-
Yes we do. Both were received on March 13, 1963, as proven by the dates on the internal forms.....
KLEIN'S (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm)
and
SEAPORT TRADERS INC. (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0318b.htm)
Sorry Dave, but neither of these documents tells you when the orders arrived.
-
I have no idea why you're saying this. AFAIK, there's nothing in the records to show exactly what date the Seaport revolver or the Klein's rifle arrived at the post office. What are you basing your above comment on?
Only just a guess based on......
March 20, 1963: The rifle and the revolver are shipped.
March 25, 1963: LHO picks up the weapons.
Correct there's nothing in the record to indicate arrival.
That would have been a hard one to fudge.
And I did find the tidy "invoice dates" ..the one on the revolver was changed and 1 wk was conveniently placed.
However, there is also really no proof that Lee Oswald received those weapons at all.
-
Order received got confused with order delivered.
-
I have expressed this [it is speculation] before. I know that you have read it.
That C2766 rifle found on the 6th floor had a round fired through it into a mattress or a block of gelatin previous to the Dallas parade. It could have been hours or days.
The round was recovered and subsequently planted so that the FBI lab could trace it to the rifle.
It hit nothing of substance because it just looks too damn good.
Yes, i agree with the speculation that a bullet was fired through a barrel of a 6.5 Carcano rifle.... BUT... I doubt that the rifle used was C2766. ( The TSBD carcano) Because FBI weapons expert Frazier testified that the barrel of the TSBD carcano was worn and the edges of the lands in the barrel were ROUNDED.... Photos of CE 399 reveal that CE 399 was fired through a barrel that was in good condition.
The TSBD carcano was simply a throw down gun that could be linked to Lee Oswald by the BY photo.
It's easy to create a false picture when you're both the perpetrator and the investigator.
How many negro men paid the price for a crime that the investigators knew damned well had been committed by a "Good ol White Boy" ?
As far as the perpetrators were concerned Lee Oswald was just a stinkin commie and deserved to be set up as the patsy....
-
All of this is the frayed end of a rope that the Deep State wanted so tightly bound.
-
Sorry Dave, but neither of these documents tells you when the orders arrived.
It depends on what you mean by "When the orders arrived". Are you talking about when the order forms arrived at Klein's & Seaport? Or do you mean when the guns arrived at the Dallas post office?
There is no document that tells us exactly what date the guns arrived at the post office.
-
I have no idea why you're saying this. AFAIK, there's nothing in the records to show exactly what date the Seaport revolver or the Klein's rifle arrived at the post office. What are you basing your above comment on?
In fact, there’s no evidence that they ever arrived at the post office.
-
March 25, 1963: LHO picks up the weapons.
This is another one of those assumptions masquerading as a fact that LN evangelists like Parnell are so fond of. There is no evidence whatsoever of Oswald picking up these (or any) weapons at the post office or REA.
-
It depends on what you mean by "When the orders arrived". Are you talking about when the order forms arrived at Klein's & Seaport?
Yes.
These documents do not tell you that.
-
This, folks, is called Denial (a common malady amongst conspiracy fantasists). The biggest example of which can be seen HERE (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html).
I can’t think of a more blatant example of denial than the notion that a wedding ring in a cup constitutes evidence of murdering the president.
Seriously, one of your examples of these “provable lies” is that Oswald said he didn’t shoot the president. That’s not just circular — it’s ridiculously circular.
-
These documents do not tell you [when the order forms arrived at Klein's/Seaport].
Yes they do.
-
I can’t think of a more blatant example of denial than the notion that a wedding ring in a cup constitutes evidence of murdering the president.
The fact that Oswald left his wedding ring behind at the Paine house on the morning of November 22nd (something he had never done before) is most definitely one of the pieces of circumstantial evidence that leads in the direction of Oswald's guilt. Only a staunch CTer would think otherwise.
But I'm not surprised that hardened conspiracists are unable to admit that such a change in Oswald's behavior is indicative of LHO's guilt. Just as no CTer on Earth will admit that Oswald's first-ever Thursday trip to Irving or his carrying a large-ish paper bag into the TSBD on 11/22 and lying about the contents of that bag to Buell Frazier are significant things at all. All of these things just roll off the backs of the ABO CT crowd. And most of the time CTers just simply ignore all of this important stuff. Just like Oliver Stone did in his 1991 movie. Which are just more examples of CTer Denial At Its Finest.
-
An appropriate addendum to my last post....
"Oliver Stone, in his movie 'JFK', never saw fit to present for his audience's consideration one single piece of evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy! So a murder case (the Kennedy assassination) where there is an almost unprecedented amount of evidence of guilt against the killer (Oswald) is presented to millions of moviegoers as one where there wasn't one piece of evidence at all. There oughta be a law against things like this." -- Vincent Bugliosi
-
Why would you need to quote a whackjob like Bugliosi to support your fantasy?
Otto shows up (right on cue). It's just as I said above....
"Most of the time CTers just simply ignore all of this important stuff."
So tell me, Otto, do you think Bugliosi's quote above is an accurate one or not? If you don't think it's accurate, then please provide us with just one piece of LHO-incriminating evidence that Mr. Stone utilized in his 1991 film.
-
I haven't seen the movie so why don't you list the evidence missing?
All of it.
(And you're not going to pretend that there's no evidence at all against Mr. Oswald, are you Mr. Beck?)
http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com
-
Does "All of it" refer to the numbered "subtle tidbits" in your bowl of word salad in the link provided?
I guess you don't recognize sarcasm when you see it, huh?
-
The fact that Oswald left his wedding ring behind at the Paine house on the morning of November 22nd (something he had never done before) is most definitely one of the pieces of circumstantial evidence that leads in the direction of Oswald's guilt. Only a staunch CTer would think otherwise.
But I'm not surprised that hardened conspiracists are unable to admit that such a change in Oswald's behavior is indicative of LHO's guilt. Just as no CTer on Earth will admit that Oswald's first-ever Thursday trip to Irving or his carrying a large-ish paper bag into the TSBD on 11/22 and lying about the contents of that bag to Buell Frazier are significant things at all. All of these things just roll off the backs of the ABO CT crowd. And most of the time CTers just simply ignore all of this important stuff. Just like Oliver Stone did in his 1991 movie. Which are just more examples of CTer Denial At Its Finest.
Oh boy...
The fact that Oswald left his wedding ring behind at the Paine house on the morning of November 22nd (something he had never done before) is most definitely one of the pieces of circumstantial evidence that leads in the direction of Oswald's guilt.
But I'm not surprised that hardened conspiracists are unable to admit that such a change in Oswald's behavior is indicative of LHO's guilt.
In order to even make this ridiculous claim, you need to first explain how leaving a wedding ring behind and probably concluding his marriage was over (after Marina refused to live with him again) constitutes regular or normal behavior for Oswald to deviate from. When you can not do this, your entire argument goes nowhere!
Just as no CTer on Earth will admit that Oswald's first-ever Thursday trip to Irving or his carrying a large-ish paper bag into the TSBD on 11/22 and lying about the contents of that bag to Buell Frazier are significant things at all.
Oswald only travelled to Irving a couple of times. Granted, he normally did so on Friday, but in this particular case he had not been the prior weekend and he (according to Marina and Ruth) wanted to convince his wife to live with him again. There is nothing sinister about that. It only could be significant when the argument is made that he really went to Irving on Thursday to collect a rifle, but the major problem with that is that there isn't a shred of evidence that on 11/21/63 there was even a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage for him to collect. Without that rifle, the trip on Thursday is nothing more than a surprise visit to his wife.
As for the large-ish paper bag, that too only becomes significant if it can be shown to have contained the rifle, and the weight of the evidence is against that. The only two witnesses who actually saw the bag described it in several ways that justify the conclusion that the bag wasn't and could not have been big enough to conceal a broken down MC rifle.
And as far as the lying to Frazier goes, you do not know what he actually said. All you are doing is basing one flawed, biased, conclusion upon another flawed, biased, conclusion.
It is in fact a sign of utter weakness to try and build a highly questionable circumstantial case based on flawed conclusions that can not be proven and are merely part of a concocted story. When a prosecutor has to stoop to this level, it is a clear sign that his case isn't a very strong one.
And most of the time CTers just simply ignore all of this important stuff.
Pray tell, what in the world is so important about any of these events, when you can't even offer a scintilla of evidence that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63. What, if anything, do you think CTs are missing here?
-
Pray tell, what in the world is so important about any of these events, when you can't even offer a scintilla of evidence that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63. What, if anything, do you think CTs are missing here?
CTers are missing the whole boat, Martin. (As usual.)
-
CTers are missing the whole boat, Martin. (As per usual.)
That's not an answer. It's a cop out.
If you want to whine about CTs being in denial (as you are) you should at least be able to explain what you think it is they are missing.
I can explain exactly where I think your arguments are flawed and incorrect. You should be able to do likewise, don't you think? If not, then you are the one who is actually in denial.
-
It's a simple matter of being able to add up and reasonably evaluate the evidence (including Lee Oswald's very important actions and movements on both Nov. 21 and 22).
IMO, conspiracy theorists never seem to want to do this "adding up" of the evidence at all. They want to keep everything isolated. And by doing that, they (of course) can say things like: How can a ring in a cup mean anything at all? and Oswald's unusual trip to Irving on a Thursday is irrelevant and Just because Oswald went home to get a pistol on 11/22 doesn't prove anything.
But when all these things (and many others) are placed together in the same basket, I think it becomes quite clear that Lee Oswald was not (and could not have been) anybody's innocent patsy on November 22, 1963.
What I want to know is:
Why won't the conspiracy theorists of the world invest in a cheap calculator and start to logically add up the evidence that exists in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases?
Please....buy that calculator!
-
It's a simple matter of being able to add up the evidence (including Oswald's actions and movements on Nov. 21 and 22).
IMO, conspiracy theorists never seem to want to do this "adding up" of the evidence at all. They want to keep everything isolated. And by doing that, they (of course) can say things like: How can a ring in a cup mean anything at all? and Oswald's unusual trip to Irving on a Thursday is irrelevant and Just because Oswald went home to get a pistol on 11/22 doesn't prove anything.
But when all these things (and many others) are placed together in the same basket, I think it becomes quite clear that Lee Oswald was not (and could not have been) anybody's patsy on November 22, 1963.
What I want to know is:
Why won't the conspiracy theorists of the world invest in a cheap calculator and start to reasonably add up the evidence that exists in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases?
Please....buy that calculator!
Adding up evidence is fine. I have no problem with that, but there is a difference between actual evidence and mere assumptions.
The trip to Irving is a good example. If (and that's a very big if) there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63 than Oswald's unscheduled trip to Irving, him carrying a paper bag on Friday morning and perhaps even him leaving his wedding ring behind can indeed add up to something significant and of evidentiary value.
The problem is though that there is not a shred of evidence there was in fact a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63, which means that all you are adding up is nothing more than assumptions about benign events that could otherwise be explained.
It's all well and good to make one assumption after another and then add them up, but with enough assumptions you can get anybody convicted of anything.
And btw, I already have that calculator and it tells me things simply do not add up.
-
Oh come on, Martin! You can't possibly believe this statement you just wrote (can you?)....
"The problem is though that there is not a shred of evidence there was in fact a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63."
Marina SAW the damn thing in the garage in October. She testified to that fact. (Or do you want to call her a liar on this point, Martin? A lot of other CTers do call her a liar, of course.)
Plus: We know that LHO had his rifle in New Orleans in the summer of '63. And we also know that all his possessions were transported to Irving in Ruth's car in Sept. '63. Nobody specifically saw the rifle at that time, that's true enough. But let's get out that calculator again and add some things up.....
1. Lee Oswald has possession of a rifle in New Orleans in Summer 1963. (And Marina sees Lee working the bolt of the gun on the screened-in porch in that city.)
2. The Oswald possessions are taken to Ruth Paine's house in Irving, Texas, in September '63.
3. Marina sees the butt end of a rifle in a blanket in the Paine garage in about October of '63.
4. Lee Oswald carries a long-ish paper package into the TSBD on the morning of 11/22/63. (And Lee lies to Buell Wesley Frazier about the contents of that package.)
5. The blanket in Ruth Paine's garage where Marina says Lee kept his rifle was empty when the police picked up that blanket on the afternoon of 11/22/63.
If the above five things are true (and the evidence and testimony demonstrates they are true), then is it reasonable to come to the conclusion that Lee's rifle WASN'T also present in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63? Why would anyone feel compelled to reach such a conclusion after adding up #1 thru #5 above?
-
Otto, you need a new hobby. It's obvious from the way you casually dismiss every bit of evidence in the whole case that you are really, really rotten at this "JFK Case" thing. Maybe you'll do better at video games instead. Why not try that.
-
Oh come on, Martin! You can't possibly believe this statement you just wrote (can you?)....
"The problem is though that there is not a shred of evidence there was in fact a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63."
Marina SAW the damn thing in the garage in October. She testified to that fact. (Or do you want to call her a liar on this point, Martin? A lot of other CTers do call her a liar, of course.)
Plus: We know that LHO had his rifle in New Orleans in the summer of '63. And we also know that all his possessions were transported to Irving in Ruth's car in Sept. '63. Nobody specifically saw the rifle at that time, that's true enough. But let's get out that calculator again and add some things up.....
1. Lee Oswald has possession of a rifle in New Orleans in Summer 1963. (And Marina sees Lee working the bolt of the gun on the screened-in porch in that city.)
2. The Oswald possessions are taken to Ruth Paine's house in Irving, Texas, in September '63.
3. Marina sees the butt end of a rifle in a blanket in the Paine garage in about October of '63.
4. Lee Oswald carries a long-ish paper package into the TSBD on the morning of 11/22/63. (And Lee lies to Buell Wesley Frazier about the contents of that package.)
5. The blanket in Ruth Paine's garage where Marina says Lee kept his rifle was empty when the police picked up that blanket on the afternoon of 11/22/63.
If the above five things are true (and the evidence and testimony demonstrates they are true), then is it reasonable to come to the conclusion that Lee's rifle WASN'T also present in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63? Why would anyone feel compelled to reach such a conclusion after adding up #1 thru #5 above?
Marina SAW the damn thing in the garage in October. She testified to that fact.
Actually, she testified that she looked inside the blanked only once, about a week after moving from New Orleans (which means it was late September), and she saw what she believed to be the wooden stock of a rifle. That later morphed into "she saw a rifle". But even if that is true, how does Marina seeing a rifle in late September prove that it was Oswald's rifle, that it was an MC and that it was (still) in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63?
Plus: We know that LHO had his rifle in New Orleans in the summer of '63.
How do we know that? Even if we assume that the rifle Oswald was holding in the BY photos was his property, how did that rifle get to New Orleans?
And we also know that all his possessions were transported to Irving in Ruth's car in Sept. '63.
So, what? If Oswald succesfully transported "his rifle" from Dallas to New Orleans in another manner, why would he be so foolish to just hand over the weapon to Ruth Paine?
Nobody specifically saw the rifle at that time, that's true enough.
Which means that you can only assume there was a rifle amongst those possessions. You're already getting in dangerous "assuming facts not in evidence" territory.
But let's get out that calculator again and add some things up.....
1. Lee Oswald has possession of a rifle in New Orleans in Summer 1963. (And Marina sees Lee working the bolt of the gun on the screened-in porch in that city.)
That's an inconclusive assumption based solely on what Marina said. The problem with that is that if you compare her many statements (made to law enforcement officers) prior to her testimony and her actual testimony, you will find enough contradictions to conclude that Marina's word alone is hardly enough to rely on. And there is no other corroboration. Nobody else saw Oswald with a rifle and nobody most certainly saw him with the MC rifle.
2. The Oswald possessions are taken to Ruth Paine's house in Irving, Texas, in September '63.
Again, so what? There is no evidence a rifle was among those possessions. You can only assume there was.
3. Marina sees the butt end of a rifle in a blanket in the Paine garage in about October of '63.
And but how does this prove (1) that it was Oswald's rifle, (2) that it was the MC and (3) that it was still there on 11/21/63? You only assume all that, right?
4. Lee Oswald carries a long-ish paper package into the TSBD on the morning of 11/22/63. (And Lee lies to Buell Wesley Frazier about the contents of that package.)
Highly inconclusive. There is no evidence that there was a rifle in that paper bag or, for that matter, that the bag was in fact large enough to contain a broken down MC rifle.
As for lying to Frazier, you first need to know what was actually said and what was in the bag, before you can make the claim that Oswald lied. Without this information you can only assume he lied.
5. The blanket in Ruth Paine's garage where Marina says Lee kept his rifle was empty when the police picked up that blanket on the afternoon of 11/22/63.
How does this tell you that it wasn't empty on 11/21/63? If there was indeed a rifle in there, you really can only assume that it wasn't removed earlier, right?
If the above five things are true (and the evidence and testimony demonstrates they are true), then is it reasonable to come to the conclusion that Lee's rifle WASN'T also present in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63? Why would anyone feel compelled to reach such a conclusion after adding up #1 thru #5 above?
This is selfserving circular logic. The most important remark is "If the above five things are true" and that's a massive "if". And no, the evidence and testimony doesn't demonstrate that they are true. In fact, we've just gone over this "evidence" and it clearly is nothing more than just assumptions and conjecture. If you actually had any kind of evidence to back up those claims 1 thru 5, you would have posted it. But you didn't, for one simple reason; it doesn't exist.
So, I have indeed added up 1 thru 5 and find that they don't add up to the conclusion you attach to your assumptions.
Basically, what you have presented here is a highly circumstantial case, backed up with no significance evidence whatsoever.
I have to ask, David; You do understand the difference between assumptions and actual evidence, right?
-
Here's the problem with Ruth. I look back on '63 because my Father was pretty much the same as Oswald. He was a dock worker to Oswald's order filler. He was married with 4 kids. Didn't socialize much and had maybe one or two friends.
But look at all that happened with Ruth Paine the short time she knew the Oswalds. She typed up that letter for him, but didn't keep the handwritten one; she got him the job at the book building; and so on.
There is such a thing as circumstantial evidence. The more you have the more it speaks of a larger truth. If my Dad back then had all of this xxxx happening to him out of sheer coincidence, it would be ridiculous. But one piece of evidence on one hand that leads to other evidence on the other - and everything that happened in between - makes it a strong case.
Of course, the folks who fully support the lone-nut theory will say just that - it's all just one big coincidence.
And the even larger problem is that he was never able to present anything in open court. They didn't even allow an opposing view lawyer during the hearings to weigh the evidence after he was murdered.
https://aarclibrary.org/the-jfk-case-the-twelve-who-built-the-oswald-legend-part-12-the-endgame/
-
Marina SAW the damn thing in the garage in October. She testified to that fact.
Actually, she testified that she looked inside the blanked only once, about a week after moving from New Orleans (which means it was late September), and she saw what she believed to be the wooden stock of a rifle. That later morphed into "she saw a rifle". But even if that is true, how does Marina seeing a rifle in late September prove that it was Oswald's rifle, that it was an MC and that it was (still) in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63?
Marina was asked dozens of times about the "rifle" by the WC. In each instance she responds to those questions without ever once suggesting there is any doubt that the item she saw was a "rifle" and not just some object made of wood as Martin dishonestly suggests. It is incredible that contrarians latch onto one statement among dozens about the rifle to suggest that Marina perhaps didn't see a rifle but a "wooden stock of a rifle" as though that has meaning. It is absurd. Below is what Marina was asked answered AND, of course, when the police arrived on Nov. 22 just hours after the crime and asked Marina if her husband owned a rifle she directed them to the blanket in the Paine's garage believing that is where Oswald's rifle would be found. Why? Because that is where she had seen it. She indicates that she was "surprised" it wasn't there. As a result, there no doubt that Marina confirmed that Oswald owned a rifle and kept in the Paine's garage in this timeframe.
That rifle is gone on Nov. 22 and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the rifle found at the TSBD. The rifle is linked to LHO by documents, serial number, photos, and prints. Oswald lied about owning the rifle and provided no explanation to suggest much less account for ownership of any other rifle when he had a chance to do so. His lie is indictive of guilt because he obviously did not want to be associated with the murder weapon. If there had been some exculpatory explanation for his missing rifle (such as he had sold it to someone) then he would have had every incentive to tell the police that. Instead he denied owning any rifle because he had no other choice. To suggest that there was another rifle that Oswald kept in the garage and that it magically disappeared sometime before Nov. 22 to never be accounted for in the last six decades is classic contrarian bull.
Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time that you had noticed the rifle before that day?
Mrs. OSWALD. I said that I saw--for the first and last time I saw the rifle about a week after I had come to Mrs. Paine. But, as I said, the rifle was wrapped in a blanket, and I was sure when the police had come that the rifle was still in the blanket, because it was all rolled together. And, therefore, when they took the blanket and the rifle was not in it, I was very much surprised.
Mr. RANKIN. Could you describe for the Commission the place in the garage where the rifle was located?
Mrs. OSWALD. When you enter the garage from the street it was in the front part, the left.
Mr. RANKIN. By the left you mean left of the door?
Mrs. OSWALD. It is an overhead door and the rifle was to the left, on the floor.
It was always in the same place.
Mr. RANKIN. Was there anything else close to the rifle that you recall?
Mrs. OSWALD. Next to it there were some next to the rifle there were some suitcases and Ruth had some paper barrels in the garage where the kids used to play.
-
Marina was asked dozens of times about the "rifle" by the WC. In each instance she responds to those questions without ever once suggesting there is any doubt that the item she saw was a "rifle" and not just some object made of wood as Martin dishonestly suggests.
Martin Weidmann is dishonest but Saint Marina was without sin and any ulterior motive to throw her dead husband under the bus with extreme prejudice.
-
Pro-tip: Read what you quote.
It was always in the same place.
Not so, according to Ruth and Michael Paine, and that's how we know somebody in the Irving household kooked up a blanket story.
What was always in the same place? The rifle! The relevant point being that Marina confirms with no ambiguity whatsoever that Oswald possessed a rifle and kept in the Paine's garage. She was not referring to a hockey stick or some other object made of "wood". Whew.
-
Martin Weidmann is dishonest but Saint Marina was without sin and any ulterior motive to throw her dead husband under the bus with extreme prejudice.
Read Marina's testimony and tell us if it contains any ambiguity whatsoever regarding whether she confirmed that Oswald kept a rifle in the Paine's garage. In fact, when the police arrived just hours after the assassination, she directed them to the blanket in Paine's garage expecting them to the find the rifle. She was "surprised" that it wasn't there. Is that indicative of someone who was uncertain that the object she saw was a rifle as Martin suggested or not? And was she already involved in the plot to frame Oswald at the moment the police arrived on 11.22?
-
Yes they do.
How? All they tell you is when the orders were processed.
-
The fact that Oswald left his wedding ring behind at the Paine house on the morning of November 22nd (something he had never done before) is most definitely one of the pieces of circumstantial evidence that leads in the direction of Oswald's guilt. Only a staunch CTer would think otherwise.
No, it's pure confirmation bias and rhetoric. It's not evidence at all.
-
It's a simple matter of being able to add up and reasonably evaluate the evidence (including Lee Oswald's very important actions and movements on both Nov. 21 and 22).
"reasonable evaluation" defined as accepting DVPs speculation and assumptions as facts and evidence.
IMO, conspiracy theorists never seem to want to do this "adding up" of the evidence at all.
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0
-
Marina SAW the damn thing in the garage in October.
Marina peeked in the end of a rolled and tied blanket and saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle. In late September or early October.
Plus: We know that LHO had his rifle in New Orleans in the summer of '63.
A rifle. You don't know which one.
And we also know that all his possessions were transported to Irving in Ruth's car in Sept. '63.
We don't know a rifle was amongst them.
1. Lee Oswald has possession of a rifle in New Orleans in Summer 1963. (And Marina sees Lee working the bolt of the gun on the screened-in porch in that city.)
False. She heard some noises from inside.
4. Lee Oswald carries a long-ish paper package into the TSBD on the morning of 11/22/63. (And Lee lies to Buell Wesley Frazier about the contents of that package.)
You don't know he lied about the contents.
-
The rifle is linked to LHO by documents, serial number, photos, and prints.
Bull. It's "linked" to a PO box that Oswald had access to via a document from microfilm that is "missing". There's no evidence that this rifle was ever shipped through the postal service, delivered to the post office in Dallas, or picked up by Oswald or anybody else. Furthermore, the FBI was monitoring his mail. If he had been sent a rifle, they would have known about it. They either concealed that information or it never happened.
There are no photos that link Oswald to C2766. There are no "prints" that link Oswald to C2766. According to Sebastian Latona, the prints by the trigger guard were unsuitable for identification purposes and a single partial palmprint showed up a week later on an index card.
-
Marina made a lot of contradictory statements over the months and years. So many that the HSCA compiled a 30 page document full of them:
http://iacoletti.org/jfk/marina-contradictions.pdf (http://iacoletti.org/jfk/marina-contradictions.pdf)
Marina was also pressured to "cooperate" by the suggestion that she would be allowed to remain in the country if she did. She also didn't have a great command of the English language. Ruth Paine was present when Marina showed the blanket in the garage to the cops. She was the one translating what Marina actually said that day. Therefore, it is important to look at what Ruth Paine said about it.
Mrs. PAINE - There were six altogether, and they were busy in various parts of the house. The officer asked me in the garage did Lee Oswald have any weapons or guns. I said no, and translated the question to Marina, and she said yes; that she had seen a portion of it--had looked into--she indicated the blanket roll on the floor.
Mr. JENNER - Was the blanket roll on the floor at that time?
Mrs. PAINE - She indicated the blanket roll on the floor very close to where I was standing. As she told me about it I stepped onto the blanket roll.
Mr. JENNER - This might be helpful. You had shaped that up yesterday and I will just put it on the floor.
