JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Ross Lidell on April 13, 2020, 05:32:10 AM
-
The process by which Lee Harvey Oswald obtained the job at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) is well-known: It's part of the historical record of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
The first week in October 1963, Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald went next-door to have coffee with a neighbor, Mrs Roberts. Another neighbor from "across the street", Linnie Mae Randle joined the party.
The subject of Marina Oswald's plight came up in conversation. She was 8+ months pregnant and her husband Lee Oswald was unemployed and needed work. Mrs Randle explained that her brother, Buell Frasier, had found work at the Texas School Book Depository and that "they might be still hiring". Mrs Paine phoned the TSBD and spoke to the manager Roy Truly. There was a temporary position available as an order-filler.
When Lee Oswald telephoned the Paine residence that evening, he was told about the job opportunity. He went for an interview with Mr Truly, the next day, and got the job at the TSBD.
The circumstances of Lee Harvey Oswald getting a job at a building on the route of President Kennedy's motorcade (5 weeks later) was just happenstance. The idea that plotters in a conspiracy had him "placed" at the TSBD is impossible. No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy. If Mrs Randle decides to stay home or go somewhere else instead of across the street to Mrs Roberts house for coffee: Lee Oswald never learns about the job at the TSBD. He never gets a job there and is never in a position to assassinate President Kennedy at 12:30 PM (CST), 22 November 1963.
That's why I say: "No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the Texas School Book Depository".
-
The process by which Lee Harvey Oswald obtained the job at the Texas School Book Depository is well-known: It's part of the historical record of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Sometime in October 1963, Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald went next-door to have coffee with a neighbor, Mrs Roberts. Another neighbor from "across the street", Linnie Mae Randle joined the party.
The subject of Marina Oswald's plight came up in conversation. She was 8+ months pregnant and her husband Lee Oswald was unemployed and needed work. Mrs Randle explained that her brother, Buell Frasier, had found work at the Texas School Book Depository and that "they might be still hiring". Mrs Paine phoned the TSBD and spoke to the manager Roy Truly. There was a temporary position available as an order-filler.
When Lee Oswald telephoned the Paine residence that evening, he was told about the job opportunity. He went for an interview with Mr Truly, the next day, and got the job.
The circumstances of Lee Harvey Oswald getting a job at a building on the route of President Kennedy's motorcade (5 weeks later) was just happenstance. The idea that plotters in a conspiracy had him "placed" there is impossible. No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy. If Mrs Randle decides to stay home or go somewhere else instead off across the street to Mrs Roberts house for coffee: Lee Oswald never learns about the job at the TSBD. He never gets a job there and is never in a position to assassinate President Kennedy at 12:30 PM (CST), 22 November 1963.
That's why I say: "No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the Texas School Book Depository".
The circumstances of Lee Harvey Oswald getting a job at a building on the route of President Kennedy's motorcade (5 weeks later) was just happenstance.
Probably true.
The idea that plotters in a conspiracy had him "placed" there is impossible.
Indeed... nobody knew at that time that Kennedy would come to Dallas and pass by the TSBD
No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy.
That's just jumping to a conclusion way too fast... You assume that Oswald's job at the TSBD was a vital part of a conspiracy simply because it turned out to play a prominent role in the assassination. What if the conspirators (if there were any) just improvised and played the hand they were dealt? Why couldn't they have arranged their plans around the location of the patsy rather than place the patsy somewhere weeks in advance? And besides, who knows what other options were available to them?
This is one of the main problems in your "logic". You relate everything back to the events that actually happened, when that could well have been only one of several scenarios. If there was a conspiracy, it's purpose would have been to remove a President from power. That's not something a couple of guys decide to do over a beer in a local bar. If there was a conspiracy, it would have involved serious players in high places and they wouldn't leave much to chance.
If Mrs Randle decides to stay home or go somewhere else instead off across the street to Mrs Roberts house for coffee: Lee Oswald never learns about the job at the TSBD. He never gets a job there and is never in a position to assassinate President Kennedy at 12:30 PM (CST), 22 November 1963.
So, Mrs Randle is to blame for the assassination. Got it.
-
The circumstances of Lee Harvey Oswald getting a job at a building on the route of President Kennedy's motorcade (5 weeks later) was just happenstance.
Probably true.
The idea that plotters in a conspiracy had him "placed" there is impossible.
Indeed... nobody knew at that time that Kennedy would come to Dallas and pass by the TSBD
No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy.
That's just jumping to a conclusion way too fast... You assume that Oswald's job at the TSBD was a vital part of a conspiracy simply because it turned out to play a prominent role in the assassination. What if the conspirators (if there were any) just improvised and played the hand they were dealt? Why couldn't they have arranged their plans around the location of the patsy rather than place the patsy somewhere weeks in advance? And besides, who knows what other options were available to them?
This is one of the main problems in your "logic". You relate everything back to the events that actually happened, when that could well have been only one of several scenarios. If there was a conspiracy, it's purpose would have been to remove a President from power. That's not something a couple of guys decide to do over a beer in a local bar. If there was a conspiracy, it would have involved serious players in high places and they wouldn't leave much to chance.
If Mrs Randle decides to stay home or go somewhere else instead off across the street to Mrs Roberts house for coffee: Lee Oswald never learns about the job at the TSBD. He never gets a job there and is never in a position to assassinate President Kennedy at 12:30 PM (CST), 22 November 1963.
So, Mrs Randle is to blame for the assassination. Got it.
This is one of the main problems in your "logic". You relate everything back to the events that actually happened, ...
And the main problem in your "logic" relates back to events that didn't happen. Not directly: You're much too cunning for that. You imply that something else happened by denying 100% of the historical record; but refuse to explain the alternative event. Even a contrarian like you should agree: If you deny a part of the historical record happening, there must exist an alternative event that did happen.
So, Mrs Randle is to blame for the assassination. Got it.
I think "to blame" is too strong an expression. Mrs Randle inadvertently and innocently enabled the possibility of Lee Oswald assassinating President Kennedy.
-
This is one of the main problems in your "logic". You relate everything back to the events that actually happened, ...
And the main problem in your "logic" relates back to events that didn't happen. Not directly: You're much too cunning for that. You imply that something else happened by denying 100% of the historical record; but refuse to explain the alternative event. Even a contrarian like you should agree: If you deny a part of the historical record happening, there must exist an alternative event that did happen.
So, Mrs Randle is to blame for the assassination. Got it.
I think "to blame" is too strong an expression. Mrs Randle inadvertently and innocently enabled the possibility of Lee Oswald assassinating President Kennedy.
And the main problem in your "logic" relates back to events that didn't happen.
It is impossible to relate back to things that never happened. If I relate back to something than it is the many discrepancies in the official narrative.
You imply that something else happened by denying 100% of the historical record
Where do you get the notion that I imply anything or deny the "historical record" whatever you mean by that? In the official narrative there are so many questions left unanswered and so many issues left unresolved that it just begs for critical questions to be asked. If and when I feel I have a strong enough case to support a theory, I will tell you, but I am not going to speculate just to give you an opportunity to attack something that I don't even support myself.
Even a contrarian like you should agree: If you deny a part of the historical record happening, there must exist an alternative event that did happen.
What you still haven't understood is that I merely ask questions. I don't have to deny anything nor do I have to accept something blindly as you seem to do. Besides, in this particular case it's not even a matter of denying the "historical record". It was a response to your premature and speculative conclusion [No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy.] which is not even part of the "historical record"
-
And the main problem in your "logic" relates back to events that didn't happen.
It is impossible to relate back to things that never happened. If I relate back to something than it is the many discrepancies in the official narrative.
You imply that something else happened by denying 100% of the historical record
Where do you get the notion that I imply anything or deny the "historical record" whatever you mean by that? In the official narrative there are so many questions left unanswered and so many issues left unresolved that it just begs for critical questions to be asked. If and when I feel I have a strong enough case to support a theory, I will tell you, but I am not going to speculate just to give you an opportunity to attack something that I don't even support myself.
Even a contrarian like you should agree: If you deny a part of the historical record happening, there must exist an alternative event that did happen.
What you still haven't understood is that I merely ask questions. I don't have to deny anything nor do I have to accept something blindly as you seem to do. Besides, in this particular case it's not even a matter of denying the "historical record". It was a response to your premature and speculative conclusion [No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy.] which is not even part of the "historical record"
If and when I feel I have a strong enough case to support a theory, I will tell you, but I am not going to speculate just to give you an opportunity to attack something that I don't even support myself.
I wont hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
-
If and when I feel I have a strong enough case to support a theory, I will tell you, but I am not going to speculate just to give you an opportunity to attack something that I don't even support myself.
I wont hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
Great, now that's cleared up, you can go on making claims, preferably supported by evidence, and I will continue asking questions
-
Great, now that's cleared up, you can go on making claims, preferably supported by evidence, and I will continue asking questions
Great, now that's cleared up, you can go on making claims, preferably supported by evidence, and I will continue asking questions.
Asking questions... that's all you do. The hallmark of an avowed contrarian.
Have you ever commenced a Subject on this forum?
-
Great, now that's cleared up, you can go on making claims, preferably supported by evidence, and I will continue asking questions.
Asking questions... that's all you do. The hallmark of an avowed contrarian.
Have you ever commenced a Subject on this forum?
Asking questions... that's all you do.
Indeed, that's what people do when they want to learn something or find out if a claim has merit or not.
The hallmark of an avowed contrarian.
That's what people say who make claims they can not support with evidence and can not answer simple questions.
Have you ever commenced a Subject on this forum?
Is there a rule that says I have to? But, yes I actually did several times, but the LNs ignored them.
I have said, more than once, that I feel the WC Report contains conclusions that are not supported by the evidence in the 26 volumes and are very often only assumptions incorrectly presented as "a preponderance of evidence". Does that count?
-
The idea that plotters in a conspiracy had him "placed" at the TSBD is impossible. No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy.
That's a leap of astronomical proportions. Why was Kennedy required to be assassinated at 12:30 PM (CST) on 22 November 1963?
This is a favorite LN strawman (employed particularly often by "Richard" "Strawman" "Smith"). Assume that a conspiracy necessarily means that every minute detail of what happened that day and every day leading up to it had to be meticulously planned in advance and it could only have happened that way.
-
That's a leap of astronomical proportions. Why was Kennedy required to be assassinated at 12:30 PM (CST) on 22 November 1963?
This is a favorite LN strawman (employed particularly often by "Richard" "Strawman" "Smith"). Assume that a conspiracy necessarily means that every minute detail of what happened that day and every day leading up to it had to be meticulously planned in advance and it could only have happened that way.
Well you're veering off point here. Having Oswald placed in the TSBD is not the same as planning the assassination down to the very last minute.
-
Well you're veering off point here. Having Oswald placed in the TSBD is not the same as planning the assassination down to the very last minute.
Well, it's a permanent LN talking point that "placing LHO at the TSBD" would indeed be part of planning the assassination to it's smallest detail.
-
The silliness is "no placement, no plot". Like that's the only possible plot.
-
That's a leap of astronomical proportions. Why was Kennedy required to be assassinated at 12:30 PM (CST) on 22 November 1963?
This is a favorite LN strawman (employed particularly often by "Richard" "Strawman" "Smith"). Assume that a conspiracy necessarily means that every minute detail of what happened that day and every day leading up to it had to be meticulously planned in advance and it could only have happened that way.
You miss the point John... not surprisingly.
Most of the conspiracy books (and internet JFK Conspiracy pundits) posit Lee Harvey Oswald as being placed in the TSBD as an employee by conspirators. This is so he could be framed as the assassin of President Kennedy (on 22 November 1963).
Oswald being an employee due to happenstance (or coincidence if you like) fits with him being the sole shooter who assassinated President Kennedy.
Incidentally: If Oswald does not get a job at the TSBD, President Kennedy leaves Dallas alive. Don't give me that "a backup plan was in the works" nonsense. We can only deal with the historical record. Accordingly, "No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD" means that President Kennedy would have lived to complete his first term and probably would have been elected to a second term as President of the United States.
-
You miss the point John... not surprisingly.
Most of the conspiracy books (and internet JFK Conspiracy pundits) posit Lee Harvey Oswald as being placed in the TSBD as an employee by conspirators. This is so he could be framed as the assassin of President Kennedy (on 22 November 1963).
Oswald being an employee due to happenstance (or coincidence if you like) fits with him being the sole shooter who assassinated President Kennedy.
Incidentally: If Oswald does not get a job at the TSBD, President Kennedy leaves Dallas alive. Don't give me that "a backup plan was in the works" nonsense. We can only deal with the historical record. Accordingly, "No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD" means that President Kennedy would have lived to complete his first term and probably would have been elected to a second term as President of the United States.