Mrs. PAINE - And she indicated to me that she had peered into this roll and saw a portion of what she took to be a gun she knew her husband to have, a rifle.
. . .
Mr. JENNER - And now, having examined the statement transcribed on Page 46, to the best of your recollection, to the extent it summarizes what was said, is it accurate?
Mrs. PAINE - Well, I particularly remember the part of the testimony or the statement, sworn statement, that talks about the rifle, that she had known there had been a rifle in the garage and that it was not there on the 22d, that she could not positively say it was her husband's rifle when they showed her a rifle at the police station. This is what I particularly remember.
Mr. JENNER - Do you recall that she fixed the time when she had seen the blanket prior to November 22 as having been 2 weeks prior thereto?
Mrs. PAINE - She was indefinite, more so than the statement here.
Mr. JENNER - The statement reads, "I opened the blanket and saw a rifle in it."
Mrs. PAINE - My recollection of that is that she opened the blanket and saw a portion of what she judged to be a rifle, having known already that her husband had one.
Mr. JENNER - Did she identify the part she saw as the stock of the rifle?
Mrs. PAINE - I don't recall--that was all done by the police.
-
Bull. It's "linked" to a PO box that Oswald had access to via a document from microfilm that is "missing". There's no evidence that this rifle was ever shipped through the postal service, delivered to the post office in Dallas, or picked up by Oswald or anybody else. Furthermore, the FBI was monitoring his mail. If he had been sent a rifle, they would have known about it. They either concealed that information or it never happened.
There are no photos that link Oswald to C2766. There are no "prints" that link Oswald to C2766. According to Sebastian Latona, the prints by the trigger guard were unsuitable for identification purposes and a single partial palmprint showed up a week later on an index card.
The crucial link is the BY photo..... Most simple minded uncritical minded, folks look at a BY photo and see Lee Oswald holding the carcano....That's all that is necessary for those simple minds.
Of course there are any number of reasons that Lee had Marina take his photo while holding a carcano.....Who knows why he wanted that photo taken nine months before the coup d' etat??
-
How? All they tell you is when the orders were processed.
And the Klein's order was MAILED the previous day, March 12. (Which is, of course, one of the main reasons why CTers like to call the Klein's evidence "fake". They think it couldn't have arrived in Chicago and be processed in one day. But, as usual, the CTers are dead wrong.)
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html
So the Klein's order was most certainly RECEIVED by Klein's on March 13, just as the stamped date indicates on Waldman #7. And, yes, I'm ASSUMING the Seaport order was also mailed on March 12, due to the "March 13" invoice date on the Seaport internal form. But, since coincidences like that aren't impossible, I suppose it is possible that Oswald put the revolver order in the mail on January 27 (to match the date he himself wrote on the order form), and then Seaport Traders in L.A. just let Oswald's order sit around for 6 or 7 weeks until they finally got around to processing it. But I kinda doubt that silly scenario is the truth. Don't you?
-
Marina made a lot of contradictory statements over the months and years. So many that the HSCA compiled a 30 page document full of them:
http://iacoletti.org/jfk/marina-contradictions.pdf (http://iacoletti.org/jfk/marina-contradictions.pdf)
Marina was also pressured to "cooperate" by the suggestion that she would be allowed to remain in the country if she did. She also didn't have a great command of the English language. Ruth Paine was present when Marina showed the blanket in the garage to the cops. She was the one translating what Marina actually said that day. Therefore, it is important to look at what Ruth Paine said about it.
Mrs. PAINE - There were six altogether, and they were busy in various parts of the house. The officer asked me in the garage did Lee Oswald have any weapons or guns. I said no, and translated the question to Marina, and she said yes; that she had seen a portion of it--had looked into--she indicated the blanket roll on the floor.
Mr. JENNER - Was the blanket roll on the floor at that time?
Mrs. PAINE - She indicated the blanket roll on the floor very close to where I was standing. As she told me about it I stepped onto the blanket roll.
Mr. JENNER - This might be helpful. You had shaped that up yesterday and I will just put it on the floor.
Mrs. PAINE - And she indicated to me that she had peered into this roll and saw a portion of what she took to be a gun she knew her husband to have, a rifle.
. . .
Mr. JENNER - And now, having examined the statement transcribed on Page 46, to the best of your recollection, to the extent it summarizes what was said, is it accurate?
Mrs. PAINE - Well, I particularly remember the part of the testimony or the statement, sworn statement, that talks about the rifle, that she had known there had been a rifle in the garage and that it was not there on the 22d, that she could not positively say it was her husband's rifle when they showed her a rifle at the police station. This is what I particularly remember.
Mr. JENNER - Do you recall that she fixed the time when she had seen the blanket prior to November 22 as having been 2 weeks prior thereto?
Mrs. PAINE - She was indefinite, more so than the statement here.
Mr. JENNER - The statement reads, "I opened the blanket and saw a rifle in it."
Mrs. PAINE - My recollection of that is that she opened the blanket and saw a portion of what she judged to be a rifle, having known already that her husband had one.
Mr. JENNER - Did she identify the part she saw as the stock of the rifle?
Mrs. PAINE - I don't recall--that was all done by the police.
Mrs. PAINE - There were six altogether, and they were busy in various parts of the house. The officer asked me in the garage did Lee Oswald have any weapons or guns. I said no, and translated the question to Marina, and she said yes; that she had seen a portion of it--had looked into--she indicated the blanket roll on the floor.
Marina has said that this is NOT how it happened..... Marina could understand English.... and the officer asked her if her husband owned any guns. But before she could think of the words to answer the officer Ruth Paine butted in and replied that "no, Lee didn't own any guns" ..... Marina was startled by Ruth's statement and corrected her answer to the officer, by saying that yes, Lee did own a gun ( she didn't know the difference between a shotgun, and a B-B gun.) and pointed to the rolled up blanket on the floor.
Later when they were standing and waiting while the police poked around in the garage, Marina quietly asked Ruth why she had told the officer that Lee didn't own a gun, and then twisted the officer's question when she translated it to Marina. Marina said her words to Ruth Paine were....Why did you say "no" ..... and has your knowledge of Russian suddenly failed you?
-
And the Klein's order was MAILED the previous day, March 12.
You don’t know when the Klein’s order was mailed. That’s an assumption too (that the alleged order coupon arrived in the alleged envelope). And you certainly have nothing that tells you when the Seaport order was received, even though you claimed to. Besides, Oswald was at work at JCS all day on March 12.
So the Klein's order was most certainly RECEIVED by Klein's on March 13, just as the stamped date indicates on Waldman #7.
Why do you keep misrepresenting this? Waldman 7 says nothing about when the order was received.
And, yes, I'm ASSUMING the Seaport order was also mailed on March 12, due to the "March 13" invoice date on the Seaport internal form.
Thank you. Then why did you state your assumption as a fact?
But, since coincidences like that aren't impossible, I suppose it is possible that Oswald put the revolver order in the mail on January 27 (to match the date he himself wrote on the order form), and then Seaport Traders in L.A. just let Oswald's order sit around for 6 or 7 weeks until they finally got around to processing it. But I kinda doubt that silly scenario is the truth. Don't you?
There’s no reason to prefer one made-up silly scenario over another.
-
Marina has said that this is NOT how it happened..... Marina could understand English.... and the officer asked her if her husband owned any guns. But before she could think of the words to answer the officer Ruth Paine butted in and replied that "no, Lee didn't own any guns" ..... Marina was startled by Ruth's statement and corrected her answer to the officer, by saying that yes, Lee did own a gun ( she didn't know the difference between a shotgun, and a B-B gun.) and pointed to the rolled up blanket on the floor.
Later when they were standing and waiting while the police poked around in the garage, Marina quietly asked Ruth why she had told the officer that Lee didn't own a gun, and then twisted the officer's question when she translated it to Marina. Marina said her words to Ruth Paine were....Why did you say "no" ..... and has your knowledge of Russian suddenly failed you?
Walt, source please.
-
On the floor in the blanket, says Marina.
Wrong, the relevant point being the location of the alleged rifle in the blanket on the floor. Unfortunately Marina and the Paines couldn't keep their stories straight, so we have at least one liar in the household. Isn't that a shame?
Whew, indeed, but don't fell bad about it, as this is just the latest in your endless line of screw-ups.
Ruth and Marina had to agree about the location of the blanket within the garage even though they both confirmed it was there? Wow. And you find that more important than Marina's confirmation that there was a rifle in the blanket? Whew.
-
Mrs. PAINE - There were six altogether, and they were busy in various parts of the house. The officer asked me in the garage did Lee Oswald have any weapons or guns. I said no, and translated the question to Marina, and she said yes; that she had seen a portion of it--had looked into--she indicated the blanket roll on the floor.
Marina has said that this is NOT how it happened..... Marina could understand English.... and the officer asked her if her husband owned any guns. But before she could think of the words to answer the officer Ruth Paine butted in and replied that "no, Lee didn't own any guns" ..... Marina was startled by Ruth's statement and corrected her answer to the officer, by saying that yes, Lee did own a gun ( she didn't know the difference between a shotgun, and a B-B gun.) and pointed to the rolled up blanket on the floor.
Later when they were standing and waiting while the police poked around in the garage, Marina quietly asked Ruth why she had told the officer that Lee didn't own a gun, and then twisted the officer's question when she translated it to Marina. Marina said her words to Ruth Paine were....Why did you say "no" ..... and has your knowledge of Russian suddenly failed you?
Wrong.
Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time that you had noticed the rifle before that day?
Mrs. OSWALD. I said that I saw--for the first and last time I saw the rifle about a week after I had come to Mrs. Paine. But, as I said, the rifle was wrapped in a blanket, and I was sure when the police had come that the rifle was still in the blanket, because it was all rolled together. And, therefore, when they took the blanket and the rifle was not in it, I was very much surprised.
-
Walt, source please.
Marina told me face to face.... And I believe she also told a reporter for a special supplement for the DMN that was published on the thirtieth anniversary of the coup d' etat. I believe that I still have that supplement........ I'll see if I can find it.
-
Marina told me face to face.... And I believe she also told a reporter for a special supplement for the DMN that was published on the thirtieth anniversary of the coup d' etat. I believe that I still have that supplement........ I'll see if I can find it.
Marina indicated she checked the garage for the blanket EVEN before the police arrived after she heard the news about the assassination.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you think immediately that your husband might have been involved?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. RANKIN. Did Mrs. Paine say anything about the possibility of your husband being involved?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, but she only said that "By the way, they fired from the building in which Lee is working."
My heart dropped. I then went to the garage to see whether the rifle was there, and I saw that the blanket was still there, and I said, "Thank God." I thought, "Can there really be such a stupid man in the world that could do something like that?" But I was already rather upset at that time--I don't know why. Perhaps my intuition. I didn't know what I was doing.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you look in the blanket to see if the rifle was there?
Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't unroll the blanket. It was in its usual position, and it appeared to have something inside.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you at any time open the blanket to see if the rifle was there?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, only once.
Mr. RANKIN. You have told us about that.
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. And what about Mrs. Paine? Did she look in the blanket to see if the rifle was there?
Mrs. OSWALD. She didn't know about the rifle. Perhaps she did know. But she never told me about it. I don't know.
Mr. RANKIN. When did you learn that the rifle was not in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. When the police arrived and asked whether my husband had a rifle, and I said "Yes."
Mr. RANKIN. Then what happened?
Mrs. OSWALD. They began to search the apartment. When they came to the garage and took the blanket, I thought, "Well, now, they will find it." They opened the blanket but there was no rifle there.
Then, of course, I already knew that it was Lee. Because, before that, while I thought that the rifle was at home, I did not think that Lee had done that. I thought the police had simply come because he was always under suspicion
-
We know that LHO had his rifle in New Orleans in the summer of '63. And we also know that all his possessions were transported to Irving in Ruth's car in Sept. '63. Nobody specifically saw the rifle at that time, that's true enough.
We know......Nobody saw the rifle.......
Unloaded the car and stored stuff with their eyes closed?
You know nothing. You accept what you wish to believe. All WE have is Marina's testimony which has been shown to be fraudulent...you just will not accept it.
She told the Warren gang just exactly what she thought they wanted to hear.
-
You don’t know when the Klein’s order was mailed. That’s an assumption too (that the alleged order coupon arrived in the alleged envelope). And you certainly have nothing that tells you when the Seaport order was received, even though you claimed to. Besides, Oswald was at work at JCS all day on March 12.
[...]
Why do you keep misrepresenting this? Waldman 7 says nothing about when the order was received.
I see John is in need of that calculator again.
Why can't CTers ever add things up logically?
We know Oswald mailed the Klein's form before 10:30 AM on March 12. (And I think he probably mailed it BEFORE he went to work that day. The Main Post Office was likely open by 8:00 AM in those days, per Gary Mack.)
And we know that Waldman 7 shows a "Mar 13, 1963" date at the top of the document.
Ergo, Klein's received the Oswald order form on either March 12 (the day it was mailed) or March 13 (the day Waldman 7 was stamped). March 13th, of course, is the day it was likely received in the mail by Klein's.
And there is no proof whatsoever that Waldman No. 7 is some kind of phony/fake document. That's merely a baseless assumption on the part of desperate conspiracy theorists.
Here's my gift to all Internet conspiracy believers. I only hope they will use it some day:
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7hv10IaX9FTKadDHL86llGMxuqsYXLabc7cZxhYxFpsCy4e6EowL_Z7DJx8ZgcJD26MPVwQYv8vlx_WQ3IzUQ8KbPWTCvQn39qeBJ8Fg1DioKki2jUXEO8-8qIAeXoeoUHwKxJFqSJYgQXsoZN3iVS3N5O8H6XLhGba9l75UCB7_sxsVv3F4DWdTK/s500/XXXXXXXXX.jpg)
-
I have indeed added up 1 thru 5 and find that they don't add up to the conclusion you attach to your assumptions.
Basically, what you have presented here is a highly circumstantial case, backed up with no significance evidence whatsoever.
I have to ask, David; You do understand the difference between assumptions and actual evidence, right?
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the topic of whether Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766 was in Ruth Paine's garage on Thursday, November 21, 1963.
I know you'll dispute the following statement about Oswald ordering the rifle, but I'll say it anyway because I think it needs to be said in a discussion of this nature:
Since we know (via the multiple documents (https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html) that exist to prove it) that Lee Oswald definitely did order a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago in March of 1963, and Marina took pictures of Lee holding a rifle just a couple of weeks after Lee ordered a rifle by mail....then isn't it very likely that the rifle that Marina Oswald said she saw in the blanket inside Ruth Paine's garage is the very same rifle that Lee Oswald ordered from Klein's seven months earlier?
Or would a more reasonable and more sensible conclusion be that the rifle Marina saw in the blanket in late September or early October* was a rifle that belonged to somebody else other than Lee Harvey Oswald?
I think it's fairly easy to figure out the most-likely-to-be-correct answer to that one.
* BTW, my "October" estimate for when Marina said she saw the rifle in Ruth's garage is, indeed, an accurate estimate (based on Marina's Warren Commission testimony [at 1 H 52]):
MARINA OSWALD -- "There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle."
J. LEE RANKIN -- "When was that?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "About a week after I came from New Orleans."
Marina and Ruth Paine arrived back in Irving, Texas, from New Orleans on September 24, 1963. A week later was October 1st. But it's hardly worth quibbling over. At any rate, Marina saw the rifle in the garage no earlier than the last week of September '63.
-
I see John is in need of that calculator again.
Why can't CTers ever add things up logically?
Because “logic” to you is making up stories that you cannot substantiate in any way and calling it “evidence”.
We know Oswald mailed the Klein's form before 10:30 AM on March 12.
We know nothing of the kind. You’re confusing your conjecture with knowledge again.
(And I think he probably mailed it BEFORE he went to work that day. The Main Post Office was likely open by 8:00 AM in those days, per Gary Mack.)
Bzzzt. The timesheet shows him already working at 8:00.
Ergo, Klein's received the Oswald order form on either March 12 (the day it was mailed)
Bull. You don’t know what day it was mailed. The order coupon isn’t dated.
or March 13 (the day Waldman 7 was stamped). March 13th, of course, is the day it was likely received in the mail by Klein's.
“Likely”. LOL.
And there is no proof whatsoever that Waldman No. 7 is some kind of phony/fake document.
There’s certainly no way to authenticate it. The original documents and even the microfilm are gone. How would even Waldman, who had nothing to do with processing orders, have known it was authentic?
-
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the topic of whether Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766 was in Ruth Paine's garage on Thursday, November 21, 1963.
You can either prove that it was or you cannot.
Since we know (via the multiple documents (https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html) that exist to prove it) that Lee Oswald definitely did order a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago in March of 1963,
Bull. The only document that personally connects Oswald to any rifle order from Klein’s is the order coupon and the unscientific and biased handwriting “analysis” done on it.
and Marina took pictures of Lee holding a rifle just a couple of weeks after Lee ordered a rifle by mail....then isn't it very likely that the rifle that Marina Oswald said she saw in the blanket inside Ruth Paine's garage is the very same rifle that Lee Oswald ordered from Klein's seven months earlier?
The only thing that makes this “likely” is your fertile imagination.
-
The Denial Of The Actual Evidence in the JFK case amongst Internet CTers has reached new heights of absurdity. Pretty soon I expect to hear some crazy tale about how the assassination didn't really take place in Dallas at all. It took place in Boise, Idaho, and Dallas was merely "planted" into the assassination story.
-
An appeal to ridicule is not evidence either. Your mentor, Vince, never did learn that lesson. There’s still time for you to.
A ring in a cup will never be evidence of murder, as much as you would like it to be. The fact that you have to populate your argument with non-evidence only demonstrates that you have nothing else.
-
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the topic of whether Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766 was in Ruth Paine's garage on Thursday, November 21, 1963.
I know you'll dispute the following statement about Oswald ordering the rifle, but I'll say it anyway because I think it needs to be said in a discussion of this nature:
Since we know (via the multiple documents (https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html) that exist to prove it) that Lee Oswald definitely did order a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago in March of 1963, and Marina took pictures of Lee holding a rifle just a couple of weeks after Lee ordered a rifle by mail....then isn't it very likely that the rifle that Marina Oswald said she saw in the blanket inside Ruth Paine's garage is the very same rifle that Lee Oswald ordered from Klein's seven months earlier?
Or would a more reasonable and more sensible conclusion be that the rifle Marina saw in the blanket in late September or early October* was a rifle that belonged to somebody else other than Lee Harvey Oswald?
I think it's fairly easy to figure out the most-likely-to-be-correct answer to that one.
* BTW, my "October" estimate for when Marina said she saw the rifle in Ruth's garage is, indeed, an accurate estimate (based on Marina's Warren Commission testimony [at 1 H 52]):
MARINA OSWALD -- "There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle."
J. LEE RANKIN -- "When was that?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "About a week after I came from New Orleans."
Marina and Ruth Paine arrived back in Irving, Texas, from New Orleans on September 24, 1963. A week later was October 1st. But it's hardly worth quibbling over. At any rate, Marina saw the rifle in the garage no earlier than the last week of September '63.
I don't think you can make any kind of assumption about what rifle (if any) was in Ruth Paine's garage and when, based on events that happened several months earlier and here's why;
Even if Oswald ordered the rifle and he did so for himself (instead of possibly being manipulated to do it) and even if the rifle he is holding in the BY photos is the MC rifle, all that tells you, at best, that he had a rifle in March/April 1963. Although it might seem logical to assume that the rifle in Ruth Paine's garage, in late September, would be the same rifle, it really isn't logical at all.
Oswald is alleged to have used his rifle to shoot at General Walker in April. He is then supposed to somehow have taken that rifle, a weapon that has now been used in an attempted murder, with him to New Orleans, risking possible exposure of himself with the rifle. He then is supposed to have kept the rifle with him during his entire stay in New Orleans only to turn it over to Ruth Paine, a person he barely knew, giving up total control over that rifle for several weeks and potentially causing a problem between himself and the woman with whom his wife and daughter would be staying.
It seems far more logical to me that he would have disposed of the rifle after shooting at General Walker (if that's what he did) and before his trip to New Orleans.
then isn't it very likely that the rifle that Marina Oswald said she saw in the blanket inside Ruth Paine's garage is the very same rifle that Lee Oswald ordered from Klein's seven months earlier?
Or would a more reasonable and more sensible conclusion be that the rifle Marina saw in the blanket in late September or early October* was a rifle that belonged to somebody else other than Lee Harvey Oswald?
I think it's fairly easy to figure out the most-likely-to-be-correct answer to that one.
The problem with this is that whatever you think you can figure out is nothing more than conjecture based on assumptions. It is not evidence. You can consider something to be very likely as much as you like, but that doesn't mean that it is true. The basic error you are making is that you base your assumptions on your opinion that Oswald is guilty, which is the world upside down.
The bottom line is that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that there ever was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage, at any time, except for Marina telling us that she once saw one, about a week after her trip from New Orleans. Everything else Marina said about that rifle, that it belonged to Oswald and still was there on 11/21/63 are mere assumptions. I find it incredibly unbelievable that Marina never confronted Oswald about that rifle being there, especially because she knew that Ruth Paine didn't like guns one bit and a rifle being stored in her garage could well cause major problems between Marina and Ruth.
-
I don't think you can make any kind of assumption about what rifle (if any) was in Ruth Paine's garage and when, based on events that happened several months earlier and here's why;
It seems far more logical to me that he would have disposed of the rifle after shooting at General Walker (if that's what he did) and before his trip to New Orleans.
Wow. In suggesting that we make no "assumptions" about the rifle Martin interjects his subjective opinion of what he thinks Oswald would have done with the rifle to explain why he would have disposed of that rifle. Of course, this explanation assumes that Oswald was in fact the person who shot at Walker. Something that Martin doesn't accept. But he is using "logic" here so don't get in his way. And, of course, Oswald did hide the rifle until he could be sure that he wasn't a suspect. And then Martin suggests that Oswald was keeping a rifle for someone else! A completely baseless claim from the same person who applies an impossible standard of proof when it comes to any evidence of Oswald's guilt. But here Oswald is keeping a rifle for someone and then that second rifle also magically disappears before Nov. 22 and Oswald lies about every possessing such a rifle even though it would aid his cause to explain it! Unreal. Rabbit hole city here we come.
-
Then let's add helicopter engineer Michael Paine who picked up and moved the blanket roll because he was concerned about its contents.
He picked his mind (to no avail) wondering what the rifle in the rolled up blanket held together with string contained instead of simply asking Marina.
SURE!!!
He picked his mind (to no avail) wondering what the rifle in the rolled up blanket held together with string contained instead of simply asking Marina.
Would you clarify, please? The bottom line in the rifle in the blanket controversy is:.... There's simply not one iota of solid physical evidence that the rifle was in that blanket in the Paine's garage.
-
He picked his mind (to no avail) wondering what the rifle in the rolled up blanket held together with string contained instead of simply asking Marina.
Would you clarify, please? The bottom line in the rifle in the blanket controversy is:.... There's simply not one iota of solid physical evidence that the rifle was in that blanket in the Paine's garage.
Not one iota? Oswald's own wife confirmed that she saw it there. LOL. Not only that. But when she heard the news of the assassination, she entered the garage to check if the blanket was still there. Not only that. When the police arrived on Nov. 22, Marina directed them to the blanket expecting them to find the rifle. She was "surprised" when they didn't find it there. Was Marina in on the fantasy plot to frame Oswald even before the police arrived on Nov. 22? You probably believe that but is laughable.
-
Not one iota? Oswald's own wife confirmed that she saw it there. LOL. Not only that. But when she heard the news of the assassination, she entered the garage to check if the blanket was still there. Not only that. When the police arrived on Nov. 22, Marina directed them to the blanket expecting them to find the rifle. She was "surprised" when they didn't find it there. Was Marina in on the fantasy plot to frame Oswald even before the police arrived on Nov. 22? You probably believe that but is laughable.
Is anything that you've cited... PHYSICAL evidence??
-
Is anything that you've cited... PHYSICAL evidence??
Huh? You said there was "not one iota" of evidence but now backtracking? What "physical" evidence would there be that someone had kept a rifle in a blanket. You reject the fiber evidence. Oswald's own wife saw it with her own eyes. Was it a mirage? Your story is that she lied because the authorities coerced her. But we know that she confirmed that a rifle was in the garage literally from the moment that she learned of the assassination. Before anyone could have coerced her to confirm that fact. She directed the police to the garage when they first asked about a rifle.
-
I don't think you can make any kind of assumption about what rifle (if any) was in Ruth Paine's garage and when, based on events that happened several months earlier and here's why;
Even if Oswald ordered the rifle and he did so for himself (instead of possibly being manipulated to do it) and even if the rifle he is holding in the BY photos is the MC rifle, all that tells you, at best, that he had a rifle in March/April 1963. Although it might seem logical to assume that the rifle in Ruth Paine's garage, in late September, would be the same rifle, it really isn't logical at all.
Oswald is alleged to have used his rifle to shoot at General Walker in April. He is then supposed to somehow have taken that rifle, a weapon that has now been used in an attempted murder, with him to New Orleans, risking possible exposure of himself with the rifle. He then is supposed to have kept the rifle with him during his entire stay in New Orleans only to turn it over to Ruth Paine, a person he barely knew, giving up total control over that rifle for several weeks and potentially causing a problem between himself and the woman with whom his wife and daughter would be staying.
It seems far more logical to me that he would have disposed of the rifle after shooting at General Walker (if that's what he did) and before his trip to New Orleans.
then isn't it very likely that the rifle that Marina Oswald said she saw in the blanket inside Ruth Paine's garage is the very same rifle that Lee Oswald ordered from Klein's seven months earlier?
Or would a more reasonable and more sensible conclusion be that the rifle Marina saw in the blanket in late September or early October* was a rifle that belonged to somebody else other than Lee Harvey Oswald?