After reading this, I asked myself what in the world anybody can do to counter superficial and speculative thinking (if that's what it is) like this, that is not a waste of time?
I don't have the answer. A brick wall would probably understand what John and I have been saying faster than you, but so be it. It does make it easier to understand though why you are a WC defender.... You simply lack the capacity to be anything else....
-
You miss the point John... not surprisingly.
Not surprisingly, your point is a bogus non-sequitur.
Most of the conspiracy books (and internet JFK Conspiracy pundits) posit Lee Harvey Oswald as being placed in the TSBD as an employee by conspirators. This is so he could be framed as the assassin of President Kennedy (on 22 November 1963).
And that would be a strawman. You don’t speak for most authors or “pundits”.
Oswald being an employee due to happenstance (or coincidence if you like) fits with him being the sole shooter who assassinated President Kennedy.
“Fits”? It would also “fit” with him not having anything to do with it.
Incidentally: If Oswald does not get a job at the TSBD, President Kennedy leaves Dallas alive. Don't give me that "a backup plan was in the works" nonsense. We can only deal with the historical record.
The nonsense is that your “historical record” is just what you happen to believe happened.
Accordingly, "No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD" means that President Kennedy would have lived to complete his first term and probably would have been elected to a second term as President of the United States.
That’s just a silly reiteration of your silly idea that JFK had to be killed at 12:30 PM CST on November 22, 1963 or not at all.
-
Not surprisingly, your point is a bogus non-sequitur.
And that would be a strawman. You don’t speak for most authors or “pundits”.
“Fits”? It would also “fit” with him not having anything to do with it.
The nonsense is that your “historical record” is just what you happen to believe happened.
That’s just a silly reiteration of your silly idea that JFK had to be killed at 12:30 PM CST on November 22, 1963 or not at all.
Not surprisingly, your point is a bogus non-sequitur.
Which point is a bogus non-sequitur?
And that would be a strawman. You don’t speak for most authors or “pundits”.
The conspiracy books (written by authors) exist and there are numerous "prominent pundits": Michael T. Griffiths is one.
I never said JFK "had to be killed" at 12:30 PM CST on November 22, 1963 or not at all.
There is zero evidence for an assassination plot after 22 November 1963 if JFK had not been killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. If you know of one or more--please provide details.
-
Interesting game Ross. What if Buell's car battery finally failed and he couldn’t get it started?
By the way did anyone explain how Oswald knew that Buell's rear door was unlocked (or lock broken) for him to be able to place the package on the back seat before Buell appeared? Just wondering.
Anyone wonder why Linnie May never mentioned the "curtain rod" story to Adamcek? After all she supposedly quizzed Buell about it the afternoon before. Maybe it hadn’t been dreamt up at that point.
-
The circumstances of Lee Harvey Oswald getting a job at a building on the route of President Kennedy's motorcade (5 weeks later) was just happenstance.
Probably true.
The idea that plotters in a conspiracy had him "placed" there is impossible.
Indeed... nobody knew at that time that Kennedy would come to Dallas and pass by the TSBD
I think I'm going to have to walk back these two statements I made earlier. I have just watch a video from the Sixth Floor Museum featuring Parkland Hospital nurse Phyllis Hall in which (around 7.12 minutes) she says that the media found in September that Kennedy might come to Dallas.
I wasn't aware of that. If true, it was already known that Kennedy would visit Dallas prior to Oswald getting the job at the TSBD. For what it's worth!
-
Interesting game Ross. What if Buell's car battery finally failed and he couldn’t get it started?
By the way did anyone explain how Oswald knew that Buell's rear door was unlocked (or lock broken) for him to be able to place the package on the back seat before Buell appeared? Just wondering.
Anyone wonder why Linnie May never mentioned the "curtain rod" story to Adamcek? After all she supposedly quizzed Buell about it the afternoon before. Maybe it hadn’t been dreamt up at that point.
'Just wondering'
Wonder no longer: Oswald rode with Buell a number of times previously. Even so, that doesn't necessarily mean he would know the lock was broken. Well, big deal: If the car was locked, do something else.
Dude, improvise.
-
Which point is a bogus non-sequitur?
This: "If Oswald does not get a job at the TSBD, President Kennedy leaves Dallas alive."
The conspiracy books (written by authors) exist and there are numerous "prominent pundits": Michael T. Griffiths is one.
Well, if Michael T. Griffith [not Griffiths] starts posting here, you can argue with him about it.
What is your evidence that "most of the conspiracy books posit Lee Harvey Oswald as being placed in the TSBD as an employee by conspirators"?
I never said JFK "had to be killed" at 12:30 PM CST on November 22, 1963 or not at all.
See above. You think the only way that JFK could have been killed in Dallas is by LHO from the TSBD.
There is zero evidence for an assassination plot after 22 November 1963 if JFK had not been killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. If you know of one or more--please provide details.
There is evidence, none of it very good. For example, James Files, E. Howard Hunt, Loran Hall, William Seymour, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Ralph Yates, etc, etc, etc.
Just like there is not very good evidence against Oswald. You keep special-pleading your own claims as winning by default.
-
'Just wondering'
Wonder no longer: Oswald rode with Buell a number of times previously. Even so, that doesn't necessarily mean he would know the lock was broken. Well, big deal: If the car was locked, do something else.
Dude, improvise.
Tell that to Ross. He thinks that anything that's not specifically planned in advance cannot happen at all.
-
This is one of the main problems in your "logic". You relate everything back to the events that actually happened, ...
And the main problem in your "logic" relates back to events that didn't happen.
I think you guys got that backwards. ∞ = things that didn't happen. What didn't happen was [for all we know] some other guy had been made the patsy...with some other weapon linked to to a series of evidence and perhaps was gunned down at the airport trying to escape...just for example. Frazier stated that he got the job through an [employment office] Oswald had a work search going from the Texas Employment Commission who has basically the same listings and there was an opening at the TSBD [?] Why was he not given the tip to go in and apply from them? Frazier had only been hired in September filling orders just like Oswald. Also as I understand ...Oswald had a chance to get a higher paying job at other various locations...but he was steered into this one by Ruth Paine.
Mr. BALL - Where do you work?
Mr. FRAZIER - Work at Texas School Books.
Mr. BALL - How long have you worked there?
Mr. FRAZIER - I have been working there since September.
Mr. BALL - September of 1963?
Mr. FRAZIER - Correct.
Mr. BALL - What kind of work do you do there?
Mr. FRAZIER - I fill orders.
Mr. BALL - How did you happen to get that job?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I went to see, first I come up there and started looking for a job and couldn't find one myself so I went to one of these employment agencies and through that a lady called up one morning, I was fixing to go out and look for one, I was looking for myself in the meantime when they were, too, and so she called up and gave me a tip to it if I was interested in a job like that I could go over there and see about that and for the time being I wasn't working and needed some money and so I did and I went over there and saw Mr. Truly, and he gave me an interview, and then he hired me the same day I went over there.
Mr. BALL - You say you came up, you mean you came up from Huntsville?
The state prison is in Huntsville ..I would have scratched my head too.
I don't think anyone knows for sure when the plans for the motorcade was decided.
-
This is one of the main problems in your "logic". You relate everything back to the events that actually happened, ...
And the main problem in your "logic" relates back to events that didn't happen. Not directly: You're much too cunning for that. You imply that something else happened by denying 100% of the historical record; but refuse to explain the alternative event. Even a contrarian like you should agree: If you deny a part of the historical record happening, there must exist an alternative event that did happen.
So, Mrs Randle is to blame for the assassination. Got it.
I think "to blame" is too strong an expression. Mrs Randle inadvertently and innocently enabled the possibility of Lee Oswald assassinating President Kennedy.
Oswald's enablers were Alec Hidell (weapons), Oswald Harvey Lee (safe-house), and Dirty Harvey (Smith, Wesson... and Lee)
-
Oswald's enablers were Alec Hidell (weapons), Oswald Harvey Lee (safe-house), and Dirty Harvey (Smith, Wesson... and Lee)
Never gets old.
Maybe if you spent more time studying the case and less time trying to make up "clever" one-liners, you'd know basic things like it not being "Alec".
-
Never gets old.
Maybe if you spent more time studying the case and less time trying to make up "clever" one-liners, you'd know basic things like it not being "Alec".
Ah, typos: The last refuge of the desperate... not that you're anal about them.
Now try to say something important
'Alex'
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2451.msg80948.html#msg80948
-
Not that you're anal about typos
Now try to say something important
'Alex'
Still wrong. Try again.
"Typos". LOL.
-
Still wrong. Try again.
"Typos". LOL.
Thanks so much for yet another fine example of Bugliosi's universally-known splitting-hairs-then-splitting-the-split-hairs take on you lot.
And thanks so much for your always-useful input.
-
You miss the point John... not surprisingly.
Most of the conspiracy books (and internet JFK Conspiracy pundits) posit Lee Harvey Oswald as being placed in the TSBD as an employee by conspirators. This is so he could be framed as the assassin of President Kennedy (on 22 November 1963).
Oswald being an employee due to happenstance (or coincidence if you like) fits with him being the sole shooter who assassinated President Kennedy.
Incidentally: If Oswald does not get a job at the TSBD, President Kennedy leaves Dallas alive. Don't give me that "a backup plan was in the works" nonsense. We can only deal with the historical record. Accordingly, "No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD" means that President Kennedy would have lived to complete his first term and probably would have been elected to a second term as President of the United States.
So you are a CT (coincidence theorist)? You CTs think that everything was happenstance to support your LNer position. Who owned the TSBD? Why was the motorcade rerouted down Elm? How do you know Paine wasn't one of Oswald's handlers? Why didn't Oswald take a shot when JFK's limo curbed out and stopped right in front of the TSBD 60 feet from the 6th floor window? Oswald couldn't have missed even with a wonky scope. Why did Oswald get the job only 3 weeks before the Big Event, after the failure of Plan A in Chicago? Did you know about Plan A in Chicago with Oswald's doppelganger, Thomas Arthur Vallee? Oswald was Plan B, which was only in effect if Plan A failed, which it did.
How many coincidences trump a hearsay conversation between Randle and Oswald's handler, Paine? It was Paine who called Superintendent Roy Truly to ask about work for Oswald. Getting the patsy a job in the ideal building was to be accomplished as discreetly as possible. Paine knew enough not to blow her cover. And what do you know about Randle? Your problem is you believe a single tale by possible conspirators proves your case and you ignore everything else and chalk them up to coincidence, just like the conspirators banked on. I'm sure if any are still alive they'd thank you for your patronage. Like most, I believe this was a conspiracy so I consider "no coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald" to be a non-sequitur. Way too many coincidences for my liking.
Timeline
Kennedy's upcoming trip to Dallas was first announced to the public in September 1963
Oswald applied for the TSBD job October 15th 1963
The motorcade route was finalized November 18th, which included a funky turn onto Elm
How convenient for Lucky Lee that the planets aligned for him to get the perfect job, at just the right time, in the perfect building to assassinate the POTUS. Next you'll be telling me that Drumpf made a "Perfect Call" to Ukraine.
-
Thanks so much for yet another fine example of Bugliosi's universally-known splitting-hairs-then-splitting-the-split-hairs take on you lot.
That was Vince's excuse for why it should be ok to spread misinformation.
But at least he, unlike you, had a basic knowledge of the case before spouting off.
-
Tell that to Ross. He thinks that anything that's not specifically planned in advance cannot happen at all.
anything that's not specifically planned in advance cannot happen at all.
> You lot have that market cornered
-
That was Vince's excuse for why it should be ok to spread misinformation.
But at least he, unlike you, had a basic knowledge of the case before spouting off.
'excuse'
> You just made two
'basic knowledge'
> A nobody shot a somebody in Dealey Plaza on 11.22.63 12:30pm-ish
The only thing that you lot got right, according to a another somebody
'spouting off'
> That was 'the little engine that could'
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2444.msg80740.html#msg80740
-
'Just wondering'
Wonder no longer: Oswald rode with Buell a number of times previously. Even so, that doesn't necessarily mean he would know the lock was broken. Well, big deal: If the car was locked, do something else.
Dude, improvise.
Well was it normally unlocked or the lock broken? I can’t remember which was the final story. Can you?
-
Anyone wonder why Linnie May never mentioned the "curtain rod" story to Adamcek? After all she supposedly quizzed Buell about it the afternoon before. Maybe it hadn’t been dreamt up at that point.
Bump.
-
Well was it normally unlocked or the lock broken? I can’t remember which was the final story. Can you?
I wasn't there
Ask Buell
-
I wasn't there
Ask Buell
I take it you don’t know. I believe he was asked a few times. I can’t remember his last offering.