I think it's fairly easy to figure out the most-likely-to-be-correct answer to that one.
The problem with this is that whatever you think you can figure out is nothing more than conjecture based on assumptions. It is not evidence. You can consider something to be very likely as much as you like, but that doesn't mean that it is true. The basic error you are making is that you base your assumptions on your opinion that Oswald is guilty, which is the world upside down.
The bottom line is that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that there ever was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage, at any time, except for Marina telling us that she once saw one, about a week after her trip from New Orleans. Everything else Marina said about that rifle, that it belonged to Oswald and still was there on 11/21/63 are mere assumptions. I find it incredibly unbelievable that Marina never confronted Oswald about that rifle being there, especially because she knew that Ruth Paine didn't like guns one bit and a rifle being stored in her garage could well cause major problems between Marina and Ruth.
The bottom line is that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that there ever was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage, at any time, except for Marina telling us that she once saw one, about a week after her trip from New Orleans.
When the FBI examined the carcano they didn't find a single blanket fiber on the rifle. If the rifle had been transported from New Orleans in that blanket and then left on the floor of the garage there certainly would have been blanket fibers adhering to the rifle. BUT.... There must have been "something" that resembled a rifle in that rolled up blanket..... ( Mike Piane said that he thought the blanket contained "camping gear".)
-
Is anything that you've cited... PHYSICAL evidence??
Of course it isn't. He never presents evidence of any kind. All he does is ramble on and rant.
"Richard" is easily understood and explained. He knows full well that he can not defend the official narrative because of the problematic and weak nature of the evidence. So he doesn't even try to defend it and instead does the next best thing; trying to ridicule anybody who questions the official narrative by posting one pathetic rant after another, making false claims that he can and will never back up with evidence and constantly repeating the same old debunked BS over and over again.
-
Huh? You said there was "not one iota" of evidence but now backtracking? What "physical" evidence would there be that someone had kept a rifle in a blanket. You reject the fiber evidence. Oswald's own wife saw it with her own eyes. Was it a mirage? Your story is that she lied because the authorities coerced her. But we know that she confirmed that a rifle was in the garage literally from the moment that she learned of the assassination. Before anyone could have coerced her to confirm that fact. She directed the police to the garage when they first asked about a rifle.
You said there was "not one iota" of evidence but now backtracking?
One of us is a damned liar..... Here's what I wrote....
There's simply not one iota of solid physical evidence that the rifle was in that blanket in the Paine's garage.
-
You said there was "not one iota" of evidence but now backtracking?
One of us is a damned liar..... Here's what I wrote....
There's simply not one iota of solid physical evidence that the rifle was in that blanket in the Paine's garage.
That's exactly the way "Richard" operates. He ignores the parts he doesn't like (in this case the word "physical") and complete misrepresents what you have said. It is a waste of time to talk to this guy, which is exactly why I have started to ignore him.
-
I don't think you can make any kind of assumption about what rifle (if any) was in Ruth Paine's garage and when, based on events that happened several months earlier and here's why;
Even if Oswald ordered the rifle and he did so for himself (instead of possibly being manipulated to do it) and even if the rifle he is holding in the BY photos is the MC rifle, all that tells you, at best, that he had a rifle in March/April 1963. Although it might seem logical to assume that the rifle in Ruth Paine's garage, in late September, would be the same rifle, it really isn't logical at all.
Oswald is alleged to have used his rifle to shoot at General Walker in April. He is then supposed to somehow have taken that rifle, a weapon that has now been used in an attempted murder, with him to New Orleans, risking possible exposure of himself with the rifle. He then is supposed to have kept the rifle with him during his entire stay in New Orleans only to turn it over to Ruth Paine, a person he barely knew, giving up total control over that rifle for several weeks and potentially causing a problem between himself and the woman with whom his wife and daughter would be staying.
It seems far more logical to me that he would have disposed of the rifle after shooting at General Walker (if that's what he did) and before his trip to New Orleans.
then isn't it very likely that the rifle that Marina Oswald said she saw in the blanket inside Ruth Paine's garage is the very same rifle that Lee Oswald ordered from Klein's seven months earlier?
Or would a more reasonable and more sensible conclusion be that the rifle Marina saw in the blanket in late September or early October* was a rifle that belonged to somebody else other than Lee Harvey Oswald?
I think it's fairly easy to figure out the most-likely-to-be-correct answer to that one.
The problem with this is that whatever you think you can figure out is nothing more than conjecture based on assumptions. It is not evidence. You can consider something to be very likely as much as you like, but that doesn't mean that it is true. The basic error you are making is that you base your assumptions on your opinion that Oswald is guilty, which is the world upside down.
The bottom line is that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that there ever was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage, at any time, except for Marina telling us that she once saw one, about a week after her trip from New Orleans. Everything else Marina said about that rifle, that it belonged to Oswald and still was there on 11/21/63 are mere assumptions. I find it incredibly unbelievable that Marina never confronted Oswald about that rifle being there, especially because she knew that Ruth Paine didn't like guns one bit and a rifle being stored in her garage could well cause major problems between Marina and Ruth.
But, Martin, don't forget the fact that Marina—within hours of President Kennedy's assassination on 11/22/63—directed the police straight to Ruth Paine's garage and straight to that blanket on the floor. And when she did that on November 22nd she was directing the police to the place in Ruth's house where Marina was certain that her husband stored a rifle.
And regardless of what rifle it was—the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano or another rifle altogether—Marina obviously thought that A RIFLE of some kind was wrapped up in that blanket in Ruth Paine's garage. Wouldn't you agree with that last statement?
Or do you really think that Marina concocted her "There's A Rifle In The Garage" story right on the spot on the day of the assassination itself when she led the cops straight to the blanket on 11/22? And thusly, via such a concoction, she was in essence attempting to point an accusing finger of guilt directly at Lee Oswald for the murder of the President. Or at least it would certainly appear that way at the time she did it on Nov. 22. Would you not agree?
Now, just ask yourself: Why on Earth would Marina have wanted to invent such a lie about a rifle being stored in Ruth Paine's garage just hours after Marina herself knew that the President had just been shot and killed from the very same place where her husband was employed?
The notion that Marina Oswald would have ever conceived of inventing such a false story about the rifle on the very day of the assassination is just too far-fetched to be believed.
I do, however, agree with this comment you made above:
"It seems far more logical to me that he [Lee Oswald] would have disposed of the rifle after shooting at General Walker (if that's what he did) and before his trip to New Orleans."
I have myself often wondered why Oswald did not get rid of the C2766 Carcano rifle after he tried to kill General Walker with it on April 10, 1963. Here are two times in the past I wrote about that mystery—in 2009 and 2016:
"Oswald could be pretty brazen at times. For example—holding on to the rifle with which he shot at General Walker. Oswald, incredibly, apparently actually felt no need or desire to get rid of the weapon with which he took that potshot at Walker.
For more than SEVEN MONTHS he held onto it, even though he almost certainly had to know that the bullet that he fired into Walker's house WAS recovered and could conceivably (for all Oswald knew) be linked to Carcano Rifle #C2766.
I've often wondered why in the world Oswald didn't toss Rifle C2766 in the trash after he shot at Walker on April 10, 1963 (or dispose of it in some other fashion). He ran a fearful risk by keeping that rifle in his possession for all those months.
Perhaps it was a sign of Oswald's miserly and penny-pinching ways. Maybe he just hated the idea of spending $21.45 for a weapon he would only be using once.
I also wonder this --- Would Oswald have disposed of his rifle if he had succeeded in killing General Edwin A. Walker in April 1963?
And I also sometimes wonder this --- If Oswald HAD trashed his Carcano rifle after the Walker shooting, would he have purchased another rifle at some point in time to use in another assassination attempt?
It's possible, of course, that even if Oswald had disposed of the C2766 Carcano, he could have still purchased another gun to use on President Kennedy. Oswald had enough time to get himself another gun between the time he could have learned for certain that JFK would be passing by the front door of the Depository and November 22 itself.
Which begs the follow-up question (which has been asked by many people too) --- Since Oswald had more than $170 and since he had at least 2 to 3 days to get himself another gun...why did LHO decide to use his traceable mail-order Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to shoot the President?
Food for thought anyway.
In summary:
We can never know the answers to all these questions relating to Lee Harvey Oswald, his rifle, and the thoughts that might have been floating around in his warped brain. But the one thing that we do know beyond all REASONABLE DOUBT is this --- Lee Oswald took Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 to work with him on 11/22/63 and fired three shots from that weapon at President Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building." -- DVP; June 28, 2009 (https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LSSFMqQlbBE/m/gTD0N2Uag_0J)
----------------------------
"Lee Oswald purchases a cheap rifle for himself in March 1963 (so he can shoot a certain retired general in Dallas). He misses in his attempt to kill General Walker, but decides to hang on to the Carcano rifle (for some reason that I've never quite been able to figure out, other than his own extreme stinginess and unwillingness to get rid of something he only used once)." -- DVP; March 6, 2016 (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22675-john-armstrong-blasts-the-mail-order-rifle-%E2%80%9Cevidence%E2%80%9D/page/20/#comment-327152)
-
So the Klein's order was most certainly RECEIVED by Klein's on March 13, just as the stamped date indicates on Waldman #7
That looks like a stamp that could have been embossed at any time.
(https://i.ibb.co/8xmsXBV/Kleins-ad-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/s1gRtPr)
I'm ASSUMING the Seaport order was also mailed on March 12, due to the "March 13" invoice date on the Seaport internal form.
I'm assuming that could have been fudged.
(https://i.ibb.co/Sx6vnBy/seaport-traders-invoice.jpg)
It looks like a 3 pressed over some other date and.. why the 1 wk? Oh!---- processed in one week? Bullcrap.
The chances of the order sent- order filled- and order shipped timing is beyond belief.
All of this just smells spells cover-up. A 1963 one day mail service to different cities [snicker]
Why would the Seaport order form be dated 2 months earlier than the proposed... mailed off at the same time as the Klein's order? There's never been a believable answer to that one. Logically a different coupon would have been more neatly filled out.
(https://i.ibb.co/dr2VLvW/Screenshot-2022-06-10-at-18-59-39-Warren-Commission-Volume-XVI-CE-135-Mail-order-coupon-in-name-of-A.png)
-
But, Martin, don't forget the fact that Marina—within hours of President Kennedy's assassination on 11/22/63—directed the police straight to Ruth Paine's garage and straight to that blanket on the floor. And when she did that on November 22nd she was directing the police to the place in Ruth's house where Marina was certain that her husband stored a rifle.
And regardless of what rifle it was—the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano or another rifle altogether—Marina obviously thought that A RIFLE of some kind was wrapped up in that blanket in Ruth Paine's garage. Wouldn't you agree with that last statement?
If that is what really happened, yes I would agree with that statement that Marina did indeed think there still was a rifle in that blanket and that it was Oswald's. Having said that, what Marina thought isn't really evidence. Only last week my wife believed that I had taken money out of her bag, when in fact - as it turned out - she had left it in the car.
Whenever it comes to Marina there are IMO a couple of things to consider. First of all, after the assassination she was a young woman in a foreign country with two little children, no relatives, no real friends and a dead husband who was accused of a double murder. That alone would have been a motive for self preservation. Secondly, we have to consider the fact that in all the interviews she gave to various law enforcement agents, prior to her testimony, she lied multiple times. She actually admitted that she did, so there can't be any discussion about that. Thirdly, and this for me is crucial in understanding Marina, is the fact that at some point, prior to her testimony, an immigration officer was flown in to attend an interview with her who basically told her that if she would cooperate she would be allowed to stay in the country. This alone makes her testimony completely unreliable. In an honest investigation Marina's word would have counted for nothing without some sort of corroboration.
Or do you really think that Marina concocted her "There's A Rifle In The Garage" story right on the spot on the day of the assassination itself when she led the cops straight to the blanket on 11/22? And thusly, via such a concoction, she was in essence attempting to point an accusing finger of guilt directly at Lee Oswald for the murder of the President. Or at least it would certainly appear that way at the time she did it on Nov. 22. Would you not agree?
I agree. I am actually convinced that Marina, in those early days, was convinced that Oswald did the shooting. The mere fact that she destroyed another BY photo tells us that she tought Lee was guilty and yet as a good wife she wanted to help him by destroying evidence. But if what a wife or husband thinks, at some point in time, is actual evidence of guilt of their partner, there would be an overpopulation in the prisons. People thinking can be and frequently is a recipe for disaster.
Now, just ask yourself: Why on Earth would Marina have wanted to invent such a lie about a rifle being stored in Ruth Paine's garage just hours after Marina herself knew that the President had just been shot and killed from the very same place where her husband was employed?
The notion that Marina Oswald would have ever conceived of inventing such a false story about the rifle on the very day of the assassination is just too far-fetched to be believed.
I don't think Marina wanted to invent anything. I think she was a young, very insecure, woman who was overwhelmed by the events and who didn't know what to do and where to turn. Some of what she said was probably true and some of it was just something she believed at the time. The value that is now being attached to Marina's testimony is IMO overrated.
I do, however, agree with this comment you made above:
"It seems far more logical to me that he [Lee Oswald] would have disposed of the rifle after shooting at General Walker (if that's what he did) and before his trip to New Orleans."
I have myself often wondered why Oswald did not get rid of the C2766 Carcano rifle after he tried to kill General Walker with it on April 10, 1963. Here are two times in the past I wrote about that mystery—in 2009 and 2016:
"Oswald could be pretty brazen at times. For example—holding on to the rifle with which he shot at General Walker. Oswald, incredibly, apparently actually felt no need or desire to get rid of the weapon with which he took that potshot at Walker.
For more than SEVEN MONTHS he held onto it, even though he almost certainly had to know that the bullet that he fired into Walker's house WAS recovered and could conceivably (for all Oswald knew) be linked to Carcano Rifle #C2766.
I've often wondered why in the world Oswald didn't toss Rifle C2766 in the trash after he shot at Walker on April 10, 1963 (or dispose of it in some other fashion). He ran a fearful risk by keeping that rifle in his possession for all those months.
Perhaps it was a sign of Oswald's miserly and penny-pinching ways. Maybe he just hated the idea of spending $21.45 for a weapon he would only be using once.
I also wonder this --- Would Oswald have disposed of his rifle if he had succeeded in killing General Edwin A. Walker in April 1963?
And I also sometimes wonder this --- If Oswald HAD trashed his Carcano rifle after the Walker shooting, would he have purchased another rifle at some point in time to use in another assassination attempt?
It's possible, of course, that even if Oswald had disposed of the C2766 Carcano, he could have still purchased another gun to use on President Kennedy. Oswald had enough time to get himself another gun between the time he could have learned for certain that JFK would be passing by the front door of the Depository and November 22 itself.
Which begs the follow-up question (which has been asked by many people too) --- Since Oswald had more than $170 and since he had at least 2 to 3 days to get himself another gun...why did LHO decide to use his traceable mail-order Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to shoot the President?
Food for thought anyway.
Indeed. No matter from which perspective you look at this, it simply doesn't make sense.
In summary:
We can never know the answers to all these questions relating to Lee Harvey Oswald, his rifle, and the thoughts that might have been floating around in his warped brain. But the one thing that we do know beyond all REASONABLE DOUBT is this --- Lee Oswald took Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 to work with him on 11/22/63 and fired three shots from that weapon at President Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building."[/i] -- DVP; June 28, 2009 (https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LSSFMqQlbBE/m/gTD0N2Uag_0J)
But the one thing that we do know beyond all REASONABLE DOUBT is this --- Lee Oswald took Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 to work with him on 11/22/63 and fired three shots from that weapon at President Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.
How exactly do we know this beyond a reasonable doubt?
----------------------------
"Lee Oswald purchases a cheap rifle for himself in March 1963 (so he can shoot a certain retired general in Dallas). He misses in his attempt to kill General Walker, but decides to hang on to the Carcano rifle (for some reason that I've never quite been able to figure out, other than his own extreme stinginess and unwillingness to get rid of something he only used once)." -- DVP; March 6, 2016 (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22675-john-armstrong-blasts-the-mail-order-rifle-%E2%80%9Cevidence%E2%80%9D/page/20/#comment-327152)
This is just editorializing
-
... don't forget the fact that Marina—within hours of President Kennedy's assassination on 11/22/63—directed the police straight to Ruth Paine's garage and straight to that blanket on the floor. And when she did that on November 22nd she was directing the police to the place in Ruth's house where Marina was certain that her husband stored a rifle.
You obviously very much believe this. Vincent Bugliosi has brainwashed you. You fail to see the fallacy and the logic of events. Mr Von Pein....you have done well compiling the assassination information...However you don't see the aberration of the presented story.
Please be mindful that there was a matter of time between the shooting and the testimony of these women.
But still, Mrs Paine was steadfast---- Read carefully and don't immediately jump to your conclusion .....
Mr. JENNER - Was there a rifle packed in the back of the car?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - You didn't see any kind of weapon?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Firearm, rifle, pistol, or otherwise?
Mr. JENNER - Were the materials and things in your station wagon unpacked and placed in your home?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; immediately.
Mr. JENNER - Did you see that being done, were you present?
Mrs. PAINE - I helped do it; yes.
Mr. JENNER - Did you see any weapon on that occasion?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Whether a rifle, pistol or--
Jenner was an ass to be sure
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Or any covering, any package, that looked as though it might have a weapon, pistol, or firearm?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
In a courtroom this would have been asked and answered!
Mr Boggs [Commissioner] asked Ms Paine a few things....
Representative BOGGS - When did she return to your home?
Mrs. PAINE - She came with me from New Orleans, leaving there the 23d of September and arriving in Irving the 24th of September.
Representative BOGGS - And she lived with you in Irving from the 24th of September until the 23d?
Mrs. PAINE - The morning of the 23d.
Representative BOGGS - Of November?
Mrs. PAINE - She left the morning of the 23d, she left expecting to come back.
Representative BOGGS - During that period of time did Lee Oswald live there?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Representative BOGGS - Did you see the rifle that he had in the room in your home?
Mrs. PAINE - In the garage, no.
Representative BOGGS - In the garage, you never saw one?
her husband stored a rifle.
How could Oswald have stored the said rifle in the garage when he wasn't even there until he showed up a some two weeks after Ruth and Marina arrived back from New Orleans?
At that he had to hitchhike from the Dallas YMCA [obviously rifleless] because the ladies had refused go jump and run and pick him up.
News of the president was heard at the Paines----
Mr. JENNER - Was Marina emotional at all? Did she cry?
Mrs. PAINE - No. She said to me, "I feel very badly also, but we seem to show that we are upset in different ways." She did not actually cry.
Mr. McCLOY - May I go back a moment there, if I may. You said you were Sitting on the sofa--that she and you were sitting on the sofa. While you were listening or looking at the television, was there any announcement over the television of a suspicion being cast at Lee?
Mrs. PAINE - It had just been announced that they had caught someone in a theatre, but there was no name given.
Mr. McCLOY - So up to this point there was no suggestion that Lee was involved?
Mrs. PAINE - No; not until the time the officers came to the door.
Mr. JENNER - The police arrived and what occurred.
Mrs. PAINE - I went to the door. They announced themselves as from both the sheriff's office and the Dallas Police Office, showed me at least one package or two. I was very surprised.
Mr. JENNER - Did you say anything?
Mrs. PAINE - I said nothing. I think I just dropped my jaw. And the man in front said by way of explanation "We have Lee Oswald in custody. He is charged with shooting an officer." This is the first I had any idea that Lee might be in trouble with the police or in any way involved in the day's events. I asked them to come in. They said they wanted to search the house. I asked if they had a warrant. They said they didn't. They said they could get the sheriff out here right away with one if I insisted. And I said no, that was all right, they could be my guests.
They then did search the house. I directed them to the fact that most of the Oswald's things were in storage in my garage and showed where the garage was, and to the room where Marina and the baby had stayed where they would find the other things which belonged to the Oswalds. Marina and I went with two or three of these police officers to the garage.
Mr. JENNER - How many police officers were there?
Mrs. PAINE - There were six altogether, and they were busy in various parts of the house. The officer asked me in the garage did Lee Oswald have any weapons or guns. I said no, and translated the question to Marina, and she said yes; that she had seen a portion of it--had looked into--she indicated the blanket roll on the floor.
Mr. JENNER - Was the blanket roll on the floor at that time?
Mrs. PAINE - She indicated the blanket roll on the floor very close to where I was standing. As she told me about it I stepped onto the blanket roll.
This might have been a story line from Days of our Lives.
Ms Paine allowed six cops to stomp all over her house but didn't ask for a warrant or even ask them why?
Ruth was already standing on this supposed blanket and expresses not----- Marina what is this... Lee had a rifle and you knew it was here and you didn't tell me?
Marina didn't secretly stick a rifle under a blanket and she didn't ever say that she did....so how did it get there?
Mr. RANKIN. So he might have been in the garage sometime between 9 and 10? Was that what you thought?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. But I think that he might have even been there in the morning and turned on the light.
Mr. RANKIN. On this evening when you were angry with him, had he come home with the young Mr. Frazier that day?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time that you had noticed the rifle before that day?
Mrs. OSWALD. I said that I saw--for the first and last time I saw the rifle about a week after I had come to Mrs. Paine. But, as I said, the rifle was wrapped in a blanket, and I was sure when the police had come that the rifle was still in the blanket, because it was all rolled together. And, therefore, when they took the blanket and the rifle was not in it, I was very much surprised.
Face facts... there never was any rifle at the Paines.
-
Face facts... there never was any rifle at the Paines.
Then what was in that large-ish package that Lee Oswald took inside the Book Depository Building on the morning of November 22nd? (And you're surely not going to respond with, Curtain rods, what else?, are you?)
Quick Summary:
....Lee Harvey Oswald orders a rifle through the mail in March '63.
....On March 20, Klein's ships Carcano Rifle No. C2766 to Oswald's known Dallas mailing address (P.O. Box 2915 at the Dallas post office).
....While talking to Buell Wesley Frazier on the morning of 11/21/63, Oswald makes up a story about wanting to get some curtain rods at Ruth Paine's house in Irving that evening.
....Oswald, who spent the night at Ruth Paine's house on the night of 11/21, is seen by Frazier taking a long-ish package into the TSBD on the morning of 11/22.
....Carcano Rifle No. C2766 is found on the sixth floor of the TSBD 52 minutes after President Kennedy was assassinated (via rifle fire) from that very same sixth floor.
....An empty long-ish brown paper bag is also found on the 6th floor---very near the window where someone had just shot at the President. Two of Oswald's prints turn up on that bag.
Even without a calculator, it's not exactly a tough chore to add up these pieces of information in order to arrive at the logical answer. But if you're a conspiracy believer, it would seem as if the evidence connected with the JFK murder case is about as useful as a lawn mower in the Sahara.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Photos-And-Other-Evidence
-
You said there was "not one iota" of evidence but now backtracking?
One of us is a damned liar..... Here's what I wrote....
There's simply not one iota of solid physical evidence that the rifle was in that blanket in the Paine's garage.
So “Richard” can’t read any better than he can think.
-
And regardless of what rifle it was—the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano or another rifle altogether—Marina obviously thought that A RIFLE of some kind was wrapped up in that blanket in Ruth Paine's garage. Wouldn't you agree with that last statement?
I’m sure she did think that. That doesn’t mean that she was correct.
The notion that Marina Oswald would have ever conceived of inventing such a false story about the rifle on the very day of the assassination is just too far-fetched to be believed.
Who said that Marina invented a false story?
-
Then what was in that large-ish package that Lee Oswald took inside the Book Depository Building on the morning of November 22nd?
Did you see it?
-
Then what was in that large-ish package that Lee Oswald took inside the Book Depository Building on the morning of November 22nd?
I don’t know and neither do you. But the preponderance of the evidence suggests that it was not the C2766 rifle. And you don’t actually know that he took it inside the building either.
Quick Summary:
....Lee Harvey Oswald orders a rifle through the mail in March '63.
....On March 20, Klein's ships Carcano Rifle No. C2766 to Oswald's known Dallas mailing address (P.O. Box 2915 at the Dallas post office).
....While talking to Buell Wesley Frazier on the morning of 11/21/63, Oswald makes up a story about wanting to get some curtain rods at Ruth Paine's house in Irving that evening.
....Oswald, who spent the night at Ruth Paine's house on the night of 11/21, is seen by Frazier taking a long-ish package into the TSBD on the morning of 11/22.
....Carcano Rifle No. C2766 is found on the sixth floor of the TSBD 52 minutes after President Kennedy was assassinated (via rifle fire) from that very same sixth floor.
....An empty long-ish brown paper bag is also found on the 6th floor---very near the window where someone had just shot at the President. Two of Oswald's prints turn up on that bag.
I see you’re confusing your assumptions with facts again. You don’t know that Klein’s shipped this rifle anywhere. You don’t know that Oswald “made up a story” about curtain rods. You don’t know that Kennedy was assassinated from the sixth floor or from that window. You don’t know where the CE142 bag was found or that it was the same package Frazier saw.
-
I don’t know and neither do you. But the preponderance of the evidence suggests that it was not the C2766 rifle. And you don’t actually know that he took it inside the building either.
I see you’re confusing your assumptions with facts again. You don’t know that Klein’s shipped this rifle anywhere. You don’t know that Oswald “made up a story” about curtain rods. You don’t know that Kennedy was assassinated from the sixth floor or from that window. You don’t know where the CE142 bag was found or that it was the same package Frazier saw.
I see we're still having to endure the constant denials regarding the evidence from the conspiracy fantasists. No surprise there, of course.
In a CTer's mind, Frazier lied....Marina lied....the cops all lied....the Warren Commission lied....the FBI lied....and God knows who else lied. It was a regular Liars Convention in Dallas in November of 1963.
Shouldn't a belief in THAT MANY liars be a pretty good hint to CTers that there's something wrong with the way conspiracists think about this case? I think it should serve as a very very big hint.
-
Who said that Marina invented a false story?
I don't know about 'invented' but she lied..even the Warren gang knew she lied.
Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time that you had noticed the rifle before that day?
Mrs. OSWALD. I said that I saw--for the first and last time I saw the rifle about a week after I had come to Mrs. Paine. But, as I said, the rifle was wrapped in a blanket, and I was sure when the police had come that the rifle was still in the blanket, because it was all rolled together. And, therefore, when they took the blanket and the rifle was not in it, I was very much surprised.
Then who put the rifle under the blanket? They tried to put it on Mr Paine but it doesn't work. BTW-----
Michael Paine was related to the Forbes and Cabot families. Michael’s mother, Ruth Forbes, was a very good friend of Mary Bancroft, Allen Dulles former lover Michael’s stepfather was Arthur Young, a famous inventor and one of the creators of Bell Helicopter. That connection helped his step-son Michael Paine get a high tech/high security clearance to work at Bell Helicopter in Fort Worth. Ruth Paine’s father, William Avery Hyde, and his wife Carol were prominent members of the Ohio Unitarians. An employee of theTexas Employment Commission wanted to inform Oswald that they had found him a job at Trans Texas Airport. Ruth Paine answered that he was not home and so they called back the next day to hear that Oswald had taken a job elsewhere. Ruth never informed Oswald about this job, even though it paid about $100 more per month than the TSBD one. The backyard photographs of Oswald posing with a rifle were found by the police at the Paines’ home. But a week later, another piece of evidence turned up out of the blue— on November 30. It was a note found inside a book incriminating Oswald in the attempted murder of General Walker, which is bizarre since Oswald, for seven months, had never been considered a suspect in that case. Ruth Paine also provided other evidence: a betting guide and a English-Spanish dictionary that allegedly proved that Oswald had visited Mexico. Ruth was also responsible for discovering the well-known “Kostin letter“ allegedly written by Oswald saying that he met Comrade Kostin (meaning Kostikov) in Mexico City. some of these items were discovered after the Dallas Police searched the Paine home and garage—twice! A good example would be the Imperial Reflex camera which was allegedly used to take the backyard photographs. That camera was not on the original Dallas Police inventory list. It was found by Ruth two weeks after the assassination.
Creating the Oswald Legend
Frazier lied
Yup Marina lied
absolutely the cops all lied
Not all of them c'mon the FBI lied
The FBI just did what they were told.... the WC lied
They didn't have to...everybody else lied for themand God knows who else lied.
You do well to invoke the knowledge of The Almighty.
-
More denial regarding the evidence. No surprise here.
Calling an assumption evidence doesn’t make it evidence.
In a CTer's mind, Frazier lied....Marina lied....the cops all lied....the WC lied....the FBI lied....and God knows who else lied. It was a regular Liars Convention in Dallas in Nov. '63.
Nice strawman, but I didn’t say any of these things. Try again.
Meanwhile, you should take a look at the LN cavalcade of “lying/mistaken” witnesses sometime.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,100.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,100.0.html)
-
Nice strawman, but I didn’t say any of these things. Try again.
In essence, yes, you did. Try again. You're doing lousy tonight so far.
Meanwhile, you should take a look at the LN cavalcade of “lying/mistaken” witnesses sometime.
Maybe you should try to take notice of the difference between "lie" and "mistake". CTers seem to have difficulty with that one.
-
In essence, yes, you did. Try again. You're doing lousy tonight so far.
“In essence”. LOL. Yet another assumption masquerading as a fact. If I’m doing so “lousy” why are you unable to substantively address anything I have said?
Maybe you should try to take notice of the difference between "lie" and "mistake". CTers seem to have difficulty with that one.
Seems to me the guy who just got done falsely accusing me of saying that everybody “lied” is the one who doesn’t know the difference.
In essence.
-
You don't even know what you wrote just minutes ago. (Old age maybe?)
"...everybody else lied for them [the WC]." -- John Iacoletti; 6/11/22
So you can’t distinguish what I write from what other people write.
Old age maybe?
-
So you can’t distinguish what I write from what other people write.
Old age maybe?
Oops! You're right (this time), John. I goofed. It was Jerry Freeman who said that.
My fault. Sorry. (I'll delete my incorrect post. Because I hate mistakes.)
-
You said there was "not one iota" of evidence but now backtracking?
One of us is a damned liar..... Here's what I wrote....
There's simply not one iota of solid physical evidence that the rifle was in that blanket in the Paine's garage.
LOL. Again, you didn't answer the question but tried deflecting like Martin/Otto. What "physical" evidence would there be that an object was kept in a blanket? You reject the fiber evidence on the rifle. Why would there need to be any "physical" evidence when Oswald's own wife confirms without any ambiguity that he kept a rifle in the blanket. She told the police when they FIRST arrived on Nov. 22 that her husband kept a rifle in the blanket. She was not subject to any coercion at that point. In fact, she confirms that she checked to see if the blanket was still in the garage BEFORE the police even arrived.
-
Oops! You're right (this time), John. I goofed. It was Jerry Freeman who said that.
My fault. Sorry. (I'll delete my incorrect post. Because I hate mistakes.)
Proving that folks need to read things before they get excited and start posting their forlorned views.
That is to say that the Warren gang did not tell witnesses to lie but the authorities told them what they needed to say.
Wes Frazier has changed his story repeatedly through the years...so has Marina for that matter.
The Warren lawyers knew perfectly well that Oswald never went down to the city park or the airport for target practice....that Marina didn't lock him in the bathroom...that tickets to a bullfight and pesos laying around were probably planted. I don't have the time to go on it's so ludicrous.
-
Ruth Paine seemed to be in the loop of the assassination . She has way to many notable inputs when it came to LHO and the Oswald family in general . It seemed that Ruth Paine might have been involved in guiding the going's on of LHO and Marina . CIA inputs ? Plus , there is no way that anyone wraps a rifle up in a blanket and lays it on the floor of the garage . No fingerprints found on rifle ? You people are smarter than that ! Maybe !
-
There is no way that anyone wraps a rifle up in a blanket and lays it on the floor of the garage.
Why the heck not? Seems like a perfectly logical way to store a rifle in a garage to me.
-
Ruth Paine seemed to be in the loop of the assassination . She has way to many notable inputs when it came to LHO and the Oswald family in general . It seemed that Ruth Paine might have been involved in guiding the going's on of LHO and Marina . CIA inputs ? Plus , there is no way that anyone wraps a rifle up in a blanket and lays it on the floor of the garage . No fingerprints found on rifle ? You people are smarter than that ! Maybe !
A Quaker suburban housewife was the mastermind behind the assassination? Between changes diapers and baking brownies she was plotting with the CIA to kill the president!! HA HA HA. Why would you say that "no one" wraps a rifle in a blanket? What was Oswald supposed to do with it since Paine might have objected to him keeping a rifle in her garage? And, of course, Oswald's prints were found on the rifle. Not sure why you say otherwise. If there were any doubt, Marina confirmed Oswald's ownership of the rifle, there are photos, serial numbers, and documents that link him to a specific rifle. The same rifle found at the crime scene. A slam dunk of guilt.
-
Why the heck not? Seems like a perfectly logical way to store a rifle in a garage to me.
Really?
Let's see just how logical it actually is. Oswald is supposed to have transported his rifle to New Orleans on public transport, right? I don't think it is very plausible that he did so by wrapping it in a blanket. What do you think? A duffel bag or something similar would seem a far more logical choice, right? You know, the kind of bag that was actually found in Ruth Paine's garage.
So, if we assume that Oswald did in fact not use a blanket but used some kind of bag to transport the rifle to New Orleans, why would it even be remotely logical for him to use a blanket to wrap the rifle in instead of using the duffel bag that was actually amongst the possessions that were stored in Ruth Paine's garage after she collected Marina in New Orleans?
You may feel differently, but the entire blanket thing simply doesn't make much sense to me. Even less so, as a blanket does not offer much guarantee that the rifle won't fall out during the unloading of the car.
-
And, of course, Oswald's prints were found on the rifle.
Still BS: , no matter how many times you repeat it.
If there were any doubt, Marina confirmed Oswald's ownership of the rifle,
Still BS: , no matter how many times you repeat it.
there are photos, serial numbers, and documents that link him to a specific rifle.
Still BS: , no matter how many times you repeat it.
-
Really?
Let's see just how logical it actually is. Oswald is supposed to have transported his rifle to New Orleans on public transport, right? I don't think it is very plausible that he did so by wrapping it in a blanket. What do you think? A duffel bag or something similar would seem a far more logical choice, right? You know, the kind of bag that was actually found in Ruth Paine's garage.
So, if we assume that Oswald did in fact not use a blanket but used some kind of bag to transport the rifle to New Orleans, why would it even be remotely logical for him to use a blanket to wrap the rifle in instead of using the duffel bag that was actually amongst the possessions that were stored in Ruth Paine's garage after she collected Marina in New Orleans?
You may feel differently, but the entire blanket thing simply doesn't make much sense to me. Even less so, as a blanket does not offer much guarantee that the rifle won't fall out during the unloading of the car.
A duffel bag or something similar would seem a far more logical choice, right?
A duffel bag, Barracks bag, or sea bag are not long enough to hold a 40 inch long rifle.
I've posted this many times but nobody wants to do a bit of basic research.....
-
A duffel bag or something similar would seem a far more logical choice, right?
A duffel bag, Barracks bag, or sea bag are not long enough to hold a 40 inch long rifle.
I've posted this many times but nobody wants to do a bit of basic research.....
Bags come in all shapes and sizes. But if you are claiming that Oswald did not use a bag of any kind to take a rifle to New Orleans, then please tell me what he did use to conceal the weapon on public transport?
Or are you saying that he never took a rifle to New Orleans in the first place?
-
Bags come in all shapes and sizes. But if you are claiming that Oswald did not use a bag of any kind to take a rifle to New Orleans, then please tell me what he did use to conceal the weapon on public transport?
Or are you saying that he never took a rifle to New Orleans in the first place?
Lee Oswald had a standard issue sea bag. Those bags are not long enough to hold a 40 inch long rifle.
I very seriously doubt that Lee took a rifle to New Orleans when he left Dallas on a bus. I believe that George De M had taken possession of the carcano before he left Dallas. I know there's little evidence for that..... But there's also very little evidence that Lee had the carcano among is possessions when he boarded the bus for N.O.
I know that Marina has said that she saw Lee with a rifle in N.O. But I'm not at all convinced that the rifle she saw in N.O. was the carcano that Lee used to pose for the B.Y. photo.
-
Lee Oswald had a standard issue sea bag. Those bags are not long enough to hold a 40 inch long rifle.
I know that Marina has said that she saw Lee with a rifle in N.O.
The Warren apologists will just say that he must have dismantled it.
That rifle must have been taken apart and then reassembled more times than Mr Potatohead ::)
Of course the location of the pistol [remember that?] remains a mystery too. How did it get around?
I guess they'll say he kept it down in his jock strap.
Marina was coerced....anyone with a sliver of a brain can see that.
Dismiss her statements and the Warren gang had no case at all against Oswald.
-
The Warren apologists will just say that he must have dismantled it.
That rifle must have been taken apart and then reassembled more times than Mr Potatohead ::)
Of course the location of the pistol [remember that?] remains a mystery too. How did it get around?
I guess they'll say he kept it down in his jock strap.
Marina was coerced....anyone with a sliver of a brain can see that.
Dismiss her statements and the Warren gang had no case at all against Oswald.
How was Marina coerced when she directed the police to the blanket expecting the rifle to be found there on Nov. 22 when they very first arrived? She even indicated that she checked to see if the blanket was there BEFORE the police even arrived. Good grief. Oswald was apparently the only person in Dallas not involved in the conspiracy.
-
How was Marina coerced when she directed the police to the blanket expecting the rifle to be found there on Nov. 22 when they very first arrived? She even indicated that she checked to see if the blanket was there BEFORE the police even arrived. Good grief. Oswald was apparently the only person in Dallas not involved in the conspiracy.
She even indicated that she checked to see if the blanket was there BEFORE the police even arrived.
Is it reasonable that Marina would merely look at the blanket on the floor?... Considering the reason that she allegedly went to the garage ( because she was alarmed that Lee might have been involved) wouldn't she logically have physically checked the blanket to see if the rifle was in the blanket ? And then when the police asked her if Lee owned a rifle she would have answered "NO" he did not..... BUT when Detective Rose asked Ruth Paine ( interpreting for Marina) if Lee owned a rifle she ( Marina understood the question and answered "Yes" , and indicated the the rifle was in the garage, and beckoned Rose to follow her to the garage...... Where they found no trace of a rifle. ( nor was there any object in the rolled up blanket.)
There are many questions raised by this episode ..... But the big question seems to be..... Why would Ruth Paine answer for Marina that Lee did not own a rifle when Marina clearly told her and Detective Rose that "YES" Lee did own a rifle? Even Marina was taken aback by Ruth Paine's reply to detective Rose that "No" Lee didn't own a rifle when Marina had just stated that "YES" Lee did own a rifle.
-
She even indicated that she checked to see if the blanket was there BEFORE the police even arrived.
Is it reasonable that Marina would merely look at the blanket on the floor?... Considering the reason that she allegedly went to the garage ( because she was alarmed that Lee might have been involved) wouldn't she logically have physically checked the blanket to see if the rifle was in the blanket ? And then when the police asked her if Lee owned a rifle she would have answered "NO" he did not..... BUT when Detective Rose asked Ruth Paine ( interpreting for Marina) if Lee owned a rifle she ( Marina understood the question and answered "Yes" , and indicated the the rifle was in the garage, and beckoned Rose to follow her to the garage...... Where they found no trace of a rifle. ( nor was there any object in the rolled up blanket.)
This is very tortured logic and contains a number of false premises. Why would Marina bother to check for the blanket at all unless she believed that it contained Oswald's rifle? There is no reason for her to do so after learing of the assassination unless she knew that Oswald kept his rifle in the blanket. Your subjective opinion that she would have looked in the blanket is not relevant to that point. The point is that Marina's actions confirmed that Oswald kept a rifle in the blanket. She was concerned he might be involved so checked to make sure that the blanket where she knew he kept the rifle was still there. And because she checked for it both BEFORE the police came and directed them to it in the moments after they first arrived, her confirmation at that early point could not have been the result of any coercion as you falsely suggested. Why would she have responded in the negative to the police regarding a question as to whether her husband owned a rifle even if she had checked the blanket and not found it? They didn't ask her if the rifle was still in the blanket but whether he owned a rifle. She knew that he had. The police wouldn't have had a clue at that point as to where he kept it. That is why they were asking in the first place.
-
The point is that Marina's actions confirmed that Oswald kept a rifle in the blanket.
Bull. It merely shows that Marina assumed he kept a rifle in the blanket.
-
Bull. It merely shows that Marina assumed he kept a rifle in the blanket.
I believe at some point Marina had seen Lee wrapping a rifle in a blanket..... What rifle?....And where did it occur ??
And whose rifle was it??? I've long wondered if the .22 caliber rifle that Lee's brother had kept for him, was the rifle that Marina had seen Lee wrapping in a blanket?? There simply isn't any evidence that the TSBD carcano (C2766) was ever wrapped in that blanket. The FBI did not find a single blanket fiber adhering to that carcano, and i find that utterly incredible .....If that carcano had been wrapped in that blanket.
-
This is very tortured logic and contains a number of false premises. Why would Marina bother to check for the blanket at all unless she believed that it contained Oswald's rifle? There is no reason for her to do so after learing of the assassination unless she knew that Oswald kept his rifle in the blanket. Your subjective opinion that she would have looked in the blanket is not relevant to that point. The point is that Marina's actions confirmed that Oswald kept a rifle in the blanket. She was concerned he might be involved so checked to make sure that the blanket where she knew he kept the rifle was still there. And because she checked for it both BEFORE the police came and directed them to it in the moments after they first arrived, her confirmation at that early point could not have been the result of any coercion as you falsely suggested. Why would she have responded in the negative to the police regarding a question as to whether her husband owned a rifle even if she had checked the blanket and not found it? They didn't ask her if the rifle was still in the blanket but whether he owned a rifle. She knew that he had. The police wouldn't have had a clue at that point as to where he kept it. That is why they were asking in the first place.
Your subjective opinion that she would have looked in the blanket is not relevant to that point.
So based on your logic .... Just the sight of the blanket would have been enough to allay her concern?
Only Marina knows if you're right...... And Only Marina knows the truth about the rifle on the garage ....
-
Your subjective opinion that she would have looked in the blanket is not relevant to that point.
So based on your logic .... Just the sight of the blanket would have been enough to allay her concern?
It doesn't make any difference. Again, the point being that Marina would have no cause to check for the blanket unless she knew that Oswald kept his rifle there. She checked for the blanket after learning that someone had fired the shots from the building that her husband worked in. She was concerned he was involved in the shooting not that he was cold and needed a blanket. Some CTers have falsely suggested that Marina's WC testimony is ambiguous on whether Oswald kept a rifle in the Paine's garage. It is, however, crystal clear from Marina's testimony and actions that she had seen a rifle in that blanket in the Paine's garage and believed it would be found there on 11.22. The fact that she held this belief on 11.22 when first asked by the police about the rifle confirms that she could not have been subject to any coercion on that point since the sinister conspirators would have had no time to get to her as yet. So that fantasy explanation goes out the window as well.
-
I believe at some point Marina had seen Lee wrapping a rifle in a blanket..... What rifle?....And where did it occur ??
Is this another thing she told you personally?
There simply isn't any evidence that the TSBD carcano (C2766) was ever wrapped in that blanket.
Agreed. But “Richard” laughably believes that since Marina thought a rifle was in that blanket in late September, that somehow proves that C2766 was in the blanket on November 21.
Which is why we laugh at “Richard”.
-
Is this another thing she told you personally?
Agreed. But “Richard” laughably believes that since Marina thought a rifle was in that blanket in late September, that somehow proves that C2766 was in the blanket on November 21.
Which is why we laugh at “Richard”.
The fact is:...We don't know what rifle Marina saw being tested by Lee in New Orleans....I could easily have been a rifle or shotgun that belonged to Adrian Alba, and Lee might have been contemplating buying it.... It certainly wouldn't have made any sense for Lee to be testing a carcano that he had handled way back in April of 63.....
-
I believe at some point Marina had seen Lee wrapping a rifle in a blanket.
There simply isn't any evidence that the TSBD carcano (C2766) was ever wrapped in that blanket. The FBI did not find a single blanket fiber adhering to that carcano, and i find that utterly incredible .....If that carcano had been wrapped in that blanket.
They crammed something in the Report about that...... https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#fibers
...the Commission found no reliable evidence that Oswald used the rifle at any time between September 23, when it was transported from New Orleans, and November 22, the day of the assassination.80 The fact that on the morning of the assassination Oswald was wearing the shirt from which these relatively fresh fibers most probably originated, provides some evidence that they were placed on the rifle that day since there was limited, if any, opportunity for Oswald to handle the weapon during the 2 months prior to November 22.
On the other hand Stombaugh pointed out that fibers might retain their freshness if the rifle had been "put aside" after catching the fibers. The rifle used in the assassination probably had been wrapped in a blanket for about 8 weeks prior to November 22.81 Because the relative freshness of these fibers might be explained by the continuous storage of the rifle in the blanket, the Commission was unable to reach any firm conclusion as to when the fibers were caught in the rifle. The Commission was able to conclude, however, that the fibers most probably came from Oswald's shirt. This adds to the conviction of the Commission that Oswald owned and handled the weapon used in the assassination.
:-\ Right.
The fibers were either from the blanket or a shirt. Great analysis there!
Other than this innuendo.... there is only Marina's word that there ever was a rifle. Believe whatever.
Is this another thing she told you personally?
Agreed. But “Richard” laughably believes that since Marina thought a rifle was in that blanket in late September, that somehow proves that C2766 was in the blanket on November 21.
Which is why we laugh at “Richard”.
Not worthy of even a snicker.
-
In which Marina makes "assumptions":
Mr. RANKIN. Did you think immediately that your husband might have been involved?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. RANKIN. Did Mrs. Paine say anything about the possibility of your husband being involved?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, but she only said that "By the way, they fired from the building in which Lee is working."
My heart dropped. I then went to the garage to see whether the rifle was there, and I saw that the blanket was still there, and I said, "Thank God." I thought, "Can there really be such a stupid man in the world that could do something like that?" But I was already rather upset at that time--I don't know why. Perhaps my intuition. I didn't know what I was doing.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you look in the blanket to see if the rifle was there?
Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't unroll the blanket. It was in its usual position, and it appeared to have something inside.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you at any time open the blanket to see if the rifle was there?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, only once.
Mr. RANKIN. You have told us about that.
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. And what about Mrs. Paine? Did she look in the blanket to see if the rifle was there?
Mrs. OSWALD. She didn't know about the rifle. Perhaps she did know. But she never told me about it. I don't know.
Mr. RANKIN. When did you learn that the rifle was not in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. When the police arrived and asked whether my husband had a rifle, and I said "Yes."
Mr. RANKIN. Then what happened?
Mrs. OSWALD. They began to search the apartment. When they came to the garage and took the blanket, I thought, "Well, now, they will find it." They opened the blanket but there was no rifle there.
Then, of course, I already knew that it was Lee. Because, before that, while I thought that the rifle was at home, I did not think that Lee had done that. I thought the police had simply come because he was always under suspicion
-
They crammed something in the Report about that...... https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#fibers
:-\ Right.
The fibers were either from the blanket or a shirt. Great analysis there!
Other than this innuendo.... there is only Marina's word that there ever was a rifle. Believe whatever. Not worthy of even a snicker.
Having considered the probabilities as explained in Stombaugh's testimony, the Commission has concluded that the fibers in the tuft on the rifle most probably came from the shirt worn by Oswald when he was arrested, and that this was the same shirt which Oswald wore on the morning of the assassination.
The WC KNEW for a fact that Lee had gone to his room and changed his clothes at 1:00pm, before he went to the theater....And yet they lied and said that the arrest shirt was the same shirt he wore at the TSBD that morning.... I can only hope that they are receiving their just reward......
-
Mr. RANKIN. Did Mrs. Paine say anything about the possibility of your husband being involved?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, but she only said that "By the way, they fired from the building in which Lee is working."
Ruth Paine claimed she thought Oswald worked at the Houston St. depository warehouse, so at least one of them is lying, surprise?
According to the DP police officers arriving at the Paine residence, Ruth Paine said she was expecting them, so plenty of time to prime Marina.
And, as I've pointed out to you previously (which you didn't grasp, surprise?), Marina claimed the blanket to be in the same spot, although the blanket was moved by Michael Paine, so that was another lie by your star witness, surprise?
Try to focus. The point is that Marina would have no cause to check the blanket or direct the police to the blanket when they asked her if her husband owned a rifle unless she had cause to know that he kept a rifle there. This was done BEFORE the police arrived and when they very first arrived. Meaning that she could not have been subject to any post-assassination coercion regarding her confirmation that LHO kept a rifle in the Paine's garage. Your bizarre fixation with where the blanket was located in the garage is meaningless. The fact remains that Marina confirmed both to the WC months later and to the police in the hours after the assassination that her husband kept a rifle in the blanket in the Paine's garage. There is no ambiguity on that point. It is not an "assumption" or "opinion." Marina saw the rifle there and directed the police to that location when asked about "the rifle." Among the greatest dishonesty displayed on this forum is the suggestion that Marina was uncertain that the object she saw was a rifle. She was asked dozens of times about the "rifle". She responded to those questions and confirmed that the blanket contained "the rifle."
-
Mr. RANKIN. Did Mrs. Paine say anything about the possibility of your husband being involved?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, but she only said that "By the way, they fired from the building in which Lee is working."
Ruth Paine claimed she thought Oswald worked at the Houston St. depository warehouse, so at least one of them is lying, surprise?
According to the DP police officers arriving at the Paine residence, Ruth Paine said she was expecting them, so plenty of time to prime Marina.
And, as I've pointed out to you previously (which you didn't grasp, surprise?), Marina claimed the blanket to be in the same spot, although the blanket was moved by Michael Paine, so that was another lie by your star witness, surprise?
Mr. RANKIN. Did you think immediately that your husband might have been involved?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
But Marina said that she went to the garage to check to see if the rifle was still there and was relieved to see the blanket on the floor WHERE IT HAD ALWAYS BEEN since moving fro New Orleans.... (Despite the fact that Mike Paine said that he moved the blanket....)
If Marina didn't think that Lee might be involved....WHY did she go to the garage to see if the rifle was still there?????
Perhaps Ruthie prodded Marina into wondering if Lee was involved, by stating that the shots had been fired from the building where Lee Worked.
Mr. RANKIN. Did Mrs. Paine say anything about the possibility of your husband being involved?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, but she only said that "By the way, they fired from the building in which Lee is working."
Hmmmmm?..... Marina said that initially she didn't suspect hat Lee was involved .... But then Truthie Ruthie prodded her into thinking that perhaps Lee was involved by saying that the shots had come from the building where Lee worked.....
And this raises a very interesting question.... HOW did Truthie Ruthie know that Lee worked in that building??
Ruth Paine claimed she thought Oswald worked at the Houston St. depository warehouse, !!
-
There's no supporting evidence for that tale, as usual.
More unsupported BS, see above.
Meaning, more unsupported BS from you piling up since Marina can't confirm her own unsupported claim.
Any fact poking holes in your fantasy is meaningless, surprise?
Marina can't confirm her own uncorroborated claim, how many times have you been schooled on this?
"ambiguity" -- ROFL -- nobody said her BS story was ambiguous.
Perfectly sums up your illinformed rants.
Unverified claim, see above.
Ruth translated, good luck with that.
Irrelevant what she imagened was inside the blanket no matter how certain she was.