-
So you are a CT (coincidence theorist)? You CTs think that everything was happenstance to support your LNer position. Who owned the TSBD? Why was the motorcade rerouted down Elm? How do you know Paine wasn't one of Oswald's handlers? Why didn't Oswald take a shot when JFK's limo curbed out and stopped right in front of the TSBD 60 feet from the 6th floor window? Oswald couldn't have missed even with a wonky scope. Why did Oswald get the job only 3 weeks before the Big Event, after the failure of Plan A in Chicago? Did you know about Plan A in Chicago with Oswald's doppelganger, Thomas Arthur Vallee? Oswald was Plan B, which was only in effect if Plan A failed, which it did.
How many coincidences trump a hearsay conversation between Randle and Oswald's handler, Paine? It was Paine who called Superintendent Roy Truly to ask about work for Oswald. Getting the patsy a job in the ideal building was to be accomplished as discreetly as possible. Paine knew enough not to blow her cover. And what do you know about Randle? Your problem is you believe a single tale by possible conspirators proves your case and you ignore everything else and chalk them up to coincidence, just like the conspirators banked on. I'm sure if any are still alive they'd thank you for your patronage. Like most, I believe this was a conspiracy so I consider "no coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald" to be a non-sequitur. Way too many coincidences for my liking.
Timeline
Kennedy's upcoming trip to Dallas was first announced to the public in September 1963
Oswald applied for the TSBD job October 15th 1963
The motorcade route was finalized November 18th, which included a funky turn onto Elm
How convenient for Lucky Lee that the planets aligned for him to get the perfect job, at just the right time, in the perfect building to assassinate the POTUS. Next you'll be telling me that Drumpf made a "Perfect Call" to Ukraine.
What a waste of time is your post. None of your speculation means anything. Did you read and comprehend my post?
If Mrs Linnie Mae Randle does not go across the street (the first week in October 1963) to Mrs Robert's house for coffee: Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine (next door neighbors to Mrs Roberts) do not learn about the possibility of a job being available for an order-filler at the TSBD. If MO and RP do not learn about the job from LMR, Lee Oswald is never advised of the vacancy and does not get a job at the TSBD.
You can speculate all you like about other imagined plots to assassinate President Kennedy: Oswald cannot be framed as a patsy (in the TSBD) on 22 November 1963 . It's reasonable to deduce President Kennedy leaves Dallas alive.
All your questions are of no consequence.
Why, why, why daddy? ::)
-
What a waste of time is your post. None of your speculation means anything. Did you read and comprehend my post?
If Mrs Linnie Mae Randle does not go across the street (the first week in October 1963) to Mrs Robert's house for coffee: Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine (next door neighbors to Mrs Roberts) do not learn about the possibility of a job being available for an order-filler at the TSBD. If MO and RP do not learn about the job from LMR, Lee Oswald is never advised of the vacancy and does not get a job at the TSBD.
You can speculate all you like about other imagined plots to assassination President Kennedy: Oswald cannot be framed as a patsy (in the TSBD) on 22 November 1963 . It's reasonable to deduce President Kennedy leaves Dallas alive.
All your questions are of no consequence.
Why, why, why daddy? ::)
If you say so. ;D
-
If you say so. ;D
Isn't it amazing that Ross considers just about everything he believes "reasonable"?
The only thing that isn't reasonable is people telling him something different from what he believes....
So much for being reasonable....
-
This: "If Oswald does not get a job at the TSBD, President Kennedy leaves Dallas alive."
Well, if Michael T. Griffith [not Griffiths] starts posting here, you can argue with him about it.
What is your evidence that "most of the conspiracy books posit Lee Harvey Oswald as being placed in the TSBD as an employee by conspirators"?
See above. You think the only way that JFK could have been killed in Dallas is by LHO from the TSBD.
There is evidence, none of it very good. For example, James Files, E. Howard Hunt, Loran Hall, William Seymour, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Ralph Yates, etc, etc, etc.
Just like there is not very good evidence against Oswald. You keep special-pleading your own claims as winning by default.
Well, if Michael T. Griffith [not Griffiths] starts posting here, you can argue with him about it.
Irrelevant, immaterial idiotic post: Griffith was mentioned as an example of a prominent believer in the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of murdering John F. Kennedy.
What is your evidence that "most of the conspiracy books posit Lee Harvey Oswald as being placed in the TSBD as an employee by conspirators"?
It's well known that conspiracy books posit Lee Harvey Oswald as an innocent patsy. You are simply repeating your technique of demanding "this or that" ad infinitum--for no good reason.
See above. You think the only way that JFK could have been killed in Dallas is by LHO from the TSBD.
That's what happened. You have zero evidence for any alternative.
There is evidence, none of it very good. For example, James Files, E. Howard Hunt, Loran Hall, William Seymour, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Ralph Yates, etc, etc, etc.
"... none of it very good". : Quite rightly. Peoples names are not evidence.
Just like there is not very good evidence against Oswald. You keep special-pleading your own claims as winning by default.
There is good evidence: You just dispute it all routinely.
For your education...
Non sequitur: A conclusion that does not follow logically. Alternately there are conclusions that do follow logically. Such as:
Mrs Randle does not go across the street to Mrs Robert's house: It follows that she does not hear the conversation about pregnant Marina Oswald's husband Lee not having a job.
It follows that Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine never hear about the possibility of a job being available at the TSBD.
It follows that Ruth Paine never telephones the TSBD and speaks to the manager Mr Roy Truly.
It follows that Lee Oswald never hears about the possibility of a job being available at the TSBD.
It follows that Lee Oswald never goes to the TSBD to be interviewed by Mr Truly.
It follows that Lee Oswald is never employed at the TSBD.
It follows that Lee Oswald is working somewhere else on 22 November 1963.
It follows that:
a.) Lee Harvey Oswald never gets to fire rifle shots at President Kennedy and kill him.
b.) Conspirators never get to put into action a plot to assassinate President Kennedy on 22 November 1963--in which an innocent Harvey Oswald is framed.
Now what was that about "non sequiturs" ???
-
And if Bonnie Ray had not vacated the sixth floor minutes before the shots.
And if Arnold Rowland had told the cop about the guy with the rifle.
And if the ammunition for the rife had been lost in transit.
And if there was no dime to assemble the rifle.
And if Jarman and Norman had decided to go to the sixth floor, or Lovelady and Arce as planned.
And if Ruth Paine had caught Oswald packaging the rifle in the garage.
And if Frazier had been sick and not able to work that morning.
And if the bag had broken open and spilled the contents.
And if a butterfly.....
-
Well, if Michael T. Griffith [not Griffiths] starts posting here, you can argue with him about it.
Irrelevant, immaterial idiotic post: Griffith was mentioned as an example of a prominent believer in the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of murdering John F. Kennedy.
What is your evidence that "most of the conspiracy books posit Lee Harvey Oswald as being placed in the TSBD as an employee by conspirators"?
It's well known that conspiracy books posit Lee Harvey Oswald as an innocent patsy. You are simply repeating your technique of demanding "this or that" ad infinitum--for no good reason.
See above. You think the only way that JFK could have been killed in Dallas is by LHO from the TSBD.
That's what happened. You have zero evidence for any alternative.
There is evidence, none of it very good. For example, James Files, E. Howard Hunt, Loran Hall, William Seymour, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Ralph Yates, etc, etc, etc.
"... none of it very good". : Quite rightly. Peoples names are not evidence.
Just like there is not very good evidence against Oswald. You keep special-pleading your own claims as winning by default.
There is good evidence: You just dispute it all routinely.
For your education...
Non sequitur: A conclusion that does not follow logically. Alternately there are conclusions that do follow logically. Such as:
Mrs Randle does not go across the street to Mrs Robert's house: It follows that she does not hear the conversation about pregnant Marina Oswald's husband Lee not having a job.
It follows that Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine never hear about the possibility of a job being available at the TSBD.
It follows that Ruth Paine never telephones the TSBD and speaks to the manager Mr Roy Truly.
It follows that Lee Oswald never hears about the possibility of a job being available at the TSBD.
It follows that Lee Oswald never goes to the TSBD to be interviewed by Mr Truly.
It follows that Lee Oswald is never employed at the TSBD.
It follows that Lee Oswald is working somewhere else on 22 November 1963.
It follows that:
a.) Lee Harvey Oswald never gets to fire rifle shots at President Kennedy and kill him.
b.) Conspirators never get to put into action a plot to assassinate President Kennedy on 22 November 1963--in which an innocent Harvey Oswald is framed.
Now what was that about "non sequiturs" ???
Now what was that about "non sequiturs" ???
All your examples are non sequiturs.
They are possible conclusions, but not exclusive ones.... Ruth Paine could have found out about a job at the TSBD another way. That alone destroys your entire argument.
Thanks for the "education"... it was hilarious!
-
And if Bonnie Ray had not vacated the sixth floor minutes before the shots.
And if Arnold Rowland had told the cop about the guy with the rifle.
And if the ammunition for the rife had been lost in transit.
And if there was no dime to assemble the rifle.
And if Jarman and Norman had decided to go to the sixth floor, or Lovelady and Arce as planned.
And if Ruth Paine had caught Oswald packaging the rifle in the garage.
And if Frazier had been sick and not able to work that morning.
And if the bag had broken open and spilled the contents.
And if a butterfly.....
Did you read the Subject title, Colin?
Re: No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD
If Mrs Randle does not attend the coffee klatch at Mrs Roberts house, Oswald would not be in a position to do any of that. Nothing, that occurs in the TSBD on 22 November 1963 would be related (in any way) to a plot (conspirators) or plan (Lee Harvey Oswald) to assassinate President Kennedy.
I'm surprised that no-one has suggested that Mrs Randle was part of the plot to assassinate President Kennedy.
-
Now what was that about "non sequiturs" ???
All your examples are non sequiturs.
They are possible conclusions, but not exclusive ones.... Ruth Paine could have found out about a job at the TSBD another way. That alone destroys your entire argument.
Thanks for the "education"... it was hilarious!
You are attempting to make the sequence (not examples) become non sequiturs by adding an event that did not happen. Weird! You're a mischievous contrarian.
You have zero evidence that Ruth Paine would have found out about a job at the TSBD another way.
There's something unmanly about a fellow who will not accept facts: instead making embarrassing statements to maintain the debate. Childish!!!
-
Did you read the Subject title, Colin?
Re: No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD
If that (Mrs Randle does not attend the coffee klatch) had happened:
Nothing, that occurs in the TSBD on 22 November 1963 would be related (in any way) to a plot (conspirators) or plan (Lee Harvey Oswald) to assassinate President Kennedy.
I'm surprised that no-one has suggested that Mrs Randle was part of the plot to assassinate President Kennedy.
Apologies Ross, I thought your posting was relating to the events that could have gone differently and ultimately prevented the assassination.
Your own quote from the original post.....
" No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy. If Mrs Randle decides to stay home or go somewhere else instead of across the street to Mrs Roberts house for coffee: Lee Oswald never learns about the job at the TSBD. He never gets a job there and is never in a position to assassinate President Kennedy at 12:30 PM (CST), 22 November 1963."
I now understand premise to be that the learning of a possible job opportunity at the TSBD from Randle negates the possibility of any conspiracy involving Oswald in any capacity. As the precise parade route was not known at the time he commenced at the TSBD I believe all that can be deduced from the accepted sequence of events is that any conspiracy, if one occurred, did not actively place him at the TSBD prior to the Presidential visit. I do not see that it precludes a conspiracy per se.
-
You are attempting to make the sequence (not examples) become non sequiturs by adding an event that did not happen. Weird! You're a mischievous contrarian.
You have zero evidence that Ruth Paine would have found out about a job at the TSBD another way.
There's something unmanly about a fellow who will not accept facts: instead making embarrassing statements to maintain the debate. Childish!!!
Wow, an ad hominem reply containing one of the most stupid comments you've ever made.... what a treat!
-
Irrelevant, immaterial idiotic post: Griffith was mentioned as an example of a prominent believer in the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of murdering John F. Kennedy.
No, you mentioned Griffith as somebody who posits Lee Harvey Oswald as being placed in the TSBD as an employee by conspirators. You can’t even remember what you’re arguing.
"... none of it very good". : Quite rightly. Peoples names are not evidence.
But somehow you think that “that’s what happened” and “historical record” is evidence.
There is good evidence: You just dispute it all routinely.
You have yet to name any. What’s good about it if it’s so disputable?
Non sequitur: A conclusion that does not follow logically. Alternately there are conclusions that do follow logically. Such as:
Mrs Randle does not go across the street to Mrs Robert's house: It follows that she does not hear the conversation about pregnant Marina Oswald's husband Lee not having a job.
It follows that Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine never hear about the possibility of a job being available at the TSBD.
It follows that Ruth Paine never telephones the TSBD and speaks to the manager Mr Roy Truly.
It follows that Lee Oswald never hears about the possibility of a job being available at the TSBD.
It follows that Lee Oswald never goes to the TSBD to be interviewed by Mr Truly.
It follows that Lee Oswald is never employed at the TSBD.
It follows that Lee Oswald is working somewhere else on 22 November 1963.
Ok, so far.
It follows that:
a.) Lee Harvey Oswald never gets to fire rifle shots at President Kennedy and kill him.
BUZZ. Non-sequitur. If Oswald wanted to fire shots at Kennedy, he couldn’t do it from elsewhere?
b.) Conspirators never get to put into action a plot to assassinate President Kennedy on 22 November 1963--in which an innocent Harvey Oswald is framed.
BUZZ. Non-sequitur. “Conspirators” could only frame Oswald if he were working in the TSBD?
And you went way beyond that in yet another non-sequitur. You said it follows that Kennedy leaves Dallas alive. So you are really arguing that “conspirators” could only kill Kennedy in Dallas in Dealey Plaza, and only if Oswald was working at the TSBD, and there was no other possible way that “conspirators” could kill Kennedy.
You’re delusional.
Now what was that about "non sequiturs" ???
You make a lot of them.
-
You are attempting to make the sequence (not examples) become non sequiturs by adding an event that did not happen. Weird!
Your conclusion was something that did not happen: “Kennedy leaves Dallas alive”.
You don’t get to make your own hypotheticals and then cry foul when people give different hypotheticals.
-
No, you mentioned Griffith as somebody who posits Lee Harvey Oswald as being placed in the TSBD as an employee by conspirators. You can’t even remember what you’re arguing.
But somehow you think that “that’s what happened” and “historical record” is evidence.
You have yet to name any. What’s good about it if it’s so disputable?
Ok, so far.
BUZZ. Non-sequitur. If Oswald wanted to fire shots at Kennedy, he couldn’t do it from elsewhere?
BUZZ. Non-sequitur. “Conspirators” could only frame Oswald if he were working in the TSBD?
And you went way beyond that in yet another non-sequitur. You said it follows that Kennedy leaves Dallas alive. So you are really arguing that “conspirators” could only kill Kennedy in Dallas in Dealey Plaza, and only if Oswald was working at the TSBD, and there was no other possible way that “conspirators” could kill Kennedy.
You’re delusional.
You make a lot of them.
Ok, so far.
Quote
It follows that:
a.) Lee Harvey Oswald never gets to fire rifle shots at President Kennedy and kill him.
Any fool would know that I'm referring to the TSBD. It's been mentioned many times in the narrative up to that point so "it does follow". But you didn't understand that. Dopey or devious?
BUZZ. Non-sequitur. If Oswald wanted to fire shots at Kennedy, he couldn’t do it from elsewhere?
I'm obviously referring to the TSBD. Oswald had no access to any other building on the motorcade route. If you think he did name it?
Quote
b.) Conspirators never get to put into action a plot to assassinate President Kennedy on 22 November 1963--in which an innocent Harvey Oswald is framed.
BUZZ. Non-sequitur. “Conspirators” could only frame Oswald if he were working in the TSBD?
Again, I'm obviously referring to the TSBD. Oswald had no access to any other building on the motorcade route. If you think he did name it?
Oswald being framed as the sole assassin (working in the TSBD) has been posited for decades by conspiracy theorists. There's zero evidence for a plan to frame Oswald at some other location. If you think there is, name it.
And you went way beyond that in yet another non-sequitur. You said it follows that Kennedy leaves Dallas alive. So you are really arguing that “conspirators” could only kill Kennedy in Dallas in Dealey Plaza, and only if Oswald was working at the TSBD, and there was no other possible way that “conspirators” could kill Kennedy.
You’re delusional.
You're deceptive.
If Oswald does not get a job at the TSBD, President Kennedy DOES leave Dallas alive. Oswald does not shoot him dead from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Alternately, the real 6th floor shooter does not shoot the President dead. No point in the latter because there would be no "lone nut" to blame so the conspiracy would not be discovered.
To be credible, you have to name a location, shooter and time for an alternative "successful" Presidential assassination attempt in Dallas. Go ahead and try... with evidence. Name the "other possible way" that conspirators could kill President Kennedy. Easy stuff like location and time is a good starting point
Quote
Now what was that about "non sequiturs" ??? You make a lot of them.
They are NOT non sequiturs. They are logical conclusions. What you do is to deliberately pretend to not comprehend that I'm referring to the TSBD--at all times--and then imply a non-sequitur.
Oh by the way John: When was the last time you started a SUBJECT on this forum?
-
Wow, an ad hominem reply containing one of the most stupid comments you've ever made.... what a treat!
There's something unmanly about a fellow who will not accept facts: instead making embarrassing statements to maintain the debate. Childish!!!
Wow, an ad hominem reply containing one of the most stupid comments you've ever made.... what a treat!
I failed to hit the "s" key when typing the word fellow(s). Don't think you're special. That generalization would apply to many on this forum.
-
I failed to hit the "s" key when typing the word fellow(s). Don't think you're special. That generalization would apply to many on this forum.
BS:
If you failed hit the "s" after fellows how come you said "a fellow"
-
BS:
If you failed hit the "s" after fellows how come you said "a fellow"
A wondered who would spot that. Well done Ray.
-
There's something unmanly about a fellow who will not accept facts: instead making embarrassing statements to maintain the debate. Childish!!!
Wow, an ad hominem reply containing one of the most stupid comments you've ever made.... what a treat!
I failed to hit the "s" key when typing the word fellow(s). Don't think you're special. That generalization would apply to many on this forum.
I am getting sick and tired of clowns like you who think they are better and know more than other people. To have so much arrogant confidence in your own ignorance to make yourself feel superior is beyond reason or comprehension. As the screw up in the White House so aptly demonstrates on a daily basis, it's a massive sign of weakness and insecurity to outright dismiss everything that doesn't agree with your opinion as being "incorrect".
A truly wise man knows the value of being modest and trying to understand the arguments of others. Only a true fool shouts from the rooftop just how wonderful and "intelligent" he is. Overestimating one's self is a clear indication of ignorance and delusion on a massive scale.
-
If Oswald does not get a job at the TSBD, President Kennedy DOES leave Dallas alive. Oswald does not shoot him dead from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Alternately, the real 6th floor shooter does not shoot the President dead. No point in the latter because there would be no "lone nut" to blame so the conspiracy would not be discovered.
Wow, you're really obtuse. Martin, Colin, and I have all tried to explain this to you. You're just repeating the same flawed claim.
Your argument is hypothetical: "If Oswald does not get a job at the TSBD, President Kennedy DOES leave Dallas alive". You only believe this because you believe that Oswald was a lone nut who killed Kennedy. But if there had been a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, they could have shot him anywhere. There's no requirement that he be shot from the TSBD. Let's go with with your hypothetical that Oswald was a lone nut who planned to kill Kennedy. If he had gotten a job somewhere else do you think it was impossible for him to have shot Kennedy at some other place and time? Well, the same goes for a hypothetical conspiracy. Kennedy getting shot in Dealey Plaza is just what happened. If the circumstances were different then something else would have happened. Kennedy might have left Dallas alive, but he also might have been shot at Love Field, or the Trade Mart, or somewhere else along the motorcade route. Nobody has to provide evidence that there were other plots, because in this reality JFK was shot in Dealey Plaza. Other plots wouldn't have been necessary.
Oh by the way John: When was the last time you started a SUBJECT on this forum?
What difference does that make? Is that a virtue? You're just starting new topics that rehash the same old tired LN strawman arguments about what you think conspirators would have done.
-
Wow, you're really obtuse. Martin, Colin, and I have all tried to explain this to you. You're just repeating the same flawed claim.
Your argument is hypothetical: "If Oswald does not get a job at the TSBD, President Kennedy DOES leave Dallas alive". You only believe this because you believe that Oswald was a lone nut who killed Kennedy. But if there had been a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, they could have shot him anywhere. There's no requirement that he be shot from the TSBD. Let's go with with your hypothetical that Oswald was a lone nut who planned to kill Kennedy. If he had gotten a job somewhere else do you think it was impossible for him to have shot Kennedy at some other place and time? Well, the same goes for a hypothetical conspiracy. Kennedy getting shot in Dealey Plaza is just what happened. If the circumstances were different then something else would have happened. Kennedy might have left Dallas alive, but he also might have been shot at Love Field, or the Trade Mart, or somewhere else along the motorcade route. Nobody has to provide evidence that there were other plots, because in this reality JFK was shot in Dealey Plaza. Other plots wouldn't have been necessary.
What difference does that make? Is that a virtue? You're just starting new topics that rehash the same old tired LN strawman arguments about what you think conspirators would have done.
If he had gotten a job somewhere else do you think it was impossible for him to have shot Kennedy at some other place and time? Well, the same goes for a hypothetical conspiracy.
The jobs would have to be on the motorcade route. How would that be arranged?
Kennedy getting shot in Dealey Plaza is just what happened. If the circumstances were different then something else would have happened.
You seem to be suggesting that "that something else" would have been an assassination plot. This implies a vast conspiracy with multiple possible assassination opportunities in Dallas. It's more likely, as I have stated , President Kennedy would have left Dallas alive.
Your contrarian, nitpicking "blindness to the facts" prevents you from seeing the "big picture". Look at Oswald's formative adult years: Self-indoctrination into left-wing politics in New York by a chance encounter on the street when he was playing truant. An old lady gave him a pamphlet about the Rosenbergs and he is very-soon attracted to Marxism. You know the rest, but wont believe Oswald's obsession with left-wing politics is authentic. Consider: The CIA does not recruit high school dropouts.
Lee Harvey Oswald's assassination of President Kennedy was a crime of opportunity. It was "chance" that got him the job at the TSBD. When he read about the Presidential motorcade coming past his place of employment--during his lunch hour--in several days time, he discerned the opportunity to enter the history books. After all, this is a man who wrote about his life describing it as an "historic diary".
All the known, verifiable facts confirm that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marxist, who by chance, decided to strike at the capitalist system at the very top.
Priscilla McMillan: The only woman who knew John F. Kennedy and his killer Lee H. Oswald.
In your view, he would have wanted to assassinate any president, correct?
I think so. He probably wouldn’t have walked across Dallas if he hadn’t had a job directly over the presidential parade route. When Oswald was presented with the target, he thought he was fated to do it.
By the way, John: Can you outline an alternative plan/plot to assassinate President Kennedy in Dallas on 22 November 1963--with evidence? Didn't you state (words to the effect) that President Kennedy was still likely to be assassinated if Lee Harvey Oswald could not do it; or be framed as an innocent patsy? Wouldn't that unjustified "leap of logic"--absent of any evidence--be a non sequitur?
-
Your contrarian, nitpicking "blindness to the facts" prevents you from seeing the "big picture". Look at Oswald's formative adult years: Self-indoctrination into left-wing politics in New York by a chance encounter on the street when he was playing truant. An old lady gave him a pamphlet about the Rosenbergs and he is very-soon attracted to Marxism. You know the rest, but wont believe his obsession with left-wing politics is authentic. Consider: The CIA does not recruit high school dropouts.
Lee Harvey Oswald's assassination of President Kennedy was a crime of opportunity. It was "chance" that got him the job at the TSBD. When he read about the Presidential motorcade coming past his place of employment--during his lunch hour--in several days time, he discerned the opportunity to enter the history books. After all, this is a man who wrote about his life describing it as an "historic diary".
All the known and verifiable facts confirm that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marxist, who by chance, decided to strike at the capitalist system at the very top.
Priscilla McMillan: The only woman who knew John F. Kennedy and his killer Lee H. Oswald.
In your view, he would have wanted to assassinate any president, correct?
I think so. He probably wouldn’t have walked across Dallas if he hadn’t had a job directly over the presidential parade route. When Oswald was presented with the target, he thought he was fated to do it.
By the way, John: Can you outline an alternative plot to assassinate President Kennedy in Dallas on 22 November 1963--with evidence. Didn't you state (words to the effect) that President Kennedy was still likely to be assassinated if Lee Harvey Oswald could not do it; or be framed as an innocent patsy? Wouldn't that unjustified "leap of logic"--absent of any evidence--be a non sequitur?
Your contrarian, nitpicking "blindness to the facts" prevents you from seeing the "big picture".
Coming from you, that's a pathetic joke!
Consider: The CIA does not recruit high school dropouts.
Are you in the CIA or are you just guessing?