There's not a shred of evidence, physical or otherwise, that the carcano was ever in that blanket roll.
Classic contrarian nonsense. Who exactly would "corroborate" the contents of a blanket that belonged to LHO and Marina? And if Ruth Paine or the Hamburglar had done so, you would claim they were part of the plot. Hilarious. But again, the actual point under discussion is whether Marina was ambiguous on the point of whether she saw a rifle in the blanket (whatever fantasy you want to entertain for her confirming this point) as falsely suggested by the contrarians. Marina, without any ambiguity whatsoever, confirms in her words and actions that a rifle belonging to LHO was kept in the blanket. She didn't "assume" this (a bizarre claim) but said that she saw "the rifle." It was gone when the police checked the blanket just hours after crime and can be accounted for in no other way except as the rifle found in the TSBD. The rifle that had the same serial number that third party documents confirm was sent to Oswald's PO Box. The same rifle that Oswald's print was found on. The rifle (as Marina said). Slam dunk.
-
Classic contrarian nonsense. Who exactly would "corroborate" the contents of a blanket that belonged to LHO and Marina? And if Ruth Paine or the Hamburglar had done so, you would claim they were part of the plot. Hilarious. But again, the actual point under discussion is whether Marina was ambiguous on the point of whether she saw a rifle in the blanket (whatever fantasy you want to entertain for her confirming this point) as falsely suggested by the contrarians. Marina, without any ambiguity whatsoever, confirms in her words and actions that a rifle belonging to LHO was kept in the blanket. She didn't "assume" this (a bizarre claim) but said that she saw "the rifle." It was gone when the police checked the blanket just hours after crime and can be accounted for in no other way except as the rifle found in the TSBD. The rifle that had the same serial number that third party documents confirm was sent to Oswald's PO Box. The same rifle that Oswald's print was found on. The rifle (as Marina said). Slam dunk.
She didn't "assume" this (a bizarre claim) but said that she saw "the rifle."
Marina did not say she saw "the rifle" she said that she saw a piece of wood in the blanket.....She assumed it was the wooden stock of a long arm. ( rifle or shotgun )
It was gone when the police checked the blanket just hours after crime and can be accounted for in no other way except as the rifle found in the TSBD. The fact is.....Whatever Marina saw in the blanket could have been removed long before 11/22/63.
The rifle that had the same serial number that third party documents confirm was sent to Oswald's PO Box. The same rifle that Oswald's print was found on. ... This is pure BS.... There was no identifiable print found on the carcano. The authorities have lied about finding Lee's palm print on a surface that is physically too small to hold an identifiable palm print.
The rifle (as Marina said).
-
She didn't "assume" this (a bizarre claim) but said that she saw "the rifle."
Marina did not say she saw "the rifle" she said that she saw a piece of wood in the blanket.....She assumed it was the wooden stock of a long arm. ( rifle or shotgun )
It was gone when the police checked the blanket just hours after crime and can be accounted for in no other way except as the rifle found in the TSBD. The fact is.....Whatever Marina saw in the blanket could have been removed long before 11/22/63.
The rifle that had the same serial number that third party documents confirm was sent to Oswald's PO Box. The same rifle that Oswald's print was found on. ... This is pure BS.... There was no identifiable print found on the carcano. The authorities have lied about finding Lee's palm print on a surface that is physically too small to hold an identifiable palm print.
The rifle (as Marina said).
Stop cutting and pasting from the contrarians. You have also dishonestly distorted what Marina actually said. She said nothing about a "wooden stock of a long arm." LOL. In response to a question about the rifle, she confirmed that she had seen the "wooden part of it, the wooden stock." The only "it" involved in the question is the rifle. And, of course, Oswald's rifle has a "wooden stock." Did Marina see a rifle in the blanket or not?
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle carried in some kind of a case when you went back with Mrs. Paine?
Mrs. OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.
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 I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.
-
Marina, without any ambiguity whatsoever, confirms in her words and actions that a rifle belonging to LHO was kept in the blanket. She didn't "assume" this (a bizarre claim) but said that she saw "the rifle."
She most certainly did. It was rolled up in a blanket and tied with string. She didn’t unwrap it. She just looked in the end and saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle. And that was 6 weeks earlier.
It was gone when the police checked the blanket just hours after crime and can be accounted for in no other way except as the rifle found in the TSBD.
You don’t get to shift the burden. You can either demonstrate that Marina saw C2766 or you cannot. And you cannot.
The rifle that had the same serial number that third party documents confirm was sent to Oswald's PO Box.
Bull. There’s nothing showing that anything was actually shipped though the postal service, delivered to the Dallas post office, or signed for and picked up by Oswald or anybody else.
The same rifle that Oswald's print was found on.
Bull. A partial palmprint showed up a week later on an index card.
-
'If Marina didn't think that Lee might be involved....WHY did she go to the garage to see if the rifle was still there?????
Because heretofore there had been no other time when a POTUS had been shot from a building where her husband was working. Duh.
Where do they get you jokers? You lot just can't seem to think outside the sandbox.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L40M1kth/kids-blocks.jpg)
-
Because heretofore there had been no other time when a POTUS had been shot from a building where her husband was working. Duh.
Where do they get you jokers? You lot just can't seem to think outside the sandbox.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L40M1kth/kids-blocks.jpg)
'If Marina didn't think that Lee might be involved....WHY did she go to the garage to see if the rifle was still there?????
Because heretofore there had been no other time when a POTUS had been shot from a building where her husband was working.
But Marina didn't know that the authorities were reporting that the shots were suspected to have came from the TSBD....until Ruth Paine told her that the shots had been fired from the building where Lee worked.....except Ruth said that she thought that Lee worked in a different building (the warehouse behind the TSBD ) so why did Ruthie tell marina that the shots had been fired from the building where Lee worked?
-
'If Marina didn't think that Lee might be involved....WHY did she go to the garage to see if the rifle was still there?????
Because heretofore there had been no other time when a POTUS had been shot from a building where her husband was working.
But Marina didn't know that the authorities were reporting that the shots were suspected to have came from the TSBD....until Ruth Paine told her that the shots had been fired from the building where Lee worked.....except Ruth said that she thought that Lee worked in a different building (the warehouse behind the TSBD ) so why did Ruthie tell marina that the shots had been fired from the building where Lee worked?
What a tangled mess that reply is.
-
Read Marina's 11/22 affidavit and get back to us when you understand that she didn't remember the scope and could not identify the rifle as being Oswald's.
Run Otto run.
Didn't remember the scope? LOL. That's a lot different than claiming there was no rifle in the blanket and she just saw some unknown item made of wood.
"I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle." - Marina Oswald.
-
No worries, I'm not leaving your clown show!
Marina had no reason to correct herself by restricting her sighting to what she believed was the stock of "the rifle" if she actually saw "the rifle".
Based on her affidavit, there's no reason to believe "the rifle" in the blanket, which she on 11/22 could not identify, even had a scope. This would take your nutty fantasy to the next level, wow!
So angry. LOL.
"I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle." - Marina Oswald.
-
False, I'm having so much fun.
Now, when did Oswald mount the scope and sight it in?
OMG, this should be even funnier!
He didn't but maybe start a thread on that since it is an entirely different topic than we were discussing which is whether Marina confirmed that Oswald kept a rifle in the blanket or whether the contrarians are correct that there is ambiguity on this point and she only saw something made of "wood."
"I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle." - Marina Oswald.
-
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/marina-rifle-fbi1.png)
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/marina-rifle-fbi2.png)
-
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/marina-rifle-fbi1.png)
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/marina-rifle-fbi2.png)
You need some lead in yer pencil, John.......
-
Sounds like Marina identified the shotgun Oswald said he had in Russia based on the document John I posted above. Which pretty much nullifies her identifying the alleged Carcano.
-
Sounds like Marina identified the shotgun Oswald said he had in Russia based on the document John I posted above. Which pretty much nullifies her identifying the alleged Carcano.
We simple don't know that "IF" Marina saw the stock of a long arm in the blanket, what kind of long arm she saw. It highly unlikely that it was the carcano that was found in the TSBD, because there wasn't a single blanket fiber found on that carcano......despite the fact that the carcano from the TSBD had a tuft of shirt fibers adhering to it.
-
You need some lead in yer pencil, John.......
If you can't see it, it's a copy of CE1778 quoting Marina on 11/23 as saying that Lee owned a rifle which he used in Russia about two years ago and that she observed what she presumed to be the same rifle in a blanket in the garage. It goes on to say that she was unable to positively identify it because all guns look alike to her.
-
Stop cutting and pasting from the contrarians. You have also dishonestly distorted what Marina actually said. She said nothing about a "wooden stock of a long arm." LOL. In response to a question about the rifle, she confirmed that she had seen the "wooden part of it, the wooden stock." The only "it" involved in the question is the rifle. And, of course, Oswald's rifle has a "wooden stock." Did Marina see a rifle in the blanket or not?
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle carried in some kind of a case when you went back with Mrs. Paine?
Mrs. OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.
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 I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.
In the supplement to the DMN on the twentieth anniversary of the assassination, Marina is quoted as referring to the rifle was being in a "SACK"...... not a blanket.
-
Somebody did after he removed it for your fantasy to make any sense at all:
Mr. RANKIN. When you saw the rifle assembled in the room, did it have the scope on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it did not have a scope on it.
BTW, Marina can't confirm her own claim.
In which we learn that Marina is not a firearm's expert and didn't play close attention to specifications of "the rifle." None of which has anything to do with whether her testimony confirms that Oswald kept a rifle in the blanket in the Paine's garage. In fact, it is just more confirmation that Oswald owned a rifle since she is discussing it. The typical deflection. Again, Marina said the following:
"I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle."
-
"specification" -- LOL
She's the one source of the claim so there's nothing to confirm.
Your confirmation BS will remain BS regardless of how often you repeat it.
Michael Paine discussed camping equipment so it confirms the blanket contained camping equipment.
No, it's your fantasy meeting brutal reality.
Again, Marina backpedaling:
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.
In which Otto takes one partial answer from Marina's testimony in a desperate attempt to create false doubt about Oswald's rifle being in the blanket. And that quote actually supports the conclusion that she saw a rife. Look at the question: Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you? The sole subject matter of the question "the rifle." Now the answer: Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock. Marina has responded in the affirmative to a question about finding "the rifle" in the blanket. She confirms that she found the wooden part of "it." The only "it" in the question is "the rifle." If there is any doubt about this (and there is not) she goes on to say the "wooden stock." Of course a rifle has a wooden stock. This answer raise no ambiguity whatsoever that she is describing anything other than the rifle. But, of course, this is not only time that she was asked about "the rifle." She was asked dozens of times about "the rifle." In each instance she responds to those questions and confirms Oswald's ownership of a rifle and fact that he kept it the Paine's garage. Never once does she suggest any doubt about this. And when asked by police if her husband owns a rifle, she directs them to the blanket in the Paine's garage. Her actions demonstrate beyond any doubt that she saw a "rifle" in the blanket. There is no other way to explain directing the police to that blanket in response to their question about a "rifle" than Marina knowing that is where Oswald kept a "rifle."
"I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle."
-
In which Otto takes one partial answer from Marina's testimony in a desperate attempt to create false doubt about Oswald's rifle being in the blanket. And that quote actually supports the conclusion that she saw a rife. Look at the question: Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you? The sole subject matter of the question "the rifle." Now the answer: Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock. Marina has responded in the affirmative to a question about finding "the rifle" in the blanket. She confirms that she found the wooden part of "it." The only "it" in the question is "the rifle." If there is any doubt about this (and there is not) she goes on to say the "wooden stock." Of course a rifle has a wooden stock. This answer raise no ambiguity whatsoever that she is describing anything other than the rifle. But, of course, this is not only time that she was asked about "the rifle." She was asked dozens of times about "the rifle." In each instance she responds to those questions and confirms Oswald's ownership of a rifle and fact that he kept it the Paine's garage. Never once does she suggest any doubt about this. And when asked by police if her husband owns a rifle, she directs them to the blanket in the Paine's garage. Her actions demonstrate beyond any doubt that she saw a "rifle" in the blanket. There is no other way to explain directing the police to that blanket in response to their question about a "rifle" than Marina knowing that is where Oswald kept a "rifle."
"I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle."
Look at the question: Mr. RANKIN.And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you? The sole subject matter of the question "the rifle." Now the answer: Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock. Marina has responded in the affirmative to a question about finding "the rifle" in the blanket.
Yes Marina responded affirmative, and that was exactly the purpose of that leading question; to morph in her mind the wooden stock she had seen into a rifle. During a trial that question would never have been allowed to be asked.
Are you really this stupid of just pretending to be?
-
Otto would interpret the following exchange to be ambiguous as to whether the person had eaten an orange ("it") suggesting that maybe they had eaten a "slice" of a pizza or pineapple or apple pie and just didn't bother to mention that to the questioner. What comedy gold. He maintains this nonsense even if they then went on to say "I ate an orange for lunch today" because in this single instance they referred to "it" instead of an orange when being questioned about the orange. HA HA HA.
Q: Did you eat an orange for lunch today?
A: Yes, I ate a slice of it.
-
Otto would interpret the following exchange to be ambiguous as to whether the person had eaten an orange ("it") suggesting that maybe they had eaten a "slice" of a pizza or pineapple or apple pie and just didn't bother to mention that to the questioner. What comedy gold. He maintains this nonsense even if they then went on to say "I ate an orange for lunch today" because in this single instance they referred to "it" instead of an orange when being questioned about the orange. HA HA HA.
Q: Did you eat an orange for lunch today?
A: Yes, I ate a slice of it.
Q: Did you eat an orange for lunch today?
A: Yes, I ate a slice of it.
This demonstrates your uncritical reasoning....because the answer should be "No, I didn't eat an orange, but I ate a slice of an orange"
-
Q: Did you eat an orange for lunch today?
A: Yes, I ate a slice of it.
This demonstrates your uncritical reasoning....because the answer should be "No, I didn't eat an orange, but I ate a slice of an orange"
HA HA HA. I didn't think it could get any weirder. Where does a slice of an orange come from? A pineapple? That is what you would like us to believe that Marina said. She was asked about the rifle. She affirmatively confirmed that she saw "it". There is nothing else mentioned in that question except the rifle ('it"). She goes on to say that she saw the "wooden stock." The rifle has a wooden stock! If there is any doubt about her answer (and there is not), she was asked a multitude of other times about "the rifle." In every instance she confirms that she saw the "rifle." Good grief.
-
Nobody disputes that Marina thought it was a rifle wrapped up in the blanket.
The only reason “Richard” is belaboring this is because he knows he cannot demonstrate that what she saw was C2766 or that what she saw was still in that blanket on 11/21.
-
Q: Did you eat an orange for lunch today?
A: Yes, I ate a slice of it.
This demonstrates your uncritical reasoning....because the answer should be "No, I didn't eat an orange, but I ate a slice of an orange"
You just showed us how to make a word salad out of 'just a slice'
Q: Did you eat an orange for lunch today?
A: Just a slice.
-
You launched a false analogy and got instantly slammed, LOL.
Then try to blame it on Walt, embarrassing rasing!
So why was the scope missing?
Q: Did you ride the bus today?
A: Yes, I rode it to work and sat in the front seat.
Otto interpretation: This respondent is not confirming that they rode a bus because they did not use the word "bus." They only made reference to "it" and a "seat". It is possible to ride other things like a bicycle or car because those have a "seat." Thus there is doubt as to whether they rode a bus. HA HA HA. Comedy gold.
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.
-
Here's a valid analogy:
Q: And then you found that the truck was in the garage, did you?
A: Yes, I saw the chrome part of it, the chrome bumper.
Comparatively Marina saw much more than a chrome bumper, a better comparison is the following, what's behind the covering is unmistakably a car and even if the following graphic only exposed the bumper, nobody would confuse the hidden object as a "piece of metal/plastic". Thumb1:
(https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/gift-picture-id182057811?s=612x612)
JohnM
-
Comparatively Marina saw much more than a chrome bumper,
How do you know what Marina saw?
-
Comparatively Marina saw much more than a chrome bumper, a better comparison is the following, what's behind the covering is unmistakably a car and even if the following graphic only exposed the bumper, nobody would confuse the hidden object as a "piece of metal/plastic". Thumb1:
(https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/gift-picture-id182057811?s=612x612)
JohnM
Are you really this desperate?
-
Comparatively Marina saw much more than a chrome bumper, a better comparison is the following, what's behind the covering is unmistakably a car and even if the following graphic only exposed the bumper, nobody would confuse the hidden object as a "piece of metal/plastic". Thumb1:
(https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/gift-picture-id182057811?s=612x612)
JohnM
If there was any doubt (and there is not), Marina goes on to say: "I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle." A rifle! It's laughable that anyone suggests that there is any doubt that Marina saw a "rifle" in the blanket. She is asked dozens of times about a "rifle". Never once does she cast any doubt on the fact that saw a rifle and that is object that she is referring to in her testimony. Contrarians latch onto one instance where she refers to the rifle as "it" and describes seeing a "wooden stock" to suggest that there is doubt when she confirms multiple times that Oswald owned a rifle and kept it in the Paine's garage. A classic example of how the contrarian mind latches on to any straw and disregards the totality of evidence and circumstances.
-
If there was any doubt (and there is not), Marina goes on to say: "I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle." A rifle! It's laughable that anyone suggests that there is any doubt that Marina saw a "rifle" in the blanket. She is asked dozens of times about a "rifle". Never once does she cast any doubt on the fact that saw a rifle and that is object that she is referring to in her testimony. Contrarians latch onto one instance where she refers to the rifle as "it" and describes seeing a "wooden stock" to suggest that there is doubt when she confirms multiple times that Oswald owned a rifle and kept it in the Paine's garage. A classic example of how the contrarian mind latches on to any straw and disregards the totality of evidence and circumstances.
Talk about desperation. Relying on Marina to do what? Prove there was a rifle wrapped in a blanket in late September 1963? Wow.
But don't stop there. What "totality of evidence" are you rambling on about? Take the next step and prove it was Oswald's rifle, it was CE2799 and it was still in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.
-
Talk about desperation. Relying on Marina to do what? Prove there was a rifle wrapped in a blanket in late September 1963? Wow.
But don't stop there. What "totality of evidence" are you rambling on about? Take the next step and prove it was Oswald's rifle, it was CE2799 and it was still in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.
It's "desperation" to rely on Oswald's own wife! The best person in the entire world other than LHO to actually know the contents of the blanket. Riddle us this contrarian. Why did Marina direct the police to that blanket just hours after the crime when they asked her if her husband owned a rifle? Why did she repeatedly confirm to the WC (under oath) that her husband owned a rifle and kept it in the blanket in Paine's garage? Remember you are not a CTer - right? So why does she do these things? Let me guess, You don't know or care. You know all the evidence that links Oswald to a specific rifle. I'm not going to exercise your compulsion to go over that again and again and again. It was all set out nearly six decades ago by the WC.
-
It's "desperation" to rely on Oswald's own wife! The best person in the entire world other than LHO to actually know the contents of the blanket. Riddle us this contrarian. Why did Marina direct the police to that blanket just hours after the crime when they asked her if her husband owned a rifle? Why did she repeatedly confirm to the WC (under oath) that her husband owned a rifle and kept it in the blanket in Paine's garage? Remember you are not a CTer - right? So why does she do these things? Let me guess, You don't know or care. You know all the evidence that links Oswald to a specific rifle. I'm not going to exercise your compulsion to go over that again and again and again. It was all set out nearly six decades ago by the WC.
Once again you are jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence.
The best person in the entire world other than LHO to actually know the contents of the blanket. Riddle us this contrarian. Why did Marina direct the police to that blanket just hours after the crime when they asked her if her husband owned a rifle?
Marina herself answered that. She knew Oswald had a rifle in Russia and she believed this was that rifle.
Why did she repeatedly confirm to the WC (under oath) that her husband owned a rifle and kept it in the blanket in Paine's garage?
I don't know what motivates people to do something or not. What motivates your hero, Trump, to keep telling the big lie?
What I do know is that it is highly likely Marina must have been in self preservation mode. Prior to her testimony, she was held in "protective custody", she was interviewed by law enforcement officers a great many times, she admitted to lying to them. When they flew in an immigration officer from New York who told her she could stay in the country, if she cooperated, she must likely have seen a way out. Her husband was dead and already convicted in the media and by the time of her testimony she probably believed he actually did it. She has, of course, changed her mind since then.
You know all the evidence that links Oswald to a specific rifle.
Indeed and it is highly questionable.
I'm not going to exercise your compulsion to go over that again and again and again.
That was never my compulsion, but for you it most certainly is a first. Well done, it can not have been easy to break with that idiotic routine of yours. Thumb1:
But, still not a shred of proof that the rifle Marina saw (I'll humor you!) was in fact CE2799, that it actually belonged to Oswald or that it was still there on 11/21/63 for Oswald to collect. Got it.
-
Amber Heard was Johnny Depp's wife.
And the jury didn't give a flying f×ck.
Thumb1:
This is perhaps the dumbest analogy in the history of the JFK assassination forum. Or perhaps even the entire Internet. Heard was being sued by Depp. They were long divorced. It was an adversarial lawsuit for millions of dollars between two people who detested each other. Can you see any differences? LOL. Marina directed the police to the blanket when asked about the rifle just hours after the assassination while still believing her husband innocent of any wrong doing.
-
This is perhaps the dumbest analogy in the history of the JFK assassination forum. Or perhaps even the entire Internet. Heard was being sued by Depp. They were long divorced. It was an adversarial lawsuit for millions of dollars between two people who detested each other. Can you see any differences? LOL. Marina directed the police to the blanket when asked about the rifle just hours after the assassination while still believing her husband innocent of any wrong doing.
while still believing her husband innocent of any wrong doing.
BS. What made her check if the rifle was still there if she believed her husband innocent of any wrong doing?
-
Once again you are jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence.
The best person in the entire world other than LHO to actually know the contents of the blanket. Riddle us this contrarian. Why did Marina direct the police to that blanket just hours after the crime when they asked her if her husband owned a rifle?
Marina herself answered that. She knew Oswald had a rifle in Russia and she believed this was that rifle.
Why did she repeatedly confirm to the WC (under oath) that her husband owned a rifle and kept it in the blanket in Paine's garage?
I don't know what motivates people to do something or not. What motivates your hero, Trump, to keep telling the big lie?
What I do know is that it is highly likely Marina must have been in self preservation mode. Prior to her testimony, she was held in "protective custody", she was interviewed by law enforcement officers a great many times, she admitted to lying to them. When they flew in an immigration officer from New York who told her she could stay in the country, if she cooperated, she must likely have seen a way out. Her husband was dead and already convicted in the media and by the time of her testimony she probably believed he actually did it. She has, of course, changed her mind since then.
Was Marina in "self preservation" mode when the police first arrived just hours after the assassination when she was asked about the rifle and directed them to the blanket? She was not aware of any wrong doing by her husband at that point and could not yet have been subject to any from of coercion. That is laughable and embarrassing to suggest to explain her confirmation of the rifle. And now your story is that Marina's testimony is that she believed the rifle in the blanket was the same one from Russia? Previously you seemed to be suggesting her testimony was ambiguous on the issue of whether she saw any rifle or merely some object made of wood. But now you are agreeing that she saw a rifle? I've never argued that Marina's testimony alone confirms that it was THE rifle but merely that there is no doubt whatsoever that her testimony confirms that Oswald owned a rifle and kept it in the blanket in the Paine's garage. That is important when combined with the fact that third party documents link Oswald to a rifle with a specific serial number. The same rifle found in the TSBD. Marina tells us 1) Oswald possessed a rifle in the relevant timeframe; 2) he kept it in the Paine's garage; and 3) it was gone and can't be accounted for in other way after 11.22 except as the rifle found in the TSBD. She even photographed Oswald holding the rifle and his prints were found on it. It was left at his place of work and he lied about owning any rifle and never explained how it came to be there. A slam dunk of guilt unless numerous people are lying including his own wife, multiple law enforcement agencies, and Klein's. Much of this evidence predated the assassination by months.
-
while still believing her husband innocent of any wrong doing.
BS. What made her check if the rifle was still there if she believed her husband innocent of any wrong doing?
She would have cause for concern because she knew Oswald's history with Walker and that he worked in the building from which the shots were fired. But again, whether she thought he was the possible assassin or not isn't the point Why check the blanket at all unless she knew that is where he kept the rifle? You are just confirming that point over and over by noting her actions at that early stage before even approached by the police or authorities.
-
Was Marina in "self preservation" mode when the police first arrived just hours after the assassination when she was asked about the rifle and directed them to the blanket? She was not aware of any wrong doing by her husband at that point and could not yet have been subject to any from of coercion. That is laughable and embarrassing to suggest to explain her confirmation of the rifle. And now your story is that Marina's testimony is that she believed the rifle in the blanket was the same one from Russia? Previously you seemed to be suggesting her testimony was ambiguous on the issue of whether she saw any rifle or merely some object made of wood. But now you are agreeing that she saw a rifle? I've never argued that Marina's testimony alone confirms that it was THE rifle but merely that there is no doubt whatsoever that her testimony confirms that Oswald owned a rifle and kept it in the blanket in the Paine's garage. That is important when combined with the fact that third party documents link Oswald to a rifle with a specific serial number. The same rifle found in the TSBD. Marina tells us 1) Oswald possessed a rifle in the relevant timeframe; 2) he kept it in the Paine's garage; and 3) it was gone and can't be accounted for in other way after 11.22 except as the rifle found in the TSBD. She even photographed Oswald holding the rifle and his prints were found on it. It was left at his place of work and he lied about owning any rifle and never explained how it came to be there. A slam dunk of guilt unless numerous people are lying including his own wife, multiple law enforcement agencies, and Klein's. Much of this evidence predated the assassination by months.
Was Marina in "self preservation" mode when the police first arrived just hours after the assassination when she was asked about the rifle and directed them to the blanket? She was not aware of any wrong doing by her husband at that point and could not yet have been subject to any from of coercion.
And yet, she went to check if the rifle was still there. Go figure.
When the police arrived, she was under the impression that the rifle was still in the blanket. Except it wasn't.
What do you think went through her head when she learned there was no rifle in the blanket?
That is laughable and embarrassing to suggest to explain her confirmation of the rifle.
What confirmation of the rifle?
And now your story is that Marina's testimony is that she believed the rifle in the blanket was the same one from Russia?
No, my story is that when it comes to Marina it's near impossible to believe anything she said. Which is why she is such an unreliable witness. What you want to do is just cherry pick the parts of her testimony you can use and disregard the rest.
Previously you seemed to be suggesting her testimony was ambiguous on the issue of whether she saw any rifle or merely some object made of wood. But now you are agreeing that she saw a rifle?
No, stop putting words in my mouth. She may or may not have seen a rifle. You are the one who constantly insists that she did see a rifle. I am saying that Rankin asked her a leading question.
I've never argued that Marina's testimony alone confirms that it was THE rifle but merely that there is no doubt whatsoever that her testimony confirms that Oswald owned a rifle and kept it in the blanket in the Paine's garage.
Nope.. her testimony does not confirm that Oswald kept a rifle in the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage. It just confirms that Marina thought he did. But none of that matters much when you can not prove that it was the MC rifle CE2799 and you've just admitted that Marina does not confirm it was.
That is important when combined with the fact that third party documents link Oswald to a rifle with a specific serial number. The same rifle found in the TSBD.
Flawed conjecture based on a misrepresentation of the evidence.
Marina tells us 1) Oswald possessed a rifle in the relevant timeframe; 2) he kept it in the Paine's garage; and 3) it was gone and can't be accounted for in other way after 11.22 except as the rifle found in the TSBD. She even photographed Oswald holding the rifle and his prints were found on it. It was left at his place of work and he lied about owning any rifle and never explained how it came to be there. A slam dunk of guilt unless numerous people are lying including his own wife, multiple law enforcement agencies, and Klein's.
So misleading and so much misrepresentation of the facts to unpack here that I am not going to waste my time on it again. Been there done that....
-
She would have cause for concern because she knew Oswald's history with Walker and that he worked in the building from which the shots were fired. But again, whether she thought he was the possible assassin or not isn't the point Why check the blanket at all unless she knew that is where he kept the rifle? You are just confirming that point over and over by noting her actions at that early stage before even approached by the police or authorities.
whether she thought he was the possible assassin or not isn't the point
Of course it is the point!
First you claim she was not (yet) aware of any wrong doing by her husband and now you've got here having cause of concern.
Which one is it?
Why check the blanket at all unless she knew that is where he kept the rifle?
Wrong again. She may have thought Oswald kept a rifle in that blanket, but she most certainly didn't know.
She never discussed the rifle with Oswald, after she looked in the blanket in late September, she never told him to take it out of the garage and said nothing to Ruth Paine. All of it is indicative of the possibility that she believed the rifle could belong to somebody else (like for instance Michael Paine) and not Oswald.
-
“Richard” vomits his list of BS claims again. How original.
-
She would have cause for concern because she knew Oswald's history with Walker and that he worked in the building from which the shots were fired.
You just made that up. Most unlikely she had the foggiest clue where he worked.
-
Oswald was long dead when Marina testified.
You launched the demented idea that she should be trusted because they were married at the time of the alleged sighting.
I see Martin already took care of your massive lack-of-wrong-doing meltdown.
Again, Marina checked the blanket BEFORE the police arrived. She did so because she had cause for concern at that point based on Oswald's history. In addition, when the police arrived just hours after the assassination, and asked if her husband owned a rifle, she directed them to the blanket. LHO was alive and well at that point. Your bizarre comparison to Johnny Depp and his ex-wife who were long divorced and suing each other in an adversarial conflict standd as the single worst analogy in Internet history. It does, however, provide a great source of amusement.
-
You just made that up. Most unlikely she had the foggiest clue where he worked.
Maybe try to check the facts before embarrassing yourself. Marina didn't know where her husband worked? Marina is the person who asked Ruth Paine to call the TSBD about the job opportunity after they learned of it. Regardless, that is not even relevant in this context because Ruth Paine told Marina that the shots were fired from the building in which Oswald worked. That is the reason Marina went to check the blanket. Because she was told by Paine that the shots came from Oswald's building.
Mr. JENNEB. You reached home and Marina suggested that “Would you please
call the Texas School Depository?”
Mrs. PAINE. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Did Mrs. Paine say anything about the possibility of your husband being involved?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, but she only said that "By the way, they fired from the building in which Lee is working."
My heart dropped. I then went to the garage to see whether the rifle was there, and I saw that the blanket was still there, and I said, "Thank God." I thought, "Can there really be such a stupid man in the world that could do something like that?" But I was already rather upset at that time--I don't know why. Perhaps my intuition. I didn't know what I was doing.
-
Maybe try to check the facts before embarrassing yourself. Marina didn't know where her husband worked? Marina is the person who asked Ruth Paine to call the TSBD about the job opportunity after they learned of it. Regardless, that is not even relevant in this context because Ruth Paine told Marina that the shots were fired from the building in which Oswald worked. That is the reason Marina went to check the blanket. Because she was told by Paine that the shots came from Oswald's building.
Mr. JENNEB. You reached home and Marina suggested that “Would you please
call the Texas School Depository?”
Mrs. PAINE. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Did Mrs. Paine say anything about the possibility of your husband being involved?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, but she only said that "By the way, they fired from the building in which Lee is working."
My heart dropped. I then went to the garage to see whether the rifle was there, and I saw that the blanket was still there, and I said, "Thank God." I thought, "Can there really be such a stupid man in the world that could do something like that?" But I was already rather upset at that time--I don't know why. Perhaps my intuition. I didn't know what I was doing.
she (Ruth Paine) only said that "By the way, they fired from the building in which Lee is working."
If Marina is quoting Ruth Paine accurately.....Ruth's remark is a classic case of the subtle suggestion that is intended as a slap of awareness for the listener.
Example: "Yes, it is a beautiful morning, Admiral.... Oh, by the way, did you know that the Japanese are bombing the ships in Pearl Harbor."
IOW... Ruth knew about Lee having possession of a rifle and knew that her remark would grab Marina's attention.
-
Regardless, that is not even relevant in this context because Ruth Paine told Marina that the shots were fired from the building in which Oswald worked.
Ruth didn’t know what building Lee worked in.
Mr. JENNER - For the purpose of this record then I would like to emphasize you were under the impression then, were you, that Lee Harvey Oswald was employed?
Mrs. PAINE - At the warehouse.
Mr. JENNER - Other than at 411, a place at 411 Elm?
Mrs. PAINE - I thought he worked at the warehouse. I had in fact, pointed out the building to my children going into Dallas later after he had gained employment.
-
Yeah Lee worked the question how much while at the TSBD.
Ruth didn’t know what building Lee worked in.
Mr. JENNER - For the purpose of this record then I would like to emphasize you were under the impression then, were you, that Lee Harvey Oswald was employed?
Mrs. PAINE - At the warehouse.
Mr. JENNER - Other than at 411, a place at 411 Elm?
Mrs. PAINE - I thought he worked at the warehouse. I had in fact, pointed out the building to my children going into Dallas later after he had gained employment.
-
Marina is the person who asked Ruth Paine to call the TSBD about the job opportunity after they learned of it. Regardless, that is not even relevant in this context because Ruth Paine told Marina that the shots were fired from the building in which Oswald worked. That is the reason Marina went to check the blanket. Because she was told by Paine that the shots came from Oswald's building.
So what?
Marina may have known that Lee worked for this book company but doubtful that she knew where it was.
All that information mentioned above was relayed post assassination.
You can believe the tale about Walker if you want.
The task at hand was to certify Oswald as a homicidal maniac.
Marina told them whatever she thought they wanted to hear.
-
she (Ruth Paine) only said that "By the way, they fired from the building in which Lee is working."
If Marina is quoting Ruth Paine accurately.....Ruth's remark is a classic case of the subtle suggestion that is intended as a slap of awareness for the listener.
Example: "Yes, it is a beautiful morning, Admiral.... Oh, by the way, did you know that the Japanese are bombing the ships in Pearl Harbor."
IOW... Ruth knew about Lee having possession of a rifle and knew that her remark would grab Marina's attention.
What a tortured explanation of a simple point. Ruth heard on the news that shots were fired from the building in which Oswald worked. She very understandably mentioned that to Marina. It would be a point of interest if someone's husband worked in the building from which the president had just been assassinated. No sinister purpose required. And what would be the point of making a "subtle suggestion that is intended as a slap of awareness" in this context? Do you think Marina would never have learned of this had Paine not mentioned it? Good grief. Again, though, your baseless claim that Marina didn't know where her own husband worked is both wrong and not relevant since she was told by Paine that the shots had come from Oswald's building. I did not "make up" the point that Marina checked the blanket after learning that the shots had been fired from Oswald's place of work. That comes directly from Marina's own testimony.
-
So what?
Marina may have known that Lee worked for this book company but doubtful that she knew where it was.
All that information mentioned above was relayed post assassination.
You can believe the tale about Walker if you want.
The task at hand was to certify Oswald as a homicidal maniac.
Marina told them whatever she thought they wanted to hear.
What a weak deflection. Even if she had no clue where the building was in Dallas why would that matter when the media was reporting that the shots came from the TSBD? Where her husband worked. After learning this, Marina then checks the blanket for a rifle. The only explanation for that action is that 1) she knew her husband possessed a rifle and kept it in that blanket; and 2) that her husband was a nut capable of such a thing because of his past history attempting to kill Walker. This occurs right after the assassination before Marina has even been approached by the authorities or could have been subject to any coercion on the topic.
-
What a tortured explanation of a simple point. Ruth heard on the news that shots were fired from the building in which Oswald worked. She very understandably mentioned that to Marina.
And again, Ruth said she didn’t know he worked in that building. What the hell is wrong with you?
-
Such a weak and dishonest attempt at deflection. Here is what the testimony of Ruth and Marina tells us:
1) Ruth Paine knew LHO worked at the something called the "Texas School Book Depository" because she had assisted in getting him that job.
2) Ruth learned from the early TV reports that the shots came from the TSBD.
3) Ruth told Marina that the shots came from the building in which her husband worked (whether or not there could have been confirmation at that point as to which of the TSBD buildings Oswald worked in downtown).
4) Upon being told this information, Marina checked the blanket in the Paine's garage because she knew that is where Oswald kept his rifle and there was cause for her to be concerned from his nutty attempt to kill Walker.
Marina's actions upon being told (again rightly or wrongly based upon the information known to Ruth Paine at that moment) that the shots had been fired from the building in which her husband worked can't be explained in any other way. Marina responded to that information by checking the garage for the blanket because she knew that is where her nutty husband kept his rifle and she was relieved to find the blanket still there for that reason.
-
Circular BS:
There's no evidence that Marina checked anything.
Sure there is. Marina told us she did so. That is evidence (direct testimony of the person who took the action in question) unless there is some reasonable basis to suggest that she is lying. But tell us why she would be lying about this including your evidence to support this conclusion? If there was any doubt that Marina believed that Oswald kept a rifle in the blanket at this early stage before any coercion could be applied to her, we know that just a short while later that day when asked by the police as to whether her husband owned a rifle, she directed them to the same blanket!!! This is just a couple hours after the assassination and before she knows her husband is even involved.
-
Such a weak and dishonest attempt to spread misinformation. If Ruth thought Lee worked in the other warehouse, she couldn’t possibly have told Marina that the shots came from the building in which her husband worked.
-
What a weak deflection. Even if she had no clue where the building was in Dallas why would that matter when the media was reporting that the shots came from the TSBD? Where her husband worked. After learning this, Marina then checks the blanket for a rifle. The only explanation for that action is that 1) she knew her husband possessed a rifle and kept it in that blanket; and 2) that her husband was a nut capable of such a thing because of his past history attempting to kill Walker. This occurs right after the assassination before Marina has even been approached by the authorities or could have been subject to any coercion on the topic.
After learning this, Marina then checks the blanket for a rifle. The only explanation for that action is that 1) she knew her husband possessed a rifle and kept it in that blanket; and 2) that her husband was a nut capable of such a thing because of his past history attempting to kill Walker.
The king of BS is at it again;
Marina checked the blanket because she suspected at best (not knew) that Oswald possessed a rifle and kept it in a blanket. The only way she could have known for sure is if she asked Oswald if that rifle in the blanket was his. She never did!
And it is highly questionable if the Walker tale, the way we know it today, is true and correct. General Walker certainly didn't believe it was. When he saw the bullet the HSCA was trying to pass off as the bullet taken from the wall of his house (a bullet that would fit the MC rifle) he went so far as to instruct his lawyer to inform that HSCA that there had been a switch of bullets, because the one the HSCA had was in no way the same as the one Walker saw, after it was taken out of his wall. Besides, all the descriptions of the so-called Walker bullet, prior to the assassination, indicate a completely different bullet as well.
-
Nope, there is zero evidence she left the couch to check anything.*)
Marina said.... ROFL
Your endless circular BS.
*) and the blanket had been moved, contrary to what she claimed.
To summarize. Marina confirmed that upon being told by Ruth Paine that the shots were fired from her husband's place of employment, she went to check the blanket because she knew that is where he kept his rifle. There has been zero evidence or even a reason articulated as to why she would lie about this. Not even an attempt to explain this allegation. And Marina's testimony is supported by her confirmation, in front of other witnesses, just a short time later when she directed the police to the blanket when asked about the rifle. What is relevant is what she told Marina (i.e. that the shots were fired from the building in which her husband worked). The pedantic debate about whether Ruth Paine could have known this with certainty is immensely amusing for its attempt at false deflection. And, of course, Ruth Paine would have an obvious reason to tell Marina that the shots had been fired from the building that LHO worked in since the news reports indicated they came from the Texas School Book Depository and Paine knew Oswald worked for that company.
-
After learning this, Marina then checks the blanket for a rifle. The only explanation for that action is that 1) she knew her husband possessed a rifle and kept it in that blanket; and 2) that her husband was a nut capable of such a thing because of his past history attempting to kill Walker.
The king of BS is at it again;
Marina checked the blanket because she suspected at best (not knew) that Oswald possessed a rifle and kept it in a blanket. The only way she could have known for sure is if she asked Oswald if that rifle in the blanket was his. She never did!
And it is highly questionable if the Walker tale, the way we know it today, is true and correct. General Walker certainly didn't believe it was. When he saw the bullet the HSCA was trying to pass off as the bullet taken from the wall of his house (a bullet that would fit the MC rifle) he went so far as to instruct his lawyer to inform that HSCA that there had been a switch of bullets, because the one the HSCA had was in no way the same as the one Walker saw, after it was taken out of his wall. Besides, all the descriptions of the so-called Walker bullet, prior to the assassination, indicate a completely different bullet as well.
Good grief. Of course Walker's testimony is evidence. Just like Marina's testimony is evidence. It should be taken into account and weighed in the totality of evidence and circumstances. Marina's testimony that she checked the blanket because she knew Oswald kept his rifle there is consistent with her actions taken shortly thereafter when she directed the police to the blanket when asked about the rifle. It is consistent with her testimony that she had seen the rifle in the blanket. How does someone "suspect" that a rifle is in a blanket in the garage? What does that even mean? LOL. She confirmed multiple times in her testimony that she saw a rifle in the blanket. There is no ambiguity on this point. She did not "assume" or "suspect" it was there as you falsely suggest. She testified that she saw the rifle in the blanket. She knew Oswald had kept it there and fully expected the police to find it. It was only not there because Oswald had removed it to assassinate JFK.
-
Good grief. Of course Walker's testimony is evidence. Just like Marina's testimony is evidence. It should be taken into account and weighed in the totality of evidence and circumstances. Marina's testimony that she checked the blanket because she knew Oswald kept his rifle there is consistent with her actions taken shortly thereafter when she directed the police to the blanket when asked about the rifle. It is consistent with her testimony that she had seen the rifle in the blanket. How does someone "suspect" that a rifle is in a blanket in the garage? What does that even mean? LOL. She confirmed multiple times in her testimony that she saw a rifle in the blanket. There is no ambiguity on this point. She did not "assume" or "suspect" it was there as you falsely suggest. She testified that she saw the rifle in the blanket. She knew Oswald had kept it there and fully expected the police to find it. It was only not there because Oswald had removed it to assassinate JFK.
Good grief. Of course Walker's testimony is evidence.
Nobody said it wasn't. You need to pay more attention! But Walker could only tell the WC that some person unknown took a shot at him on April 10th.
Marina's testimony that she checked the blanket because she knew Oswald kept his rifle there is consistent with her actions taken shortly thereafter when she directed the police to the blanket when asked about the rifle.
Really? It is equally consistent with her simply assuming that it was Oswald's rifle.
How does someone "suspect" that a rifle is in a blanket in the garage? What does that even mean?
Sometimes I truly wonder whether you have a reading comprehension problem. What I said was that Marina suspected that the rifle in the blanket belonged to Lee.
She did not "assume" or "suspect" it was there as you falsely suggest.
I never suggested anything of the kind. Please do yourself a favor and learn to read correctly before you embarrass yourself even more.
She knew Oswald had kept it there and fully expected the police to find it.
How exactly did she know? Did she ask Lee if that was his rifle? No, she didn't. So, how did she know?
You do understand the difference between knowing and assuming, right?
-
What a weak deflection.
The only thing "weak" around here is your ability to scrutinize the truth. Even if she had no clue where the building was in Dallas why would that matter when the media was reporting that the shots came from the TSBD ... Where her husband worked.
Marina then checks the blanket for a rifle.
Marina 'said' she went and checked this blanket. Don't you understand that this testimony was rehearsed? Can't you comprehend that she did not speak English that well and that Mrs Paine was the sole source of information there? If there was a rifle in her own garage..why would Ruth not know about it?
-
Of course Walker's testimony is evidence. Just like Marina's testimony is evidence.
Evidence of what?
Did either one see Oswald shoot anyone?
-
Nope. As a matter of fact a neighborhood boy (15 yrs old?) said he saw a black car speed away from the scene after the shooting. I believe it was later speculated the car description fit Felipe Vidal Santiago who had also the previous week visited General Walker. Felipe Vidal Santiago is suspected of being the "Dark Complected Man raising his hand on ElmSt when Kennedy's limo passed bye.
Evidence of what?
Did either one see Oswald shoot anyone?
-
Of course Marina believed that Lee kept a rifle in the blanket. That’s not a “confirmation”.
-
The only thing "weak" around here is your ability to scrutinize the truth. Marina 'said' she went and checked this blanket. Don't you understand that this testimony was rehearsed? Can't you comprehend that she did not speak English that well and that Mrs Paine was the sole source of information there? If there was a rifle in her own garage..why would Ruth not know about it?
Where to even start? How else was Marina supposed to communicate the fact that she checked the blanket after learning of that the shots had been fired from the TSBD other than to "say" she did so? Why would she lie about this? That would have to be an intentional lie and not a mistake as there is no ambiguity about the act or her motivation. And EVEN if you had some credible basis to call this into question there are multiple witnesses that confirm that she directed the police to the blanket just a short time later. Thus, Marina knew from the very beginning of the investigation before there was any opportunity to "coerce" or "rehearse" her actions to confirm that there had been a rifle in the blanket. Here you alleging that both Marina and Ruth Paine are lying about this. That is absurd. How would Ruth Paine not know there was a rifle in her garage? What a great question for your fantasy conspirators because if Paine had been involved and willing to lie on their behalf she would have said things like she was aware that he kept a rifle in the garage, she heard him being critical of JFK, and that Oswald was a violent person capable of the act. None of which she ever told the WC. You have basically undermined the bizarre fantasy that Paine was lying for the WC.
-
Of course Marina believed that Lee kept a rifle in the blanket. That’s not a “confirmation”.
So what if Marina believed that there was a rifle wrapped in the blanket.... There isn't an iota of evidence that IF? there was a gun in that blanket that it was the Carcano (C2766)
-
So what if Marina believed that there was a rifle wrapped in the blanket.... There isn't an iota evidence that IF? there was a gun in that blanket that it was the Carcano (C2766)
How does Marina come to "believe" that there would be a rifle in the blanket? Let us ponder this philosophical contrarian deflection. Maybe this holds a clue:
"I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle." Marina Oswald.
-
How does Marina come to "believe" that there would be a rifle in the blanket? Let us ponder this philosophical contrarian deflection. Maybe this holds a clue:
"I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle." Marina Oswald.
Do you like to go round in circles without getting anywhere?
-
And EVEN if you had some credible basis to call this into question there are multiple witnesses that confirm that she directed the police to the blanket just a short time later.
"Multiple"? Nothing about this in the Report.
Here you alleging that both Marina and Ruth Paine are lying about this. That is absurd. How would Ruth Paine not know there was a rifle in her garage? What a great question for your fantasy conspirators because if Paine had been involved and willing to lie on their behalf she would have said things like she was aware that he kept a rifle in the garage, she heard him being critical of JFK, and that Oswald was a violent person capable of the act.
And you guys would have believed every one of those proposed lies. Nothing like bias huh? This is from the Report----
On April 23, 1963, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was in Dallas for a visit which had been publicized in the Dallas newspapers throughout April.754 The Commission asked Marina Oswald whether she might have misunderstood the object of her husband's threat. She stated, "there is no question that in this incident it was a question of Mr. Nixon." 755 When asked later whether it might have been
Page 189
Mr. Johnson, she said, "Yes, no. I am getting a little confused with so many questions. I was absolutely convinced it was Nixon and now after all these questions I wonder if I am right in my mind?
YES...NO?
-
So what if Marina believed that there was a rifle wrapped in the blanket.... There isn't an iota evidence that IF? there was a gun in that blanket that it was the Carcano (C2766)
Yep, that’s just the giant leap that “Richard” wants to make.
-
How does Marina come to "believe" that there would be a rifle in the blanket? Let us ponder this philosophical contrarian deflection. Maybe this holds a clue:
"I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle." Marina Oswald.
All well and good...IF Marina had the ability to determine that the gun was actually a rifle, and not a shotgun ...and...she was certain that the gun was THE Mannlicher Carcano with the serial number C2766.
-
How does Marina come to "believe" that there would be a rifle in the blanket? Let us ponder this philosophical contrarian deflection. Maybe this holds a clue:
"I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle." Marina Oswald.
She didn’t see a rifle. She saw the end of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.
-
At the top of Mrs Paine's calendar March 1963 [CE 401] there is a star and a note 'LHO purchase of rifle'. This calendar was confiscated in a search.
Ruth Paine testified that she had no idea Oswald had acquired a rifle and that it had been supposedly wrapped up in a blanket lying on the floor of her garage [all that time]....at least not until November 22 when police came to search her house.
But Hey! Marina knew about it all that time-supposedly-but didn't tell her friend Ruth about it in case she walked out and tripped over it or something. My...the secrecy there.
~~Michael Paine testified that he had noticed a blanket with items in it but merely felt around it and determined that it must be camping equipment...supposedly.~~
His lies are another story...the question remains, how did Ruthie know that Harv bought a rifle on Mar 20?
Al Jenner- Commission attorney- asked about this... The rest of Ruthie's garbage can be read here.......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_r3.htm
Good luck wading through it all with a shovel because it makes absolutely no sense either.
Mr Jenner failed to ask the real toughie ...Why???...Why did she write that note?
How could she have not remembered Nov 23 [of all days]?
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0041b.jpg)
And Now back to our story......
Ruth Paine marked her calendar when she learned that Lee had order a rifle..... That's the truth! She DID NOT mark that calendar on 11/23/ 63 because the DPD had possession of that calendar on 11-23-63.
-
Ruth Paine marked her calendar when she learned that Lee had order[ed] a rifle. That's the truth! She DID NOT mark that calendar on 11/23/63 because the DPD had possession of that calendar on 11-23-63.
What time was that calendar recovered by the DPD on 11/23?
Also....
That calendar notation made by Mrs. Paine was obviously written on that calendar page AFTER the assassination. And there are multiple reasons to know why it HAD to have been written in after November 22nd:
1.) Ruth wasn't even aware that Lee Oswald owned a rifle up until the afternoon of 11/22/63. (Naturally, most CTers think Ruth lied about that, too.)
2.) If Ruth Paine was really the vile patsy-framing vixen and conspirator that CTers think she was, then why on Earth would Ruth, PRIOR to President Kennedy's murder, have written a note on her March 1963 calendar saying "LHO purchase of rifle"?
Do CTers think Ruth was leaving a little bread crumb of conspiratorial proof for future researchers to find, so that those researchers can scream these words with delight -- "Aha! I told you Ruth Paine was a liar!"?
Which, therefore, must also mean that CTers believe that Ruth was privy to the "March 20th" date of Oswald's rifle purchase PRIOR to the time when Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry made that date of 3/20/63 known to the public on national television on November 23, 1963.
So, how did Ruth became aware of that "March 20" information prior to 11/23/63? Was she in cahoots with Klein's Sporting Goods? Or did the evil FBI furnish her with that exact date? Or could it be that it was Ruth Paine HERSELF who faked and manufactured Waldman Exhibit No. 7? Maybe it was Ruth herself who wrote "3/20/63" on that Klein's document. Is that how CTers think she knew the date prior to November 23rd?
-
Ruth wasn't even aware that Lee Oswald owned a rifle up until the afternoon of 11/22/63. (Naturally, most CTers think Ruth lied about that, too.)
"Naturally...Most" You just made that up.