I know some people who were high school dropouts simply because they found the curriculum boring. They are all highly intelligent and succesful people (the true American selfmade man, if you will) running companies with lots of employees. Stop being so narrowminded as to believe that people with "high level eduction" are the intelligent ones.... Case in point, the idiot currently in the White House.... Went to the best schools and is a complete disaster.
Lee Harvey Oswald's assassination of President Kennedy was a crime of opportunity.
Only if the lone nut scenario is in play.
It was "chance" that got him the job at the TSBD. When he read about the Presidential motorcade coming past his place of employment--during his lunch hour--in several days time, he discerned the opportunity to enter the history books.
So, now you know what Oswald thoughts were? Are you sure you are not related to Richard Smith?
All the known and verifiable facts confirm that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marxist, who by chance, decided to strike at the capitalist system at the very top.
No, they may confirm that Oswald was a Marxist (he confirmed that himself in the radio interview in New Orleans) but the rest is pure speculation on your part.
Priscilla McMillan: The only woman who knew John F. Kennedy and his killer Lee H. Oswald.
In your view, he would have wanted to assassinate any president, correct?
I think so. He probably wouldn’t have walked across Dallas if he hadn’t had a job directly over the presidential parade route. When Oswald was presented with the target, he thought he was fated to do it.
The opinion of McMillan is just that... a mere opinion. And she didn't know Oswald, she interviewed him once, that's it!
By the way, John: Can you outline an alternative plot to assassinate President Kennedy in Dallas on 22 November 1963--with evidence. Didn't you state (words to the effect) that President Kennedy was still likely to be assassinated if Lee Harvey Oswald could not do it; or be framed as an innocent patsy? Wouldn't that unjustified "leap of logic"--absent of any evidence--be a non sequitur?
There he goes again.... asking for a theory (which is what an alternative plot would be) and instantly - and completely dishonestly - asks for evidence for something that in reality may have existed but was never executed! Instead of quoting John verbatim, he then goes on to misrepresent what John said into a strawman.
Ross, you are no longer talking about the case itself. Instead you are trying to somehow and rather desperately demonstrate that you know the actual meaning of the words "non sequitur". Maybe one day in the future you will find out that you have already lost the main argument!
-
If he had gotten a job somewhere else do you think it was impossible for him to have shot Kennedy at some other place and time? Well, the same goes for a hypothetical conspiracy.
The jobs would have to be on the motorcade route. How would that be arranged?
The motorcade was arranged 1st and Oswald's job 2nd. The same way Paine arranged it only with a different person. Randle was clearly just passing on the info to where to plant Oswald. Why did Paine call Truly instead of having Oswald do it? Because she was his handler, DUH.
Kennedy getting shot in Dealey Plaza is just what happened. If the circumstances were different then something else would have happened.
You seem to be suggesting that "that something else" would have been an assassination plot. This implies a vast conspiracy with multiple possible assassination opportunities in Dallas. It's more likely, as I have stated , President Kennedy would have left Dallas alive.
Non-sequitor. The size of the conspiracy was exactly as "vast" as it needed to be, which involved someone high enough up the food chain to set up the motorcade to detour down Elm right past the TSBD. Only a WC Defender would think that was all by chance.
Your contrarian, nitpicking "blindness to the facts" prevents you from seeing the "big picture". Look at Oswald's formative adult years: Self-indoctrination into left-wing politics in New York by a chance encounter on the street when he was playing truant. An old lady gave him a pamphlet about the Rosenbergs and he is very-soon attracted to Marxism. You know the rest, but wont believe Oswald's obsession with left-wing politics is authentic. Consider: The CIA does not recruit high school dropouts.
Evidently they do recruit them as patsies. Not that you would know that. I'll bet if you could get access to the docs you would see Oswald's name in the False Defector program. In which case he would have been sheep-dipped into the commie culture, then sent abroad to falsely defect as a singleton agent. Oswald was an Angleton singleton agent and I'm not alone claiming that.
Lee Harvey Oswald's assassination of President Kennedy was a crime of opportunity. It was "chance" that got him the job at the TSBD. When he read about the Presidential motorcade coming past his place of employment--during his lunch hour--in several days time, he discerned the opportunity to enter the history books. After all, this is a man who wrote about his life describing it as an "historic diary".
We all know what you LNers think. Most of the world disagrees. Yours is the fringe hypothesis, which you defend with arrogance and ad homs.
All the known, verifiable facts confirm that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marxist, who by chance, decided to strike at the capitalist system at the very top.
Priscilla McMillan: The only woman who knew John F. Kennedy and his killer Lee H. Oswald.
In your view, he would have wanted to assassinate any president, correct?
I think so. He probably wouldn’t have walked across Dallas if he hadn’t had a job directly over the presidential parade route. When Oswald was presented with the target, he thought he was fated to do it.
Oswald was "in on it" on some level, whether he knew he was the designated patsy or not. But he wasn't a lone nut. You are a WC Defender foremost since you bend over backwards to make Oswald out to be a lone nut and to hell with all the coincidences and evidence suggesting otherwise.
By the way, John: Can you outline an alternative plan/plot to assassinate President Kennedy in Dallas on 22 November 1963--with evidence? Didn't you state (words to the effect) that President Kennedy was still likely to be assassinated if Lee Harvey Oswald could not do it; or be framed as an innocent patsy? Wouldn't that unjustified "leap of logic"--absent of any evidence--be a non sequitur?
My avatar shows a mugshot of Thomas Arthur Vallee. He was arrested minutes AFTER the Kennedy trip to Chicago was cancelled. Vallee had a truck full of amo and was heading towards work, his office overlooking the route of the motorcade. Two men of a four man Cuban hit squad had been arrested earlier. An informer had alerted the FBI, who passed the information to the Secret Service. Both Cubans were released, all information destroyed. Vallee was Plan A, Oswald Plan B. This scenario is every bit as likely as your lone nut hypothesis, which has substantial evidence refuting it. But you LNers won't acknowledge anything that conflicts with your LN view because you are "all in". One piece of evidence that hints of a conspiracy and Oswald is no longer a LN and you lose the game. That's why you LNers are so arrogant about it. Balls to the wall and in for a penny. Unlike the other LNers, you just don't know when to quit.
-
The jobs would have to be on the motorcade route. How would that be arranged?
So the only way a president can be killed is on a motorcade route?
Lee Harvey Oswald's assassination of President Kennedy was a crime of opportunity. It was "chance" that got him the job at the TSBD. When he read about the Presidential motorcade coming past his place of employment--during his lunch hour--in several days time, he discerned the opportunity to enter the history books. After all, this is a man who wrote about his life describing it as an "historic diary".
That’s a cool story, bro. Is that supposed to prove that Oswald shot JFK?
-
So the only way a president can be killed is on a motorcade route?
That’s a cool story, bro. Is that supposed to prove that Oswald shot JFK?
So the only way a president can be killed is on a motorcade route?
It's the most likely way to assassinate the President. It has the advantage of the element of surprise (as Oswald proved).
The Trade Mart had extremely high security. It would have been searched thoroughly and then sealed off Thursday night or Friday morning.
The most likely attack on the President's life was from a tall building with a rifle as the motorcade went by.
In his book "Assignment Oswald", FBI Agent James Hosty said (words to the effect): The Secret Service had been running a bluff for decades. When accompanying a President on a motorcade through a major American city, they were "driving down the street hoping for the best".
Any group of sophisticated conspirators would have discerned just that and planned to kill President Kennedy by shooting from the rear after he drove by a tall building. The incompetent Secret Service never considered this as a real possibility. If they had: The follow-up car would have had a rear facing seat. Oswald would have been too fearful to fire one shot. If he was stupid enough to do so, there would be no need for Ruby on Sunday morning. Oswald would have died in a hail of machine-gun bullets fired from George Hickey's Colt AR-15.
That’s a cool story, bro. Is that supposed to prove that Oswald shot JFK?
No, it's not supposed to do that. Nothing would convince you that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy: You dispute 100% of the evidence that points to Oswald as the assassin. You're incapable of weighing all of the facts and then deciding what is likely to have actually happened:
-- Oswald fired all the shots (from the 6th floor of the TSBD) that killed President Kenned.
-- Oswald fired some shots (from the 6th floor of the TSBD) and an accomplice fired additional shots from another location.
-- The real 6th floor shooter fired shots from the TSBD--and an innocent Oswald was blamed for the assassination.
-- The real 6th floor shooter fired shots from the TSBD and an accomplice fired additional shots from another location--and an innocent Oswald was blamed for the assassination.
Which is it John?
-
So the only way a president can be killed is on a motorcade route?
It's the most likely way to assassinate the President. It has the advantage of the element of surprise (as Oswald proved).
“As Oswald proved”. LOL.
I’m not interested in your wild-ass “most likely” guesses. You made the rather stunning claim that if Oswald hadn’t gotten a job at the TSBD, that JFK couldn’t have been assassinated. As if that’s the only possible way to kill somebody.
No, it's not supposed to do that. Nothing would convince you that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy: You dispute 100% of the evidence that points to Oswald as the assassin.
Don’t blame me because your evidence sucks.
-- Oswald fired all the shots (from the 6th floor of the TSBD) that killed President Kenned.
-- Oswald fired some shots (from the 6th floor of the TSBD) and an accomplice fired additional shots from another location.
-- The real 6th floor shooter fired shots from the TSBD--and an innocent Oswald was blamed for the assassination.
-- The real 6th floor shooter fired shots from the TSBD and an accomplice fired additional shots from another location--and an innocent Oswald was blamed for the assassination.
Which is it John?
There no compelling evidence for any of those scenarios. Are they supposed to be exhaustive?
Unlike you. I don’t just pick a story and decree it as a fact until somebody proves me wrong. There’s nothing at all rational about that.
-
“As Oswald proved”. LOL.
I’m not interested in your wild-ass “most likely” guesses. You made the rather stunning claim that if Oswald hadn’t gotten a job at the TSBD, that JFK couldn’t have been assassinated. As if that’s the only possible way to kill somebody.
Don’t blame me because your evidence sucks.
There no compelling evidence for any of those scenarios. Are they supposed to be exhaustive?
Unlike you. I don’t just pick a story and decree it as a fact until somebody proves me wrong. There’s nothing at all rational about that.
There no compelling evidence for any of those scenarios. Are they supposed to be exhaustive?
You hide behind the Sergeant Schulz mantra: "I know nothing".
If there's no compelling evidence for those "most likely" scenarios, John: How WAS President Kennedy assassinated in Dealey Plaza, Dallas TX on 22 November 1963?
For someone who possesses an extensive knowledge of details about the assassination of President Kennedy, it beggars belief that you have not reached a conclusion as to how it was done?
? The conspirators were too smart for you, John?
? Not willing to reveal your opinion because you are afraid of it being forensically scrutinized?
-
If there's no compelling evidence for those "most likely" scenarios, John: How WAS President Kennedy assassinated in Dealey Plaza, Dallas TX on 22 November 1963?
I don’t know and neither do you.
The “most likely scenario” is the null hypothesis until anyone proves otherwise, your constant desperate attempts to shift the burden away from proving your own claims notwithstanding.
-
I don’t know and neither do you.
The “most likely scenario” is the null hypothesis until anyone proves otherwise, your constant desperate attempts to shift the burden away from proving your own claims notwithstanding.
Again!!!
For someone who possesses an extensive knowledge of details about the assassination of President Kennedy, it beggars belief that you have not reached a conclusion as to how it was done?
John, I'm starting continuing to think that you're just an undeclared contrarian.
-
Again!!!
For someone who possesses an extensive knowledge of details about the assassination of President Kennedy, it beggars belief that you have not reached a conclusion as to how it was done?
John, I'm starting continuing to think that you're just an undeclared contrarian.
You are a one trick pony.
Just because you have made it easy on yourself and have jumped to the "most likely" scenario just so you can have a highly speculative opinion, doesn't mean others have to do the same.
-
Again!!!!
Stop shifting the burden of proof and explain what evidence justifies your chosen conclusion.
-
Again!!!!
Stop shifting the burden of proof and explain what evidence justifies your chosen conclusion.
Stop shifting the burden of proof and explain what evidence justifies your chosen conclusion.
That "escape" clause you trot out routinely is not fooling me, John. The burden of proof is with you.
I've provided eyewitness testimony (video/audio from CBS 1964/1967) that supports the WC's and HSCA's conclusions that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Office J.D. Tippit.
You don't believe that Lee Oswald killed Officer Tippit: You must believe someone else shot him. Who was it John?
-
Stop shifting the burden of proof and explain what evidence justifies your chosen conclusion.
That "escape" clause you trot out routinely is not fooling me, John. The burden of proof is with you.
I've provided eyewitness testimony (video/audio from CBS 1964/1967) that supports the WC's and HSCA's conclusions that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Office J.D. Tippit.
You don't believe that Lee Oswald killed Officer Tippit: You must believe someone else shot him. Who was it John?
You don't believe that Lee Oswald killed Officer Tippit
When and where did John ever say that he doesn't believe Oswald killed Tippit?
Why can't he just have reasonable doubt?
You must believe someone else shot him. Who was it John?
Since the first part of your statement is false, the second part is of no relevance..
-
Stop shifting the burden of proof and explain what evidence justifies your chosen conclusion.
That "escape" clause you trot out routinely is not fooling me, John. The burden of proof is with you.
I've provided eyewitness testimony (video/audio from CBS 1964/1967) that supports the WC's and HSCA's conclusions that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Office J.D. Tippit.
You don't believe that Lee Oswald killed Officer Tippit: You must believe someone else shot him. Who was it John?
'The burden of proof is with you'
Not in court. The defendant(s) (AKA Oswald-arse kissers around these parts) doesn't/don't have to prove anything.
You are riding your biases like some sort of cowboy.
-
'The burden of proof is with you'
Not in court. The defendant doesn't have to prove anything.
You are riding your biases like some sort of cowboy.
This is not a court of law, it's a debating forum.
Occasionally "legal terms" are used.
John's "burden of proof" mantra might make sense if there was a forum-panel that decided who is right or wrong... or closest to the truth.
By the way: Weren't you critical of these "contrarians" in the past?
-
You are a one trick pony.
Just because you have made it easy on yourself and have jumped to the "most likely" scenario just so you can have a highly speculative opinion, doesn't mean others have to do the same.
So you say: You who are too afraid to get on the horse.
You never have an opinion on anything to do with the JFK Assassination.
What do you do for a living? Your stonewalling nonsense would make you unemployable in any job that required decision-making skills.
-- Boss: Marty, we gotta come up with a solution to this important problem that could send the company broke. Should we do "a", "b" or "c"... whadda ya think?
-- Marty: I'll get back to you by next Shrove Tuesday... maybe?
-- Boss: Marty you're fired.
-
This is not a court of law, it's a debating forum.
Occasionally "legal terms" are used.
John's "burden of proof" mantra might make sense if there was a forum-panel that decided who is right or wrong... or closest to the truth.
By the way: Weren't you critical of these "contrarians" in the past?
'This is not a court of law'
> Then why do you harping on 'burden of proof'
By the way: Weren't you critical of these "contrarians" in the past?
> Still am
-
So you say: You who are too afraid to get on the horse.
You never have an opinion on anything to do with the JFK Assassination.
What do you do for a living? Your stonewalling nonsense would make you unemployable in any job that required decision-making skills.
-- Boss: Marty, we gotta come up with a solution to this important problem that could send the company broke. Should we do "a", "b" or "c"... whadda ya think?
-- Marty: I'll get back to you by next Shrove Tuesday... maybe?
-- Boss: Marty you're fired.
You never have an opinion on anything to do with the JFK Assassination.
And where is it written that I can't just examine the evidence and that I have to have an opinion?
What do you do for a living? Your stonewalling nonsense would make you unemployable in any job that required decision-making skills.
I actually employ people and make well considered decisions every day. How about you?
-
You never have an opinion on anything to do with the JFK Assassination.
And where is it written that I can't just examine the evidence and that I have to have an opinion?
What do you do for a living? Your stonewalling nonsense would make you unemployable in any job that required decision-making skills.
I actually employ people and make well considered decisions every day. How about you?
And where is it written that I can't just examine the evidence and that I have to have an opinion?
People who don't have an opinion tend to be vacillators.
I find it hard to believe that you employ people and make "decisions" well considered or otherwise. What industry?
So what are you doing wasting your time here with "contrarian" nonsense? Get back to work.
-
And where is it written that I can't just examine the evidence and that I have to have an opinion?
People who don't have an opinion tend to be vacillators.
And people who jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts tend to be extremely shallow and stupid.
I don't have opinions about everything, which has served me well in past, but I do have opinions about some things. For instance, I have one about you, but I am sure you don't want to find out what it is.
I find it hard to believe that you employ people and make "decisions" well considered or otherwise. What industry?
I don't really care what you find hard to believe or not. And what industry is none of your business.
So what are you doing wasting your time here with "contrarian" nonsense?
On what planet do you reside?
In case you missed it, there is a little crisis going on and I am in lock down, so I have plenty of time to get on your nerves.
Besides, three posts per day isn't exactly "wasting time" is it now?
Get back to work.
Who exactly do you think you are to tell me what to do?
Why don't you go and do something constructive like picking up your unemployment benefit.
-
So you say: You who are too afraid to get on the horse.
As if picking a “horse” (of course, of course) is in and of itself some kind of virtue.
-
'This is not a court of law'
> Then why do you harping on 'burden of proof'
Because burden of proof is a concept in logical arguments, not just courtrooms.
-
Because burden of proof is a concept in logical arguments, not just courtrooms.
Let's put it another way. If you disagree with the historic record in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, you must believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did not do it alone. He either had help or was an innocent dupe blamed for the criminal acts of others?
A sincere, intelligent debater would contemplate an alternative scenario and then describe it thus: who, when, where, what, how, why.
The fact that you never attempt to do this means you are:
-- An intellectual lightweight
-- A determined contrarian
-
Let's put it another way. If you disagree with the historic record in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, you must believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did not do it alone. He either had help or was an innocent dupe blamed for the criminal acts of others?
A sincere, intelligent debater would contemplate an alternative scenario and then describe it thus: who, when, where, what, how, why.
The fact that you never attempt to do this means you are:
-- An intellectual lightweight
-- A determined contrarian
You keep going round and round in circles with the same stupid argument.
If you disagree with the historic record in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, you must believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did not do it alone.
And what if you only examine and scritinize that historial record instead of jumping to conclusions?
Because that's where you go wrong every time. To you scrutinizing is the same as disagreeing with it and that's a major error on your part.
All this "if you disagree with the historical record, you are not sincere, not an intelligent debater and either an intellectual lightweight or a determined contrarian" crap is exactly that..... crap
-
You keep going round and round in circles with the same stupid argument.
If you disagree with the historic record in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, you must believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did not do it alone.
And what if you only examine and scritinize that historial record instead of jumping to conclusions?
Because that's where you go wrong every time. To you scrutinizing is the same as disagreeing with it and that's a major error on your part.
All this "if you disagree with the historical record, you are not sincere, not an intelligent debater and either an intellectual lightweight or a determined contrarian" crap is exactly that..... crap
Your protestations do nothing to disprove my conclusion that you are a determined contrarian.
You can prove me wrong by disproving the title of this subject: No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD.
You either agree or disagree. If you disagree: Explain how Lee Harvey Oswald would have obtained a job at the TSBD without Linnie May Randle's presence at the "Robert's house" coffee klatch--the first week in October 1963?
-
Your protestations do nothing to disprove my conclusion that you are a determined contrarian.
You can prove me wrong by disproving the title of this subject: No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD.
You either agree or disagree. If you disagree: Explain how Lee Harvey Oswald would have obtained a job at the TSBD without Linnie May Randle's presence at the "Robert's house" coffee klatch--the first week in October 1963?
Your protestations do nothing to disprove my conclusion that you are a determined contrarian.
Bingo, there you have it.... the classic contrarian, who denies that he is a contrarian!
You can prove me wrong by disproving the title of this subject: No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD.
Already did, but you wanted none of it.... Again classic contrarian. You made up your mind and nothing anybody else says is going to make you chance it.
John and Colin also tried... same result; the contrarian didn't want to know
You either agree or disagree.
Since your reasoning is flawed, I have no alternative but to disagree...
If you disagree: Explain how Lee Harvey Oswald would have obtained a job at the TSBD without Linnie May Randle's presence at the "Robert's house" coffee klatch--the first week in October 1963?
The use of the word "would" makes it a loaded question. Exchange "would" for "could" and the easy answer is, he could have heard about a job at the TSBD elsewhere.
But I'll bet, as a true contrarian, you are not going to accept that, right?
-
Your protestations do nothing to disprove my conclusion that you are a determined contrarian.
Bingo, there you have it.... the classic contrarian, who denies that he is a contrarian!
You can prove me wrong by disproving the title of this subject: No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD.
Already did, but you wanted none of it.... Again classic contrarian. You made up your mind and nothing anybody else is going to make you chance it.
John and Colin also tried... same result; the contrarian didn't want to know
You either agree or disagree.
Since your reasoning is flawed, I have no alternative but to disagree...
The use of the word "would" makes it a loaded question. Exchange "would" for "could" and the easy answer is, he could have heard about a job at the TSBD elsewhere.
But I'll bet, as a true contrarian, you are not going to accept that, right?
...he could have heard about a job at the TSBD elsewhere.
That's so unlikely, it's not a plausible claim. Unless you can describe how, where and when Oswald would (or could) have became aware of a job at the TSBD: That's just "defensive" nonsense used to persist with your contrarianism.
I loved "loaded" questions. I relish answering ANY and ALL question to the best of my ability. I'm not a DODGER like you are.
Would? Could? What does it matter?
The entire premise of the Subject [No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD] is to make clear something that many people don't realize: Coincidences are more common than conspiracies.
The most dimwitted person interested in the JFK Assassination should concede that Oswald's job at the TSBD was obtained through pure coincidence. No plotters placed him there to be blamed for the crime committed by the real 6th floor shooter. The subject is a demonstration that "chance" and "free will" are contributors to "events" great and small.
Chance: Oswald got the job at the TSBD because a woman walked across the street to have coffee with a neighbor. You know the rest of the circumstances: I'm not repeating them.
Free will: At the breakfast event in Forth Worth, President Kennedy was given "the benediction" by a minister (probably a Catholic priest). All very nice but not able to stop the "free will" of Oswald deciding to shoot at the president as he passed by the TSBD.
I have to tell you Martin: You come across as having intelligence but consistently act stupidly.
Why? You cannot bear to lose: More precisely to be trounced.
A real man admits he "got it wrong" routinely and spontaneously. Many times, I've made a statement in conversation and received new information that conflicted with my premise. My usual reply is something like: "I never knew that. Yes I see your point etc.". I cannot imagine you ever making any kind of concession to anyone. You ought to ponder whether that's true or not.
-
...he could have heard about a job at the TSBD elsewhere.
That's so unlikely, it's not a plausible claim. Unless you can describe how, where and when Oswald would (or could) have became aware of a job at the TSBD: That's just "defensive" nonsense used to persist with your contrarianism.
I loved "loaded" questions. I relish answering ANY and ALL question to the best of my ability. I'm not a DODGER like you are.
Would? Could? What does it matter?
The entire premise of the Subject [No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD] is to make clear something that many people don't realize: Coincidences are more common than conspiracies.
The most dimwitted person interested in the JFK Assassination should concede that Oswald's job at the TSBD was obtained through pure coincidence. No plotters placed him there to be blamed for the crime committed by the real 6th floor shooter. The subject is a demonstration that "chance" and "free will" are contributors to "events" great and small.
Chance: Oswald got the job at the TSBD because a woman walked across the street to have coffee with a neighbor. You know the rest of the circumstances: I'm not repeating them.
Free will: At the breakfast event in Forth Worth, President Kennedy was given "the benediction" by a minister (probably a Catholic priest). All very nice but not able to stop the "free will" of Oswald deciding to shoot at the president as he passed by the TSBD.
I have to tell you Martin: You come across as having intelligence but consistently act stupidly.
Why? You cannot bear to lose: More precisely to be trounced.
A real man admits he "got it wrong" routinely and spontaneously. Many times, I've made a statement in conversation and received new information that conflicted with my premise. My usual reply is something like: "I never knew that. Yes I see your point etc.". I cannot imagine you ever making any kind of concession to anyone. You ought to ponder whether that's true or not.
That's so unlikely, it's not a plausible claim. Unless you can describe how, where and when Oswald would (or could) have became aware of a job at the TSBD: That's just "defensive" nonsense used to persist with your contrarianism.
Says the contrarian....
Just how stupid can your reasoning be? If it was unlikely or even unplausible that Oswald could have become aware of a job at the TSBD, how in the world did all those other people working at the TSBD get their jobs there?
And, if other people could have gotten a job at the TSBD, without a Randle/Paine coffee round, why couldn't that apply to Oswald as well?
I relish answering ANY and ALL question to the best of my ability. I'm not a DODGER like you are.
Saying the same thing over and over again isn't answering any and all questions...