So, how did Ruth became aware of that "March 20" information prior to 11/23/63? Was she in cahoots with Klein's Sporting Goods? Or did the evil FBI furnish her with that exact date? Or could it be that it was Ruth Paine HERSELF who faked and manufactured Waldman Exhibit No. 7? Maybe it was Ruth herself who wrote "3/20/63" on that Klein's document. Is that how CTers think she knew the date prior to November 23rd?
You must be world famous for making up the most extraneous lighting of gas ever.
The point still missed is why make such an immaterial notation on the calendar in the first place?
I don't have the foggiest clue and neither do you or does anyone else.
-
What time was that calendar recovered by the DPD on 11/23?
Also....
That calendar notation made by Mrs. Paine was obviously written on that calendar page AFTER the assassination. And there are multiple reasons to know why it HAD to have been written in after November 22nd:
1.) Ruth wasn't even aware that Lee Oswald owned a rifle up until the afternoon of 11/22/63. (Naturally, most CTers think Ruth lied about that, too.)
2.) If Ruth Paine was really the vile patsy-framing vixen and conspirator that CTers thinks she was, then why on Earth would Ruth, PRIOR to President Kennedy's murder, have written a note on her March 1963 calendar saying "LHO purchase of rifle"?
Do CTers think Ruth was leaving a little bread crumb of conspiratorial proof for future researchers to find, so that those researchers can scream these words with delight -- "Aha! I told you Ruth Paine was a liar!"?
Which, therefore, must also mean that CTers believe that Ruth was privy to the "March 20th" date of Oswald's rifle purchase PRIOR to the time when Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry made that date of 3/20/63 known to the public on national television on November 23, 1963.
So, how did Ruth became aware of that "March 20" information prior to 11/23/63? Was she in cahoots with Klein's Sporting Goods? Or did the evil FBI furnish her with that exact date? Or could it be that it was Ruth Paine HERSELF who faked and manufactured Waldman Exhibit No. 7? Maybe it was Ruth herself who wrote "3/20/63" on that Klein's document. Is that how CTers think she knew the date prior to November 23rd?
The application of logic and facts is, as always. lost on the CTer mind. They have spent considerable time and effort desperately attempting to rebut the fact that Marina confirmed that Oswald kept a rifle in the blanket. Bizarrely arguing that when she testified that she "saw that it was a rifle" in the blanket that meant only that she "believed" or "assumed" there was a rifle in the blanket. And yet here CTers insist Paine had knowledge of Oswald purchasing that rifle because of Paine's notation. The same rifle that they otherwise contend doesn't exist. And round and round it goes.
-
"Naturally...Most" You just made that up.You must be world famous for making up the most extraneous lighting of gas ever.
The point still missed is why make such an immaterial notation on the calendar in the first place?
I don't have the foggiest clue and neither do you or does anyone else.
why make such an immaterial notation on the calendar in the first place?
Answer:.... Because Ruth Paine was an FBI informant and assigned to keep an eye on the Oswald's who Hoover believed were Russian communist spies. Marina had complained to Ruth ( the only person she could talk to) about Lee spending money for a rifle. This was something that Ruth thought the FBI should know, so when she got home she made the notation on her calendar to remind her to report this to the FBI on their next contact.
-
why make such an immaterial notation on the calendar in the first place?
Answer:.... Because Ruth Paine was an FBI informant and assigned to keep an eye on the Oswald's who Hoover believed were Russian communist spies. Marina had complained to Ruth ( the only person she could talk to) about Lee spending money for a rifle. This was something that Ruth thought the FBI should know, so when she got home she made the notation on her calendar to remind her to report this to the FBI on their next contact.
So Oswald did buy a rifle in this timeframe? And Marina and Ruth Paine can both confirm it! Fantastic. We don't need to argue with CTers about that anymore. That basically cooks Oswald's goose since the only rifle that can be associated with him during that timeframe is the one found in the TSBD. We also know that he lied to the DPD about owning any rifle. Something he would only need to do if ownership of a rifle was incriminatory to him.
-
So Oswald did buy a rifle in this timeframe? And Marina and Ruth Paine can both confirm it! Fantastic. We don't need to argue with CTers about that anymore.
“Richard” thinks that CTs all march in lockstep. He’s confusing them with the WC-cult.
Anybody who actually pays attention to these conversations rather than just regurgitating the same series of false claims over and over again knows that Walt considers the Carcano purchase legitimate.
That basically cooks Oswald's goose since the only rifle that can be associated with him during that timeframe is the one found in the TSBD.
“Associated with him”. LOL.
-
LOL, based on your ongoing rants there's no reason to believe you know what "logic" and "facts" mean.
No, it just takes a few seconds every time the claim appears in your confused rants. She can not confirm an otherwise unsupported claim.
You failed to quote the weakened part of her testimony stating the only specifics mentioned was the wooden part, allegedly, of what she took to be a rifle, surprise?
Plenty of non-CTers who don't, but nice try.
The wooden part of "it". The rifle being the sole subject matter of the question that she is answering. But, of course, you have dishonestly and incompletely quoted her testimony even on this point. She referenced the "wooden stock" in her answer. And what has a wooden stock? Think real hard. Maybe this helps:
"I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle." Marina Oswald.
-
I doubt she ever saw a rifle not having wooden stock so mentioning that detail was entirely irrelevant.
The scope and home made sling was something different, which she chose NOT to mention.
What a surprise!
So because most rifles have a "wooden stock" you interpret Marina's confirmation that see saw a wooden stock to mean she saw something other than a rifle? Wow. That is head spinning tortured logic even from you. What other types of objects with a wooden stock would be in a blanket? Or just read what Marina said:
"I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle." Marina Oswald.
-
I doubt she ever saw a rifle not having wooden stock so mentioning that detail was entirely irrelevant.
The scope and home made sling was something different, which she chose NOT to mention.
What a surprise!
The scope and home made sling was something different,
It's commonly accepted that the sling was home made.... I believe it was custom sling that was made for Mussolini's elite body guards ( Guardie Del Duce ) who had to stand long hours on guard duty with the rifle on their shoulders. The wide patch on the sling kept the sling from pinching their shoulders.
-
We already know your head has been spinning for a decade or so.
No, what I said was that if rifles evidently have wooden stock there's no need to confirm the obvious.
Shotguns also have wooden stock so the detail she alleged to have seen does not confirm the presence of a rifle.
So Oswald owned a shotgun and kept it in the blanket? That's your explanation. LOL. And your evidence of such is what? For example, do you have pictures of him holding a shotgun? Are his prints found on a shotgun? Are there documents from some third party gun dealer that demonstrate that he ordered a shotgun and it was delivered to his PO Box? This shotgun is not in the blanket on 11.22. So what happened to it? Keep spinning.
-
Who told you Oswald owned a shotgun???
That would be silly, see above.
Not my claim so why would you even ask such a question?
See above.
See above.
See above.
"This" -- LOL
Have your head checked.
Let us summarize. Despite Marina using the word "rifle" multiple times in her testimony including saying that she once looked in the blanket and "saw a rifle" in one single instance she refers to the object as having a "wooden stock." Which, of course, Oswald's rifle has. CTers seize upon this one description (while even dishonestly implying that Marina said only that she saw something made of wood) to suggest there is doubt as to the object that she saw in blanket. When asked what else could have been in the blanket that had a "wooden stock" Otto suggested a shotgun. When asked for evidence that Oswald ever owned any shotgun in this timeframe, Otto indicates that he never suggested that Oswald owned a shotgun. Thus eliminating it as an object that could have been in the blanket and making his input entirely pointless as usual. Taking us back to square one. So again, what object with a "wooden stock" did Marina see in the blanket if it was not the rifle? And what happened to this object since it is gone on 11.22 when Marina directs the police to the blanket when asked if her husband owned a rifle? Questions for which there will be many words but no answers.
-
Okay....
Well, there's no way of knowing what she actually saw if she even looked in the blanket.
There isn't? LOL.
"I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle." Marina Oswald.
-
Okay....
So there was no need to stress she saw part of the rifle if she actually saw a rifle.
So far no ownership has been established.
I also noticed it, which obviously is causing you a great deal of frustration.
Well, there's no way of knowing what she actually saw if she even looked in the blanket. She couldn't place it correctly in the garage.
Well, some have wooden stock...
Because I didn't.
How would you know Oswald owned the object in the blanket?
Your favorite spot, right?
How about the rifle without a scope?
I haven't got a clue and Marina didn't indicate she ever saw it again.
I've kept it real short to make it easier for you to comprehend Thumb1:
So far no ownership has been established.
This a key statement..... Who can prove that Lee Oswald "OWNED" a caracano??? It seems that he did have possession of a carcano in the spring of 1963..... But WHO owned that carcano??
And simply because Marina said that she saw a weapon with a wooden stock in the blanket does not in anyway establish that the gun she saw was a carcano.....and it certainly doesn't establish ownership of that weapon.
-
Uncorroborated testimony is inherently weak.
Brutal being left with only Marina to support your fantasy.
Oh, did you work out how Oswald's rifle without a scope vanished?
Marina is Oswald's own wife. The best possible witness other than Oswald himself to confirm the contents of the blanket. I can understand why you are conflating different issues. The point under discussion here is whether Oswald owned a rifle and kept it the Paine's garage. Marina's testimony, as corroborated by photos, prints, and third-party documents that pre-date the assassination confirms this beyond any doubt. We also know from her testimony, as corroborated by the police search, that Oswald's rifle was no longer in the blanket on 11.22 and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the rifle found in the TSBD. We also know that Oswald lied about his ownership of any rifle. The most obvious explanation of a lie in that circumstance is to avoid implicating himself in the assassination. If he had owned some other rifle not used in a crime and could account for it in a way that was exculpatory, then he would have every incentive to tell the truth and direct the police to that rifle. So we know from Marina's testimony (as corroborated by other evidence) that:
1) Oswald owned a rifle;
2) it had a scope on it because that is the rifle shown in the photos that Marina took (even if Marina had no particular cause to remember the scope);
3) he kept the rifle in the Paine's garage in the months leading up to the assassination;
4) that rifle was not in the blanket just hours after the crime and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the rifle found in the TSBD: and
5) Oswald lied about the ownership of any rifle.
Does all that necessarily prove it was THE rifle standing alone? Perhaps not definitively, but of course there is other evidence to link Oswald to the rifle found in the TSBD including a serial number and print. The totality of facts and circumstances when taken together leaves no doubt that Oswald owned the rifle found in the TSBD.
-
Marina is Oswald's own wife. The best possible witness other than Oswald himself to confirm the contents of the blanket. I can understand why you are conflating different issues. The point under discussion here is whether Oswald owned a rifle and kept it the Paine's garage. Marina's testimony, as corroborated by photos, prints, and third-party documents that pre-date the assassination confirms this beyond any doubt. We also know from her testimony, as corroborated by the police search, that Oswald's rifle was no longer in the blanket on 11.22 and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the rifle found in the TSBD. We also know that Oswald lied about his ownership of any rifle. The most obvious explanation of a lie in that circumstance is to avoid implicating himself in the assassination. If he had owned some other rifle not used in a crime and could account for it in a way that was exculpatory, then he would have every incentive to tell the truth and direct the police to that rifle. So we know from Marina's testimony (as corroborated by other evidence) that:
1) Oswald owned a rifle;
2) it had a scope on it because that is the rifle shown in the photos that Marina took (even if Marina had no particular cause to remember the scope);
3) he kept the rifle in the Paine's garage in the months leading up to the assassination;
4) that rifle was not in the blanket just hours after the crime and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the rifle found in the TSBD: and
5) Oswald lied about the ownership of any rifle.
Does all that necessarily prove it was THE rifle standing alone? Perhaps not definitively, but of course there is other evidence to link Oswald to the rifle found in the TSBD including a serial number and print. The totality of facts and circumstances when taken together leaves no doubt that Oswald owned the rifle found in the TSBD.
Does all that necessarily prove it was THE rifle standing alone? Perhaps not definitively, but of course there is other evidence to link Oswald to the rifle found in the TSBD including a serial number and print.
How does the rifle's serial number prove that Lee owned the rifle? And since the authorities lied about finding Lee's palm print on the carcano, one is compelled to question their need to lie about finding Lee's palm print on the 5/8 inch diameter barrel.
It is a physical impossibility for an adult male to deposit an identifiable palm print on a cylinder ( Carcano barrel) that is only 5/8 of in inch in diameter, when that barrel is partially covered by a bayonet lug.
-
No matter how many times “Richard’s” BS is refuted, he ignores it and just parrots the same mantra over again. This is why “Richard” is useless.
Marina’s day one affidavit says “I told them Lee used to have a rifle to hunt with in Russia”. Shotguns were legal to own in the Soviet Union but not rifles. Marina also told the Warren commission that she didn’t know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun. So no, her thinking the portion of the wooden stock that she actually saw was a rifle does not “confirm” that there was a rifle in the garage that belonged to Lee. Much less C2766. “Can’t be accounted for in any other way” is BS rhetoric and proves nothing. It’s yet another shifting the burden fallacy that “Richard” is so fond of.
-
Does all that necessarily prove it was THE rifle standing alone? Perhaps not definitively, but of course there is other evidence to link Oswald to the rifle found in the TSBD including a serial number and print.
How does the rifle's serial number prove that Lee owned the rifle? And since the authorities lied about finding Lee's palm print on the carcano, one is compelled to question their need to lie about finding Lee's palm print on the 5/8 inch diameter barrel.
It is a physical impossibility for an adult male to deposit an identifiable palm print on a cylinder ( Carcano barrel) that is only 5/8 of in inch in diameter, when that barrel is partially covered by a bayonet lug.
How does the serial number prove that LHO owned the rifle? LOL. You can't be serious. The documentation from Klein's (which pre-dates the assassination) confirms that a MC rifle with that specific serial number was sent to a person using a known alias of Oswald at his PO box! If Klein's sent this specific rifle to Oswald's PO Box, then that is compelling evidence that this is the rifle owned by LHO. It is the same rifle later found in Oswald's place of the employment. His print was found on the rifle. Sensing any theme? It's a slam dunk. If you simply dismiss the evidence as the products of "lies", then, of course, nothing could ever be proven. That is just going round in circles.
The better CTer line of argument is to concede the evidence (i.e. Oswald owned this particular rifle and carried it in the bag to the TSBD) and focus on his whacky background. There is no evidence to link him to any conspiracy but is much more difficult to rebut claims that perhaps Oswald was some low-level intelligence asset who got recruited into the plot and then hung out to dry. But the pedantic nitpicking of a mountain of evidence against is laughable. When Marina says, for example, that she saw "a rifle" and contrarians desperately spin that to try to find a way to claim she saw something made of wood, it destroys any credibility. That is tin foil hat territory.
-
Own, LOL, but okay...
Not really, as she didn't have a clue about weapons (or cameras) AND nobody else reports seeing the contents of the blanket which means that she can't confirm an otherwise unsupported claim.
"conflating", LOL, stop using words you don't understand the meaning of.
See above.
"corroborated ", LOL, don't use words when you're clueless as to their meaning.
False, no photos document a blanket and its contents in the garage.
False, no prints document a blanket and its contents in the garage.
"third-party", LOL.
Prove they do, then get back to us.
See above, you're not quite there yet -- ROFL
Oh boy, on your face again, as the police search didn't corroborate anything about the contents of the blanket prior to their arrival.
There's nothing to account for unless you can prove the TSBD rifle was ever in that blanket.
No, "we" don't know that.
False, see above.
Irrelevant, see above.
No, it wasn't corroborated as explained above.
No verified evidence of that claim.
Based on "gouge science", LOL. BTW, there isn't a shred on evidence that Marina took any photos.
So now you don't trust Oswald's wife when reporting Oswald's rifle had NO scope -- ROFL
You mean the one without the scope?
Already dealt with.
Um, WTF is that supposed to mean?
Like....?
I just left you with a bag of zero facts and circumstances which add up to a nice, round ZERO.
So many words for so little purpose. Imagine the effort behind breaking down every comment? In Otto land, the fact that Marina couldn't specifically recollect the scope on the rifle has significance. Keep in mind Otto also suggests that Marina is the same person involved in the plot to frame Oswald and "lying" for that purpose. But instead of just saying the rifle had a scope per his fantasy that she is complicit in the plot, she does her best to recall. In desperation Otto clings to this real or imagined ambiguity in her testimony (again from the same person who he believes is lying to frame Oswald). When it is pointed out that Marina took a picture of Oswald holding this very rifle that she was asked to describe, and those photos clearly show it had a scope, rendering any debate about the subject moot, it has no effect. Otto's narrative is impervious to facts and evidence that stand in contradiction. Otto has some insecurity issue with "big" words but maybe he can look those up. Marina tells us that Oswald owned a rifle. She couldn't specifically remember the scope but took photos of that rifle in which the scope can be seen. So there is no relevance to her inability to recall the scope because we can confirm from the pictures that it was there.
-
The usual false BS from “Richard”.
There’s no evidence of anything being sent through the mail to a PO Box. Hidell was not a “known alias of Oswald”. His print was actually found on an index card a week later. There’s no evidence he carried it in “the bag”, or any bag. You cannot demonstrate that it is “this very rifle” in any photo.
-
How does the serial number prove that LHO owned the rifle? LOL. You can't be serious. The documentation from Klein's (which pre-dates the assassination) confirms that a MC rifle with that specific serial number was sent to a person using a known alias of Oswald at his PO box! If Klein's sent this specific rifle to Oswald's PO Box, then that is compelling evidence that this is the rifle owned by LHO. It is the same rifle later found in Oswald's place of the employment. His print was found on the rifle. Sensing any theme? It's a slam dunk. If you simply dismiss the evidence as the products of "lies", then, of course, nothing could ever be proven. That is just going round in circles.
The better CTer line of argument is to concede the evidence (i.e. Oswald owned this particular rifle and carried it in the bag to the TSBD) and focus on his whacky background. There is no evidence to link him to any conspiracy but is much more difficult to rebut claims that perhaps Oswald was some low-level intelligence asset who got recruited into the plot and then hung out to dry. But the pedantic nitpicking of a mountain of evidence against is laughable. When Marina says, for example, that she saw "a rifle" and contrarians desperately spin that to try to find a way to claim she saw something made of wood, it destroys any credibility. That is tin foil hat territory.
How does the serial number prove that LHO owned the rifle? LOL. You can't be serious. The documentation from Klein's (which pre-dates the assassination) confirms that a MC rifle with that specific serial number was sent to a person using a known alias of Oswald at his PO box! If Klein's sent this specific rifle to Oswald's PO Box, then that is compelling evidence that this is the rifle owned by LHO.
That's good enough if you're a simpleton who doesn't question any of that superficial evidence....
"The documentation from Klein's (which pre-dates the assassination) confirms that a MC rifle with that specific serial number was sent to a person using a known alias of Oswald at his PO box!"
You are serious.... So your point is: This proves that Lee Oswald was the person who did not use the name Oswald ( and was not authorized to receive mail at that PO box ) actually received that carcano .....And therefore he OWNED IT....
Don't you see how flimsy and weak your argument is?
We know that George De M was a close friend of Lee Oswald and George was wealthy while Lee was a pauper and had very little money to spend frivolously...... George would have had access to Lee's PO box, and could easily have received the rifle....He may have had to show verification that he was "Hidell".......
-
How does the serial number prove that LHO owned the rifle? LOL. You can't be serious. The documentation from Klein's (which pre-dates the assassination) confirms that a MC rifle with that specific serial number was sent to a person using a known alias of Oswald at his PO box! If Klein's sent this specific rifle to Oswald's PO Box, then that is compelling evidence that this is the rifle owned by LHO.
That's good enough if you're a simpleton who doesn't question any of that superficial evidence....
"The documentation from Klein's (which pre-dates the assassination) confirms that a MC rifle with that specific serial number was sent to a person using a known alias of Oswald at his PO box!"
You are serious.... So your point is: This proves that Lee Oswald was the person who did not use the name Oswald ( and was not authorized to receive mail at that PO box ) actually received that carcano .....And therefore he OWNED IT....
Don't you see how flimsy and weak your argument is?
We know that George De M was a close friend of Lee Oswald and George was wealthy while Lee was a pauper and had very little money to spend frivolously...... George would have had access to Lee's PO box, and could easily have received the rifle....He may have had to show verification that he was "Hidell".......
So hostile. What is it with CTers constantly using personal insults when confronted with facts and logic? Very amusing. The Klein's documents confirm that a MC rifle with a specific serial number was sent to someone using a known alias of LHO at his PO box. That rifle was not returned to Klein's because it couldn't be delivered to Oswald as you suggest. Do you think it is still sitting at the Dallas post office? HA HA HA. If not, then it must have been delivered to Oswald. That is confirmed by the photos taken of him holding it. It's unreal that anyone would struggle so mightily against reality.
-
Yes, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the funniest thing of all is there's no record of Lee ever having bought the ammunition for this gun. You can't shoot the alleged murder weapon without the bullets. And wasn't there a dent in one of the shell's lip found in the building? I mean, you'd think there was a defect with the gun and it would have made all three with a dent upon ejection, right?
-
So you believe that a photo of Lee holding a carcano is proof that it's his rifle?? Do you have any documentation that proves that Lee Oswald was the "Hidell" who received the carcano at the Dallas PO? How about a signed receipt ? Surely the US PO would not have released a parcel ( that was obviously a gun) without verification of the persons ID and a signed receipt.
A picture of Oswald holding the rifle outside his own apartment is pretty good evidence of his ownership of the rifle. Particularly given the circumstances. The rifle in the picture was one that he kept in his apartment in Neely St. The picture was taken just outside that apartment. He was not on safari or at some place where it might be possible that he was using someone else's rifle but at his residence. Whose rifle do you think he might be holding outside his own apartment? No one else was even present except Marina. There is zippo evidence that anyone else gave him a rifle to hold in that picture. How would a "signed receipt" - whatever that is supposed to mean in the context of a mail order rifle - change your view since you believe the Klein's documentation is forged etc? Oswald had ID in the Hidell name. How do you know that he didn't present that? He would have had the card from his PO Box informing him of the package. Most likely presenting that to the clerk would suffice. Only someone with access to his PO Box could obtain the package notification card. This was 1963.
-
Yes, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the funniest thing of all is there's no record of Lee ever having bought the ammunition for this gun. You can't shoot the alleged murder weapon without the bullets. And wasn't there a dent in one of the shell's lip found in the building? I mean, you'd think there was a defect with the gun and it would have made all three with a dent upon ejection, right?
There is a record of his purchase of the rifle, but you apparently don't accept that. What difference would a record of his purchase of the ammunition make to you? Maybe there was such a record somewhere, but it was never found because Oswald used a different alias or it wasn't kept for months by whoever sold it to him. Do you even know if they kept any records of ammunition purchases in 1963? Are you really suggesting that the absence of such evidence somehow casts doubt on the mountain of evidence that links Oswald to the crime?
-
A picture of Oswald holding the rifle outside his own apartment is pretty good evidence of his ownership of the rifle. Particularly given the circumstances. The rifle in the picture was one that he kept in his apartment in Neely St. The picture was taken just outside that apartment. He was not on safari or at some place where it might be possible that he was using someone else's rifle but at his residence. Whose rifle do you think he might be holding outside his own apartment? No one else was even present except Marina. There is zippo evidence that anyone else gave him a rifle to hold in that picture. How would a "signed receipt" - whatever that is supposed to mean in the context of a mail order rifle - change your view since you believe the Klein's documentation is forged etc? Oswald had ID in the Hidell name. How do you know that he didn't present that? He would have had the card from his PO Box informing him of the package. Most likely presenting that to the clerk would suffice. Only someone with access to his PO Box could obtain the package notification card. This was 1963.
A picture of Oswald holding the rifle outside his own apartment is pretty good evidence of his ownership of the rifle.
Yes, a simple mind would accept that idea but a more inquisitive mind would ask:.... That seems to be a photo of Lee Oswald holding a carcano,....BUT ...is it the same carcano that was found in the TSBD after the assassination? And simply because Lee Oswald has possession at the moment the photo was taken doesn't prove he owned the rifle. The photo is obviously a "POSED" photo like a carnival photo that is intend as a gag, to deceive the viewer .... It's so blatantly a staged photo ( ( the inclusion of the communist publications is "over the top" ) that is obviously intended to deceive the viewer into accepting the unspoken message.... " Look at me . I'm a hard core communist revolutionary who is armed and ready to fight for the revolution.
What a CROCK!!... Why would anybody scrutinize and examine the photo under a magnifying glas??
-
But that's not the end of the story....There are now 4 BY photos....so even if Marina had taken CE 133A and 133B WHERE DID THE OTHER TWO PHOTOS COME FROM???
Also...What ever happened to the rest of that roll of film?
No picture of Marina [maybe with the kiddo]? A family shot or so? Just very strange.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/NFj9PYJf/DEAD-OW-NEELY.png)
billchapman
-
Why did Michael Paine leave work and head to Irving before he had even heard about the shooting?
He lived in Grand Prairie.
Also, the police stated that "he didn't seem all that surprised at what had happened"."
-
Even Kennedy said to Jackie where heading to nutsville. Given the atmosphere in Dallas in the fall of 1963 I believe that's why Michael Paine wasn't surprised.
Why did Michael Paine leave work and head to Irving before he had even heard about the shooting?
He lived in Grand Prairie.
Also, the police stated that "he didn't seem all that surprised at what had happened"."
-
Even Kennedy said to Jackie where heading to nutsville. Given the atmosphere in Dallas in the fall of 1963 I believe that's why Michael Paine wasn't surprised.
Kennedy said to Jackie where heading to nutsville.
Yes, they were heading into LBJ country.... JFK knew the atmosphere was unstable and vile.... But he didn't appreciate just how corrupt and vile .....
-
Kennedy said to Jackie where heading to nutsville.
Yes, they were heading into LBJ country.... JFK knew the atmosphere was unstable and vile.... But he didn't appreciate just how corrupt and vile .....