The most dimwitted person interested in the JFK Assassination should concede that Oswald's job at the TSBD was obtained through pure coincidence.
That's likely true. I have not seen anybody saying anything different, but you are so preoccupied with your own theory that you haven't even noticed that.
No plotters placed him there to be blamed for the crime committed by the real 6th floor shooter.
So what? In case you haven't noticed he was blamed for the crime because a rifle was found at the TSBD that they claimed belong to him. He was not blamed because he worked there.
Chance: Oswald got the job at the TSBD because a woman walked across the street to have coffee with a neighbor. You know the rest of the circumstances: I'm not repeating them.
Well you might want to go over them again, because the conclusion that Kennedy would have lived if Randle didn't drink coffee with Ruth Paine is simply flawed. What you continue to fail to understand is that a conspiracy could simply have worked with the factual situation being taken in consideration. If Oswald didn't work at the TSBD they could have selected another scenario. But I am tired of trying to explain this to you, since you will never understand it or as a true contrarian simply don't want to understand it. Your mind is tuned in to one train of thought and nothing is going to derail it!
I have to tell you Martin: You come across as having intelligence but consistently act stupidly.
Why? You cannot bear to lose: More precisely to be trounced.
A wise man once said; the biggest fool is he who thinks he is more intelligent than everybody else....
Btw it is a fallacy to dismiss everything you don't understand as being stupid. Perhaps there are simply limitations to what you are able to understand. Ever considered that possibility?
A real man admits he "got it wrong" routinely and spontaneously.
Bla bla bla... there is the "a real man" crap again....
Many times, I've made a statement in conversation and received new information that conflicted with my premise. My usual reply is something like: "I never knew that. Yes I see your point etc.".
Show me one post in our recent conversations where you actually did that..... I bet you can't!
I cannot imagine you ever making any kind of concession to anyone.
Hilarious.... and also not true. I have no problem admitting that I was wrong when I thought you were a reasonable and intelligent person.
-
That's so unlikely, it's not a plausible claim. Unless you can describe how, where and when Oswald would (or could) have became aware of a job at the TSBD: That's just "defensive" nonsense used to persist with your contrarianism.
Says the contrarian....
Just how stupid can your reasoning be? If it was unlikely or even unplausible that Oswald could have become aware of a job at the TSBD, how in the world did all those other people working at the TSBD get their jobs there?
And, if other people could have gotten a job at the TSBD, without a Randle/Paine coffee round, why couldn't that apply to Oswald as well?
I relish answering ANY and ALL question to the best of my ability. I'm not a DODGER like you are.
Saying the same thing over and over again isn't answering any and all questions...
The most dimwitted person interested in the JFK Assassination should concede that Oswald's job at the TSBD was obtained through pure coincidence.
That's likely true. I have not seen anybody saying anything different, but you are so preoccupied with your own theory that you haven't even noticed that.
No plotters placed him there to be blamed for the crime committed by the real 6th floor shooter.
So what? In case you haven't noticed he was blamed for the crime because a rifle was found at the TSBD that they claimed belong to him. He was not blamed because he worked there.
Chance: Oswald got the job at the TSBD because a woman walked across the street to have coffee with a neighbor. You know the rest of the circumstances: I'm not repeating them.
Well you might want to go over them again, because the conclusion that Kennedy would have lived if Randle didn't drink coffee with Ruth Paine is simply flawed. What you continue to fail to understand is that a conspiracy could simply have worked with the factual situation being taken in consideration. If Oswald didn't work at the TSBD they could have selected another scenario. But I am tired of trying to explain this to you, since you will never understand it or as a true contrarian simply don't want to understand it. Your mind is tuned in to one train of thought and nothing is going to derail it!
A wise man once said; the biggest fool is he who thinks he is more intelligent than everybody else....
A real man admits he "got it wrong" routinely and spontaneously. Many times, I've made a statement in conversation and received new information that conflicted with my premise. My usual reply is something like: "I never knew that. Yes I see your point etc.".
Bla bla bla... show me one post in our recent conversations where you actually did that..... I bet you can't!
I cannot imagine you ever making any kind of concession to anyone.
Hilarious.... and also not true. I have no problem admitting that I was wrong when I thought you were a reasonable and intelligent person.
Most of your reply consists of angry insults along with your trademark unjustified speculations.
To not stray from the Subject in this reply by me:
You provide no proof that Oswald would/could have obtained a job at the TSBD without the Randle / Roberts / Paine / Marina coffee klatch. Your assertion that he somehow would/could have is just wishful thinking.
The other employees gained their positions at the TSBD through various means. To advance your (Oswald still would have got a job at the TSBD) "theory": You need to provide a list of the employees and how they became aware of the vacant positions that they filled. Then, explain how Oswald would have been similarly informed. You don't do that. Why not?
You have zero proof that Oswald would/could have learned about a job at the TSBD by some means other than Randle > Roberts > Paine & Marina > Lee Oswald > Truly. You are just putting forward a silly unjustified claim as a debating strategy.
It's beyond dispute, that you never make a meaningful contribution to the JFK Assassination Forum. You don't start a Subject: You just argue obstinately against the historical record without providing any proof to refute it. Contrarianism.
-
Most of your reply consists of angry insults along with your trademark unjustified speculations.
To not stray from the Subject in this reply by me:
You provide no proof that Oswald would/could have obtained a job at the TSBD without the Randle / Roberts / Paine / Marina coffee klatch. Your assertion that he somehow would/could have is just wishful thinking.
The other employees gained their positions at the TSBD through various means. To advance your (Oswald still would have got a job at the TSBD) "theory": You need to provide a list of the employees and how they became aware of the vacant positions that they filled. Then, explain how Oswald would have been similarly informed. You don't do that. Why not?
You have zero proof that Oswald would/could have learned about a job at the TSBD by some means other than Randle > Roberts > Paine & Marina > Lee Oswald > Truly. You are just putting forward a silly unjustified claim as a debating strategy.
It's beyond dispute, that you never make a meaningful contribution to the JFK Assassination Forum. You don't start a Subject: You just argue obstinately against the historical record without providing any proof to refute it. Contrarianism.
You simply can't help yourself, can't you?
Ad hominem 1:
Most of your reply consists of angry insults along with your trademark unjustified speculations.
Says the contrarian who claims to have an open mind.... Hilarious
You provide no proof that Oswald would/could have obtained a job at the TSBD without the Randle / Roberts / Paine / Marina coffee klatch. Your assertion that he somehow would/could have is just wishful thinking.
No, it's a possibility that you don't want to consider and just dismiss because your opinion is always the superior one, right?
The other employees gained their positions at the TSBD through various means. To advance your (Oswald still would have got a job at the TSBD) "theory": You need to provide a list of the employees and how they became aware of the vacant positions that they filled. Then, explain how Oswald would have been similarly informed. You don't do that. Why not?
I am not playing your "you need to provide proof for a "could have" answer" game. Other TSBD employees got their jobs there by other means. To say that this couldn't have happened with Oswald is simply denial of logic. But it fits exactly with the profile I have described of you, contrarian.
I asked if others could have gotten a job at the TSBD than why couldn't Oswald.... and I got no answer. Just a denial!
Aren't you the one who just said;
I relish answering ANY and ALL question to the best of my ability. I'm not a DODGER like you are.
Now we know what that comment is worth....
You have zero proof that Oswald would/could have learned about a job at the TSBD by some means other than Randle > Roberts > Paine & Marina > Lee Oswald > Truly. You are just putting forward a silly unjustified claim as a debating strategy.
More outright denial of something that doesn't agree with your opinion..... Are you beginning to see a pattern?
And btw.. the proof that Oswald could have learned about the job at the TSBD by some other means is that all other TSBD employees did in fact get their job by learning about it by another means than a Randle/Paine coffee round. This is such basic logic that I am surprised you don't even understand something this basic. Unless of course you do understand it, but deny it anyway, like a true contrarian.
Ad hominem 2:
It's beyond dispute, that you never make a meaningful contribution to the JFK Assassination Forum.
And you do, right? Typical example of somebody overestimating his own importance.....
You don't start a Subject:
Wrong, I started one a few days ago.... No LN dares to go near it! In fact I started only 2 threads less than you did. See how easy it is for you to be wrong?
Ad hominem 3:
You just argue obstinately against the historical record without providing any proof to refute it.
Says the "intelligent guy" who determines what others should think and do and when they don't calls them contrarian.
Ready to throw another hissy fit?
-
You simply can't help yourself, can't you?
Ad hominem 1:
Most of your reply consists of angry insults along with your trademark unjustified speculations.
Says the contrarian who claims to have an open mind.... Hilarious
You provide no proof that Oswald would/could have obtained a job at the TSBD without the Randle / Roberts / Paine / Marina coffee klatch. Your assertion that he somehow would/could have is just wishful thinking.
The other employees gained their positions at the TSBD through various means. To advance your (Oswald still would have got a job at the TSBD) "theory": You need to provide a list of the employees and how they became aware of the vacant positions that they filled. Then, explain how Oswald would have been similarly informed. You don't do that. Why not?
...angry insults along with your trademark unjustified speculation
Not an ad hominem attack: That's a description of your inept debating technique. Okay, I concede that it's a criticism.
Where and when did I claim to have an open mind?
What happened at the end of your reply? No reply!
-
...angry insults along with your trademark unjustified speculation
Not an ad hominem attack: That's a description of your inept debating technique. Okay, I concede that it's a criticism.
Where and when did I claim to have an open mind?
What happened at the end of your reply? No reply!
Where and when did I claim to have an open mind?
You don't have to claim it when you show that you don't have one with every post you write...
What happened at the end of your reply? No reply!
For some reason the post went on line when I was still writing it. Probably pushed the wrong button...
-
Let's put it another way. If you disagree with the historic record in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, you must believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did not do it alone.
Bzzzt. Thanks for playing.
-
Your protestations do nothing to disprove my conclusion that you are a determined contrarian.
Spoken like someone who just doesn't like his claims to be questioned.
You either agree or disagree. If you disagree: Explain how Lee Harvey Oswald would have obtained a job at the TSBD without Linnie May Randle's presence at the "Robert's house" coffee klatch--the first week in October 1963?
Irrelevant, unless you want to leap to the conclusion that JFK could only be killed by Oswald from the TSBD.
-
That's so unlikely, it's not a plausible claim. Unless you can describe how, where and when Oswald would (or could) have became aware of a job at the TSBD: That's just "defensive" nonsense used to persist with your contrarianism.
BS: Merely labeling something "unlikely" doesn't make it unlikely. Hypothetically? Oswald runs into Frazier in the neighborhood on a weekend visit. Asks him where he works and says hey, do you have any openings down there? What's so "unlikely" about that? Or how about this? The Texas Employment Commission sends him over to the TSBD to see if he can find work there.
I loved "loaded" questions.
Not surprising since you love to ask them and don't understand what logical fallacies are.
The entire premise of the Subject [No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD] is to make clear something that many people don't realize: Coincidences are more common than conspiracies.
Here's the thing that you don't realize. Oswald getting a job at the TSBD (or anywhere else) could be a coincidence, and he still could have been set up as a patsy. One does not require the other.
Many times, I've made a statement in conversation and received new information that conflicted with my premise. My usual reply is something like: "I never knew that. Yes I see your point etc.".
Perhaps so, but I've never seen you do that here. Even once.
-
It's beyond dispute, that you never make a meaningful contribution to the JFK Assassination Forum. You don't start a Subject: You just argue obstinately against the historical record without providing any proof to refute it. Contrarianism.
Let's take a look at the meaningful topics that Ross has started, shall we?
- A photo of the Tippit plaque at 10th & Patton
- This silly topic
- A claim that another 6th floor shooter would also be required to escape within 75-90 seconds
- 4 different topics consisting of interview clips from CBS news specials about the Warren report
- A letter congratulating Jack Ruby for killing Oswald
- A criticism of Jesse Ventura.
-
The circumstances of Lee Harvey Oswald getting a job at a building on the route of President Kennedy's motorcade (5 weeks later) was just happenstance.
Probably true.
The idea that plotters in a conspiracy had him "placed" there is impossible.
Indeed... nobody knew at that time that Kennedy would come to Dallas and pass by the TSBD
No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy.
That's just jumping to a conclusion way too fast... You assume that Oswald's job at the TSBD was a vital part of a conspiracy simply because it turned out to play a prominent role in the assassination. What if the conspirators (if there were any) just improvised and played the hand they were dealt? Why couldn't they have arranged their plans around the location of the patsy rather than place the patsy somewhere weeks in advance? And besides, who knows what other options were available to them?