And then he was shot by a leftist Commie. Oh the irony.
-
And then he was shot by a leftist Commie. Oh the irony.
If you truly believe that ....You need the help of a good psychiatrist
-
And then he was shot by a leftist Commie. Oh the irony.
Even more ironic, Oswald put into power a president who was one of if not the most liberal president in US history. The first thing LBJ did as president - the first - was push for passage of the civil rights bill, something the far right in Dallas hated JFK for pushing.
Then he passed the "Great Society" legislation - civil rights, housing rights, voting rights, poverty programs - all of this vehemently opposed by the Bircher right. Even more, LBJ essentially ended the covert war on Cuba - Operation Mongoose. All of that nonsense was pushed by the Kennedys and RFK stopped advocating for it.
So these far right wingers killed JFK because he was too liberal on civil rights and too soft on Castro. Then they put into power a president who was even more liberal on civil rights and softer on Castro. Irony of ironies.
The conspiracy believers - the Oliver Stones and others - never mention all of this. For them it's all about Vietnam. Well, LBJ didn't send in troops there until late 1965 after the South Vietnamese government essentially fell apart and Hanoi and Moscow stepped up its aggression.
Part of the problem reasoning with these conspiracists is trying to straighten out their bizarre conspiracy history. They believe things that are simply not true.
-
If you truly believe that ....You need the help of a good psychiatrist
Tell us all again the story about them giving JFK a Stetson hat in Ft. Worth so that it would be easier for the snipers to shoot JFK in Dallas? Forget about the red rings, I already know about that one. Tell us about the hat.
Right, someone needs help here. I do agree with you on that one.
-
Even more ironic, Oswald put into power a president who was one of if not the most liberal president in US history. The first thing LBJ did as president - the first - was push for passage of the civil rights bill, something the far right in Dallas hated JFK for pushing.
Then he passed the "Great Society" legislation - civil rights, housing rights, voting rights, poverty programs - all of this vehemently opposed by the Bircher right. Even more, LBJ essentially ended the covert war on Cuba - Operation Mongoose. All of that nonsense was pushed by the Kennedys and RFK stopped advocating for it.
So these far right wingers killed JFK because he was too liberal on civil rights and too soft on Castro. Then they put into power a president who was even more liberal on civil rights and softer on Castro. Irony of ironies.
The conspiracy believers - the Oliver Stones and others - never mention all of this. For them it's all about Vietnam. Well, LBJ didn't send in troops there until late 1965 after the South Vietnamese government essentially fell apart and Hanoi and Moscow stepped up its aggression.
Part of the problem reasoning with these conspiracists is trying to straighten out their bizarre conspiracy history. They believe things that are simply not true.
For people like LBJ.....politics came secondary to personal lust......He lusted for the presidency and the Texas oil tycoons wanted JFK out of their way ( the oil depletion allowance) LBJ knew that JFK was going to dump him as vice presidential running mate in 64, and that would have been the end of his political life.
-
Tell us all again the story about them giving JFK a Stetson hat in Ft. Worth so that it would be easier for the snipers to shoot JFK in Dallas? Forget about the red rings, I already know about that one. Tell us about the hat.
Right, someone needs help here. I do agree with you on that one.
Don't forget the "silencers" and the use of some type of audio notification to alert the assassins it was a go. It's my opinion that folks like Walt can't actually believe their own bizarre nonsense. Only a mental illness would account for that. It's a hobby to pass the time. More fun to make up outlandish explanations than to accept the obvious truths. They don't make TV shows that confirm every week that there are no ghosts or Bigfoot. That's no fun. No one would watch. The masses need a show to be entertained. Oswald taking his rifle to work in a bag and killing JFK is not that interesting. Signals, plots, and mastermind Quaker housewives behind the plot is the path to entertainment. A more interesting world.
-
“Obvious truths”. LOL.
-
“Obvious truths”. LOL.
accept the obvious truths
Great idea!.... It's obvious to me that we have not found the truth about the coup d e'tat.
But what is an obvious truth is the fact that the venerated and vaunted FBI (Hoover) did not deliver the truth.....WHY??
Either they were too inept and could not find the truth,..... or they were part of the conspiracy...And I certainly don't believe the FBI was inept and a bunch of hayseed yokels like Barney Fife.
-
It's my opinion that folks like Walt can't actually believe their own bizarre nonsense. Only a mental illness would account for that. It's a hobby to pass the time.
Only a mental illness
Smith---wannabe psychoanalyst...wannabe master historian...wannabe authority on the assassination ...yet... a neverwillbe even a novice at much of anything.
Sad :(
-
Smith---wannabe psychoanalyst...wannabe master historian...wannabe authority on the assassination ...yet... a neverwillbe even a novice at much of anything.
Sad :(
a neverwillbe even a novice at much of anything.
I simply can't believe that a person is as gullible as Mr "Smith" seems to be..... I strongly suspect it's his job to keep propping up the "Big Lie" of J.Edgar Hoover, and LBJ.
-
a neverwillbe even a novice at much of anything.
I simply can't believe that a person is as gullible as Mr "Smith" seems to be.
No...there's a few of them here.
I strongly suspect it's his job to keep propping up the Big Lie
He has a job? ???
-
Smith---wannabe psychoanalyst...wannabe master historian...wannabe authority on the assassination ...yet... a neverwillbe even a novice at much of anything.
Sad :(
Put it to the test. Find a mental health specialist in your area. Tell them some of your theories about the JFK assassination. Get back to us with their assessment. The kind of nonsense peddled on the Internet doesn't fly on planet Earth. They would drop a net on anyone who suggested the far out, nutty JFK conspiracy theories espoused here.
-
Put it to the test. Find a mental health specialist in your area. Tell them some of your theories about the JFK assassination. Get back to us with their assessment. The kind of nonsense peddled on the Internet doesn't fly on planet Earth. They would drop a net on anyone who suggested the far out, nutty JFK conspiracy theories espoused here.
Refer me to a mental health specialist who has studied the murder of JFK...... Any rational and reasoning person will never accept the Warren Report as the truth.
-
I wonder what a mental health specialist would say about a guy with a fake name who pathologically lies about the evidence in the JFK case.
-
Tell them some of your theories about the JFK assassination.
It was a cover up and that is not a theory.
-
Refer me to a mental health specialist who has studied the murder of JFK...... Any rational and reasoning person will never accept the Warren Report as the truth.
Give it a try. Start out with the story about the "red rings" that you believe were painted on the TSBD as a signal to LBJ. I doubt you get beyond that one. Let us know what they say.
-
Give it a try. Start out with the story about the "red rings" that you believe were painted on the TSBD as a signal to LBJ. I doubt you get beyond that one. Let us know what they say.
I've never said that there were red rings "painted" on the TSBD windows......
Yer an idiot who attempts to belittle , but the photos verify that there were in fact red rings in the windows of the TSBD, at the time JFK was murdered.
-
I've never said that there were red rings "painted" on the TSBD windows......
Yer an idiot who attempts to belittle , but the photos verify that there were in fact red rings in the windows of the TSBD, at the time JFK was murdered.
So hostile. Of course there were red rings on the windows. No one ever suggested otherwise. In fact, such red rings had been used for decades in Dallas buildings for fire safety purposes. You, however, have suggested they were some kind of "signal" to LBJ on Nov. 22. Like the Bat signal in Gotham city. An absurd assertion that would be laughed away outside of an Internet forum.
-
So hostile. Of course there were red rings on the windows. No one ever suggested otherwise. In fact, such red rings had been used for decades in Dallas buildings for fire safety purposes. You, however, have suggested they were some kind of "signal" to LBJ on Nov. 22. Like the Bat signal in Gotham city. An absurd assertion that would be laughed away outside of an Internet forum.
Once again you demonstrate your stupidity...... The red rings that were used during WWII were on just ONE window on each floor to show firemen where to put their ladders to help escaping occupants.
ONE window on each floor.... Dumb ass.....
-
Once again you demonstrate your stupidity...... The red rings that were used during WWII were on just ONE window on each floor to show firemen where to put their ladders to help escaping occupants.
ONE window on each floor.... Dumb ass.....
So hostile. Again, explain your red ring theory to the mental health professionals to obtain their professional opinion. Let us know what they have to say. Maybe pack an overnight bag.
-
Once again you demonstrate your stupidity...... The red rings that were used during WWII were on just ONE window on each floor to show firemen where to put their ladders to help escaping occupants.
ONE window on each floor.... Dumb ass.....
(https://images.fireengineering.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/542-img-1.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
— Fire Engineering, 1948
RED CIRCLES TO FACILITATE RESCUE
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
The red circle will show the way in and out of Syracuse’s burning buildings.
Fire Chief William J. Connelly has announced that red circles will be painted
shortly on upper-floor windows of factories, warehouses and other business
places.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
According to press accounts furnished Fire Engineering by James R. Jackson,
Oswego, N. Y., the circle will indicate the window opens into an aisle or passage-
way which will give firemen easy access to fight flames or effect rescues.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Persons trapped inside a particular building will know that any window bearing
the red circle will be the first place from which they will be rescued.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
The details of painting the red circles on windows, Chief Connelly said, are in
the hands of Lieut. John Dacey of the fire prevention bureau. Each circle will
measure eight or more inches in diameter, depending upon the size of the window.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Employers and employes alike, the reports say, have agreed to keep
free of obstructions all aisles leading to red circled windows.
Circles not limited to WWII bombing nor one-per-floor.
-
(https://images.fireengineering.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/542-img-1.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
— Fire Engineering, 1948
RED CIRCLES TO FACILITATE RESCUE
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
The red circle will show the way in and out of Syracuse’s burning buildings.
Fire Chief William J. Connelly has announced that red circles will be painted
shortly on upper-floor windows of factories, warehouses and other business
places.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
According to press accounts furnished Fire Engineering by James R. Jackson,
Oswego, N. Y., the circle will indicate the window opens into an aisle or passage-
way which will give firemen easy access to fight flames or effect rescues.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Persons trapped inside a particular building will know that any window bearing
the red circle will be the first place from which they will be rescued.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
The details of painting the red circles on windows, Chief Connelly said, are in
the hands of Lieut. John Dacey of the fire prevention bureau. Each circle will
measure eight or more inches in diameter, depending upon the size of the window.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Employers and employes alike, the reports say, have agreed to keep
free of obstructions all aisles leading to red circled windows.
Circles not limited to WWII bombing nor one-per-floor.
Thank you for posting the information from Oswego NY ..... Dallas may have been similar .
The idea originated in the early Years of WWII.....
Arguing that there was more than one escape route per floor simply reveals your desperation.
Depending on the size of the building there may have been more than one window designated as an escape window....But that wouldn't have applied to the relatively small TSBD, in which it was less than 100 feet across the room. If you believe that Lee traveled from the SE corner of the sixth floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom in 90 seconds then a person could cross the room in about ten seconds.
PS.... The red ring plan was to designate an escape route for buildings that had no fire escape ...
The TSBD had a fire escape......
-
Thank you for posting the information from Oswego NY ..... Dallas may have been similar .
The idea originated in the early Years of WWII.....
Arguing that there was more than one escape route per floor simply reveals your desperation.
I see. Fire will respect any "Fire Escape Route" Map that gets pinned up. It won't start in or burn to certain areas. LOL. Your "one escape route per floor" notion.
Depending on the size of the building there may have been more than one window designated as an escape window....But that wouldn't have applied to the relatively small TSBD, in which it was less than 100 feet across the room. If you believe that Lee traveled from the SE corner of the sixth floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom in 90 seconds then a person could cross the room in about ten seconds.
I would think warehouse-type buildings that have long corridors with high stacks of books on each side might benefit from multiple designated window exits.
PS.... The red ring plan was to designate an escape route for buildings that had no fire escape ...
The TSBD had a fire escape......
There's no indication red-circle symbols couldn't be used in buildings with an external fire escape. What if the window that allowed you to step onto the fire escape was itself in flames or made impassible from smoke rising from the window below? Then you head for the back stairs and it's filled with smoke. So now you head for a window with a red circle. The firemen don't have to put ladders up to every window with a red circle; just the one where they see people at.
I think the practice of using using red-circles for fifth-floor and similar levels died out when ladder-trucks that could reach higher (they get up to 90' or so now) began to be produced.
-
What if the fire escape cannot be reached-----?
(https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-573b4ed86df67cf2ab8be14643e9ff6c-lq)
This red rectangular marking on the windows of buildings shows the window from where fire brigade or rescue crew can enter the building in case of a fire or other emergency. The fire prevention law requires installing the emergency entrance to the floors of over 3rd story and under 30 meters high. The windows with the mark have a latch to be opened from outside.
They are easy access windows that open from the outside so that fire fighters can easily enter a building. These fire windows are marked with a red triagle so that firefighters can quickly identify them. Most modern apartments and offices have one. Mine has a special latch that can be opened by firemen without being broken but as another user explained, sometimes it just marks windows that don’t have reenforced glass and can be broken.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-red-triangles-on-the-buildings-windows-in-Japan-mean
-
I see. Fire will respect any "Fire Escape Route" Map that gets pinned up. It won't start in or burn to certain areas. LOL. Your "one escape route per floor" notion.
I would think warehouse-type buildings that have long corridors with high stacks of books on each side might benefit from multiple designated window exits.
There's no indication red-circle symbols couldn't be used in buildings with an external fire escape. What if the window that allowed you to step onto the fire escape was itself in flames or made impassible from smoke rising from the window below? Then you head for the back stairs and it's filled with smoke. So now you head for a window with a red circle. The firemen don't have to put ladders up to every window with a red circle; just the one where they see people at.
I think the practice of using using red-circles for fifth-floor and similar levels died out when ladder-trucks that could reach higher (they get up to 90' or so now) began to be produced.
The firemen don't have to put ladders up to every window with a red circle; just the one where they see people at.
So.....Referring to Dillard's photo on page 206 of Groden's TKOAP.....There are three red rings on the south side of the sixth floor .... Those rings are in adjacent windows about 15 feet apart. Since that floor of the TSBD was just warehouse space and one big room .... What would your explanation be for placing those three red rings in adjacent windows?
-
What if the fire escape cannot be reached-----?
(https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-573b4ed86df67cf2ab8be14643e9ff6c-lq)https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-red-triangles-on-the-buildings-windows-in-Japan-mean
There is a color photo of the TSBD on page 105 of Groden's The Search for LHO and there are no red rings on the windows..... Why were the red rings removed??
The Warren Commission knew about those red rings and swept them under the rug. They were smart enough to avoid opening that "can-o-worms" ..... But Mr "Smith" isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and he wants to kick the sleeping dog, rather than leave the sleeping dog alone.
-
At the top of Mrs Paine's calendar March 1963 [CE 401] there is a star and a note 'LHO purchase of rifle'. This calendar was confiscated in a search.
Ruth Paine testified that she had no idea Oswald had acquired a rifle and that it had been supposedly wrapped up in a blanket lying on the floor of her garage [all that time]....at least not until November 22 when police came to search her house.
But Hey! Marina knew about it all that time-supposedly-but didn't tell her friend Ruth about it in case she walked out and tripped over it or something. My...the secrecy there.
~~Michael Paine testified that he had noticed a blanket with items in it but merely felt around it and determined that it must be camping equipment...supposedly.~~
His lies are another story...the question remains, how did Ruthie know that Harv bought a rifle on Mar 20?
Al Jenner- Commission attorney- asked about this... The rest of Ruthie's garbage can be read here.......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_r3.htm
Good luck wading through it all with a shovel because it makes absolutely no sense either.
Mr Jenner failed to ask the real toughie ...Why???...Why did she write that note?
How could she have not remembered Nov 23 [of all days]?
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0041b.jpg)
At the top of Mrs Paine's calendar March 1963 [CE 401] there is a star and a note 'LHO purchase of rifle'. This calendar was confiscated in a search.
Ruth Paine testified that she had no idea Oswald had acquired a rifle and that it had been supposedly wrapped up in a blanket lying on the floor of her garage [all that time]....at least not until November 22 when police came to search her house.
Mrs Paine said that she wrote the note on her calendar on Saturday November 23......
She's a damned liar. On page 76 of FBI agent Hosty's book ; ASSIGNMENT OSWALD : Hosty says on Monday November 25, that he and agent Warren DeBrueys were sifting through the items that had been taken from the Paines house on 11/22/63. The items had belonged to both the Paines and the Oswald's.
Ruth Paine did not have that calendar on Saturday 11/23/63.
-
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) assassinated President John F. Kennedy (JFK) on November 22, 1963. They also claimed that he used an Italian Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) to accomplish this deed.
They further claimed that the rifle had been ordered through the mail from a Chicago mail-order house by the name of Klein?s Sporting Goods (KSG). This topic has been covered in many ways in this series already, therefore, this post is going to focus on this topic from a different angle.
One of the main witnesses that the WC utilized to attempt to make LHO appear guilty was Ruth Paine. The purpose of this post is to look at the topic of the rifle order in conjunction with Ruth Paine.
******************************************
Ruth Paine was a key witness for the WC as she provided them with a lot of testimony. She also provided them with a lot of evidence from her house and garage even though the Dallas Police Department (DPD) had searched those areas twice already.
The evidence that she ?found? after the DPD had thoroughly searched her house and garage is as follows:
1) The Imperial Reflex camera. This camera was allegedly found by her in early December 1963, but instead of giving it to the DPD she gave it to LHO?s brother Robert Oswald. He then felt no compulsion to turn it over to the DPD until February 1964. This camera was alleged to belong to LHO and was used by the WC to try and tie him to the assassination and the General Edwin A. Walker (EAW) shooting. How? They claimed that the only two times that it was used by LHO was to allegedly take the reconnaissance photographs of EAW?s house and the Backyard photographs (BYPs).
2) The alleged note that LHO supposedly left for Marina Oswald telling her what to do in an emergency. The WC said this was left because LHO was planning on, and did, shoot at EAW. The main problem with this claim (besides there being no supporting evidence) was that the note never mentions EAW.
3) A suitcase that was needed to try and tie LHO to a bus headed for Mexico City. The problem that the WC faced regarding the one Ruth Paine ?found? is that not one witness could be found to say that they saw LHO carrying it.
4) The other piece of evidence that the WC utilized with Ruth Paine was her personal calendar. This calendar was taken by the FBI and never returned to Ruth Paine. The WC was simply given a version that had been photographed and they designated this Commission Exhibit (CE) 401.
CE 401: http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0039a.htm
We have been told that LHO allegedly ordered the rifle on March 13, 1963, by the WC in their Report.
Quote on
According to its microfilm records, Klein?s received an order for a rifle on March 13, 1963, on a coupon clipped from the February 1963 issue of the American Rifleman magazine. The order coupon was signed, in handprinting, ?A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas.? (WCR, p. 119)
http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0072a.htm
Quote off
If we go to Ruth Paine?s calendar for March 1963 we won?t find any notation regarding this alleged activity by LHO and rightly so. How would she know what he was doing then since Marina Oswald was not living with her at that time.
CE 401/March: http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0041b.htm
What we do find however is something very confusing and very enlightening. There is a ?☆? on the box for March 20, 1963. In the upper right hand corner we see ?☆ ? LHO purchase of rifle?. To the left of this notation we see another notation that says ?Oct. 23?. Here is Ruth Paine?s testimony regarding these notations.
Mr. JENNER - Now, I turn to March, and I direct your attention to the upper left-hand corner of that card, and it appears to me that in the upper left-hand corner are October 23, then a star, then "LHO" followed by the words "purchase of rifle." Would you explain those entries?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. This was written after.
Mr. JENNER - After?
Mrs. PAINE - This was written indeed after the assassination.
Mr. JENNER - All right.
Mrs. PAINE ? I heard on the television that he had purchased a rifle.
Mr. JENNER - When?
Mrs. PAINE ? I heard it on November 23.
Mr. JENNER - Yes.
Mrs. PAINE - And went back to the page for March, put a little star on March 20 as being a small square, I couldn't fit in all I wanted to say. I just put in a star and then referring it to the corner of the calendar.
Mr. JENNER - That is to the entry I have read?
Mrs. PAINE - Put the star saying "LHO purchase of rifle." Then I thought someone is going to wonder about that, I had better put down the date, and did, but it was a busy day, one of the most in my life and I was off by a month as to what day it was.
Mr. JENNER - That is you made the entry October?
Mrs. PAINE ? October 23 instead of November.
Mr. JENNER - It should have been November 23?
Mrs. PAINE ? It should have been November 23.
Mr. JENNER - And the entry of October 23, which should have been November 23, was an entry on your part indicating the date you wrote on the calendar the star followed by "LHO purchase of rifle" and likewise the date you made an entry?
Mrs. PAINE - On the 20th.
Mr. JENNER - This is the square having the date March 20
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Is that correct?
Mrs. PAINE - I might point out that I didn't know Lee had a middle name until I had occasion to fill out forms for Marina in Parkland Hospital.
Mr. JENNER - That is when you learned that his middle name was Harvey and his initial was H?
Mrs. PAINE - Right.
Where to begin? So she said that she heard on television on November 23, 1963, that LHO purchased a rifle on March 20, 1963. If she did she was given incorrect information as we have seen the date the WC claimed that the KSG records showed was March 13, 1963.
Even if November 23, 1963, was the busiest day of her life as she says, how do you forget the date since the previous day was one where the President had been assassinated? November 22, 1963, is one of the most important days of our country?s history. It is up there with May 1, 1776, April 12, 1861, December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001. But we are asked to believe that as she sat and watched television coverage of the president?s assassination, and DPD people were searching her house and garage she somehow thought that it was October? Really?
Then she makes the comment about ?someone wondering about this?. Why? Why would she think anyone would care about her calendar the day after the assassination? What did her calendar have to do with the assassination? Clearly the DPD had no interest in it since they did not seize it during their searches on November 22 and 23. So who was the ?someone? that she was worried about?
Another key question is when did she hear this on November 23? Since this supposed rifle order was in the name of ?A. Hidell? it wouldn?t have been until early evening that the media would have gotten word from the DPD that LHO was supposedly this person. If the media was so thorough in this area, why were they so poor in the alleged order date area?
What if she really did learn about the order on October 23, 1963, as her notation suggests? How could she have learned about the order before the assassination? One could say that LHO told her himself, but this is doubtful for several reasons. Firstly, he denied ever ordering or owning a rifle and the evidence that the WC provided us with supports his statement. Secondly, LHO and Ruth Paine had a cool relationship so it seems doubtful that he would share this kind of information with her. Thirdly, and most importantly, if she transported the rifle to New Orleans and back to Dallas as the WC claimed, why wouldn?t he have told her about the order sooner than October 23? To me it seems doubtful that LHO would have told her this kind of information due to their cool relationship and the fact that he never ordered CE 139 as claimed. If not LHO, then who could have told her about the alleged order?
Another question that has not been answered is the one about her comment regarding LHO?s middle name. She testified that she did not know his middle name until she filled out forms for Marina Oswald at Parkland Hospital (PH). The only time that she could have done this was following the shooting of LHO on November 24, 1963, as he was in the Dallas County jail the rest of his time of incarceration. Given this fact, how could she know that his middle initial was ?H? on November 23 to make the notation of ?LHO purchased rifle?? How could she know on November 23, or October 23 for that matter, that his monogram was L.H.O. if she didn?t know his middle name as she said in her testimony?
[Note: It was noted after I posted this on the old version of this board that perhaps Ruth Paine could have learned of Oswald's middle name during the birth of his second child. That is possible, but I still find it odd that she would use all three initials when it seems more normal to use "LO" on a personal calendar. The government is more known for using the middle initial. Was this part of her training?]
To me this is just another hint that her story is not truthful. Keep in mind that the FBI took this calendar and only provided the WC with a photographic copy for testimony. There is a possibility that things could have been added to the calendar while in their custody.
To me the incorrect date of the order is another possible hint as it is a week off, and it seems unlikely that this type of detailed information would have been transferred to the media that quickly. All the DPD had to say is that he owned the rifle. At most they could say that it was ordered in March, but there was no need for an exact date. Another important point was that the DPD had nothing to do with the ?discovery? of the rifle order. This was solely the work of the FBI and they were tightlipped about what they shared with the DPD.
KSG?s William Waldman testified that the FBI took the microfilm that supposedly contained the alleged order by LHO.
Mr. BELIN. I'm handing you what has been marked as an FBI Exhibit D-77 and ask you if you know what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is a microfilm record that---of mail order transactions for a given period of time. It was turned over by us to the FBI.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know when it was turned over to the FBI?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was turned over to them on November 23, 1963.
This was key evidence that the FBI took possession of wnen they had NO jurisdiction! There is serious doubt that Waldman ever saw this alleged order when it was ?found? on the morning of November 23, 1963. He wasn?t asked this important question by the WC when he testified, thus, that pretty much indicates that he wasn?t shown the alleged order by the FBI agents.
The other KSG employee present, Mitchell Scibor, wasn?t asked this question either when he testified. None of the three FBI agents were called by the WC. I wonder why? The rifle is the key piece of evidence as if you can?t put CE 139 in LHO?s hands, and they couldn?t, you have no case against LHO. Clearly, if the rifle order had been found in a legal and ethical manner then the WC would not have been so shy about this matter.
The evidence seen in this post again illustrates the lengths the authorities would go to in order to make LHO appear guilty of assassinating JFK. They also had some key witnesses like Ruth Paine ready and willing to help make LHO appear guilty.
Once again we see evidence that raises serious doubts about the WC?s claims and conclusion, thus, they are sunk.
This is an excellent summation of of the story about Ruth Paine's calendar. I never knew that the FBI never did return Ruth Paine's calendar to her.....
-
This is an excellent summation of of the story about Ruth Paine's calendar. I never knew that the FBI never did return Ruth Paine's calendar to her.....
From the article ....It [Nov 22 '63] is up there with May 1, 1776
I was wondering about that May 1 date.