This is one of the main problems in your "logic". You relate everything back to the events that actually happened, when that could well have been only one of several scenarios. If there was a conspiracy, it's purpose would have been to remove a President from power. That's not something a couple of guys decide to do over a beer in a local bar. If there was a conspiracy, it would have involved serious players in high places and they wouldn't leave much to chance.
If Mrs Randle decides to stay home or go somewhere else instead off across the street to Mrs Roberts house for coffee: Lee Oswald never learns about the job at the TSBD. He never gets a job there and is never in a position to assassinate President Kennedy at 12:30 PM (CST), 22 November 1963.
So, Mrs Randle is to blame for the assassination. Got it.
Martin’s scenario is possible. They prepared the patsy the be the fall guy. He shows his support for Castro in public. Then, by total luck, he gets a job that puts him in a perfect position to assassinate the President. At a place along a motorcade route that had been used before. In a tall building. In a tall building that is not used as a busy office, as most buildings in Dallas are, but in an old warehouse, with a good chance there would be a floor without nobody (except possibly Oswald) on it. What a perfect coincidence. It would be natural for conspirators to take advantage of such a lucky break.
The problem is, I don’t believe in coincidences. Bad theories commonly have to rely on them. There was a lucky coincidence that made it extra easy or pin Oswald with the crime, making it look like no conspiracy got him in position to commit the crime, because there was no need to. Innocent friends and neighbors had already arranged for that.
Or how about another coincidence. The plotters planted CE-399 to frame Oswald. But they planted it on the wrong stretcher. They didn’t even plant it on a stretcher on the right floor. But they got lucky because someone brought the Connally stretcher downstairs and of all places, parked it next to the stretcher with CE-399. What a lucky coincidence. Now it would be easy to claim the person who brought down the stretcher got the two stretchers confused, which sounds plausible. But wouldn’t sound plausible if Connally’s stretcher was still in another part of the hospital.
False conspiracy theories seem to generate and require lucky coincidences for the conspirators.
-
Martin’s scenario is possible. They prepared the patsy the be the fall guy. He shows his support for Castro in public. Then, by total luck, he gets a job that puts him in a perfect position to assassinate the President. At a place along a motorcade route that had been used before. In a tall building. In a tall building that is not used as a busy office, as most buildings in Dallas are, but in an old warehouse, with a good chance there would be a floor without nobody (except possibly Oswald) on it. What a perfect coincidence. It would be natural for conspirators to take advantage of such a lucky break.
The problem is, I don’t believe in coincidences. Bad theories commonly have to rely on them. There was a lucky coincidence that made it extra easy or pin Oswald with the crime, making it look like no conspiracy got him in position to commit the crime, because there was no need to. Innocent friends and neighbors had already arranged for that.
Or how about another coincidence. The plotters planted CE-399 to frame Oswald. But they planted it on the wrong stretcher. They didn’t even plant it on a stretcher on the right floor. But they got lucky because someone brought the Connally stretcher downstairs and of all places, parked it next to the stretcher with CE-399. What a lucky coincidence. Now it would be easy to claim the person who brought down the stretcher got the two stretchers confused, which sounds plausible. But wouldn’t sound plausible if Connally’s stretcher was still in another part of the hospital.
False conspiracy theories seem to generate and require lucky coincidences for the conspirators.
Or how about another coincidence. The plotters planted CE-399 to frame Oswald. But they planted it on the wrong stretcher. They didn’t even plant it on a stretcher on the right floor. But they got lucky because someone brought the Connally stretcher downstairs and of all places, parked it next to the stretcher with CE-399. What a lucky coincidence. Now it would be easy to claim the person who brought down the stretcher got the two stretchers confused, which sounds plausible. But wouldn’t sound plausible if Connally’s stretcher was still in another part of the hospital.
Or how about this; the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was never at Parkland Hospital. Tomlinson found a bullet on an unrelated stretcher and allegedly gave it to O.P. Wright. I say allegedly, because there is also a story of Tomlinson giving the bullet directly to a Secret Service agent as witnessed by an OTIS repair man. Anyway, O.P. Wright is on record saying that the bullet he got from Tomlinson and gave to Johnson was pointed. When shown a photograph of CE399 he actually denied it looked anything like the bullet he had handled on 11/22/63.
Tomlinson is on record saying that he was shown a bullet once, for identification, but that was by FBI SAC Shanklin about a week after the murder, yet the FBI claimed that SA Odum had shown CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright in april 1964 and that both men couldn't identify it. Strangely enough, when Odum was asked about this he denied ever having shown any bullet to anybody at Parkland Hospital and/or ever having CE399 in his possession.
The first four persons in the chain of custody could not identify CE399 as the bullet they had handled on 11/22/63. Only SA Todd and SA Frazier indentified it from their markings on the bullet, but those two men didn't get the bullet until after it arrived at Washington.
It is completely possible that an unrelated bullet, found by Tomlinson, was substituted for a bullet fired by the MC rifle (which also was in Washington hours after the bullet arrived) to ensure a "match" between the bullet now in evidence and the rifle now in evidence.
Oh, and btw O.P. Wright's wife was a nurse who attended Connally on 11/22/63. When he heard a piece of metal fall to the ground, Mrs Wright picked it up and found it was a bullet. And Nurse Hill is on record saying that she saw a bullet lying next to Kennedy's head. That bullet mysteriously disappeared as apparently did the bullet that Mrs Wright handled.... It could of course all be coincidence, but then, you don't believe in coincidence, right?
-
Or how about another coincidence. The plotters planted CE-399 to frame Oswald. But they planted it on the wrong stretcher. They didn’t even plant it on a stretcher on the right floor. But they got lucky because someone brought the Connally stretcher downstairs and of all places, parked it next to the stretcher with CE-399. What a lucky coincidence. Now it would be easy to claim the person who brought down the stretcher got the two stretchers confused, which sounds plausible. But wouldn’t sound plausible if Connally’s stretcher was still in another part of the hospital.
Or how about this; the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was never at Parkland Hospital. Tomlinson found a bullet on an unrelated stretcher and allegedly gave it to O.P. Wright. I say allegedly, because there is also a story of Tomlinson giving the bullet directly to a Secret Service agent as witnessed by an OTIS repair man. Anyway, O.P. Wright is on record saying that the bullet he got from Tomlinson and gave to Johnson was pointed. When shown a photograph of CE399 he actually denied it looked anything like the bullet he had handled on 11/22/63.
Tomlinson is on record saying that he was shown a bullet once, for identification, but that was by FBI SAC Shanklin about a week after the murder, yet the FBI claimed that SA Odum had shown CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright in april 1964 and that both men couldn't identify it. Strangely enough, when Odum was asked about this he denied ever having shown any bullet to anybody at Parkland Hospital and/or ever having CE399 in his possession.
The first four persons in the chain of custody could not identify CE399 as the bullet they had handled on 11/22/63. Only SA Todd and SA Frazier indentified it from their markings on the bullet, but those two men didn't get the bullet until after it arrived at Washington.
It is completely possible that an unrelated bullet, found by Tomlinson, was substituted for a bullet fired by the MC rifle (which also was in Washington hours after the bullet arrived) to ensure a "match" between the bullet now in evidence and the rifle now in evidence.
Oh, and btw O.P. Wright's wife was a nurse who attended Connally on 11/22/63. When he heard a piece of metal fall to the ground, Mrs Wright picked it up and found it was a bullet. And Nurse Hill is on record saying that she saw a bullet lying next to Kennedy's head. That bullet mysteriously disappeared as apparently did the bullet that Mrs Wright handled.... It could of course all be coincidence, but then, you don't believe in coincidence, right?
But Tomlinson said he found a bullet right next to the Connally stretcher.
How do you explain the coincidence of Tomlinson parking the Connally stretcher right next to the stretcher with the planted bullet?
My explanation is that there was no coincidence. He just confused the two stretchers. Do you have an explanation that involves no coincidence?
O. P. Wright remembered a pointed bullet. But I recall he went home, studied some bullets that he owned, and which were pointed and later recalled that the bullet he saw was also pointed. Could his study of his bullets confuse his memory? Similar to a witness seeing someone in a line up and modifying their memory that that was the person they saw commit the crime?
-
But Tomlinson said he found a bullet right next to the Connally stretcher.
How do you explain the coincidence of Tomlinson parking the Connally stretcher right next to the stretcher with the planted bullet?
My explanation is that there was no coincidence. He just confused the two stretchers. Do you have an explanation that involves no coincidence?
No he didn't find a bullet next to Connally's stretcher. According to the story, the bullet was lying on a stretcher and Tomlinson had no idea who that stretcher had been used for. He only knew it must have come down the elevator. There was no coincidence in parking the stretcher there either. All stretchers that came down the elevator were parked there.
O. P. Wright remembered a pointed bullet. But I recall he went home, studied some bullets that he owned, and which were pointed and later recalled that the bullet he saw was also pointed. Could his study of his bullets confuse his memory? Similar to a witness seeing someone in a line up and modifying their memory that that was the person they saw commit the crime?
Too convenient. O.P. Wright used to be a department chief at the DPD before he took a job at Parkland. He knew bullets and he was pretty clear to Josiah Thompson when he gave him a pointed bullet just like the one he had handled on 11/22/63. I think it was no coincidence that the WC took the testimony from Tomlinson before CE399 was entered into evidence, so they could not show him nor was it a coincidence that they did not call O.P. Wright to testify.
Even the WC had doubts about the veracity of CE399, which is why they asked the FBI to go back to all the people in the chain of custody and ask for an identification, which, according to SA Odum, never happened as far as Tomlinson and Wright were concerned.
Similar to a witness seeing someone in a line up and modifying their memory that that was the person they saw commit the crime?
So you agree that witness identification in a line up is not always reliable?
-
So you agree that witness identification in a line up is not always reliable?
Roger Craig did not view Oswald in a line up but you accept his identification of Oswald.
-
Roger Craig did not view Oswald in a line up but you accept his identification of Oswald.
When and where did I say that? Is it fun just making up stuff?
-
When and where did I say that? Is it fun just making up stuff?
Sorry i thought you were a Roger Craig supporter.
-
JFK Assassination Forum members: You're off-topic.
This is about Randle > Mrs Roberts > Ruth Paine & Marina Oswald > Lee Oswald > Mr Truly > Lee Oswald.
No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD
-
JFK Assassination Forum members: You're off-topic.
This is about Randle > Mrs Roberts > Ruth Paine & Marina Oswald > Lee Oswald > Mr Truly > Lee Oswald.
No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD
What are you? The forum police?
All you've done so far in this thread is give us your flawed opinion, stuck by it and dismiss everything that didn't agree with it. That's what happens if you have an opinion about everything. It limits your ability to accept and/or understand other points of view.
Your stubborn unrealistic stance isn't leaving much room for debate anyway and besides, we're still talking about coincidences....
First you tried to tell me how you thought I should respond to your BS and now you want to dictate what we can write in this thread. What are you? A bit of a control freak, perhaps?
-
No he didn't find a bullet next to Connally's stretcher. According to the story, the bullet was lying on a stretcher and Tomlinson had no idea who that stretcher had been used for. He only knew it must have come down the elevator. There was no coincidence in parking the stretcher there either. All stretchers that came down the elevator were parked there.
Too convenient. O.P. Wright used to be a department chief at the DPD before he took a job at Parkland. He knew bullets and he was pretty clear to Josiah Thompson when he gave him a pointed bullet just like the one he had handled on 11/22/63. I think it was no coincidence that the WC took the testimony from Tomlinson before CE399 was entered into evidence, so they could not show him nor was it a coincidence that they did not call O.P. Wright to testify.
Even the WC had doubts about the veracity of CE399, which is why they asked the FBI to go back to all the people in the chain of custody and ask for an identification, which, according to SA Odum, never happened as far as Tomlinson and Wright were concerned.
So you agree that witness identification in a line up is not always reliable?
If you've watched the video of Tink Thompson talking about the stretcher bullet you wouldn't waste your time arguing about the bullet. There are so many contradictions in the various stories about the bullet that it's impossible to establish the basic facts about the bullet.
-
If you've watched the video of Tink Thompson talking about the stretcher bullet you wouldn't waste your time arguing about the bullet. There are so many contradictions in the various stories about the bullet that it's impossible to establish the basic facts about the bullet.
There are so many contradictions in the various stories about the bullet that it's impossible to establish the basic facts about the bullet.
By the same logic, we might just as well all stop posting because for nearly everything in this case it's impossible to establish basic facts.
But I strongly disagree with that "logic" as the facts are there. You just need to find them. For that one needs to focus on details rather than looking at the big picture and making assumptions.
There are so many contradictions in the various stories about the bullet that it's impossible to establish the basic facts about the bullet.
Which, in your opinion, leaves us with what conclusion exactly?
-
There are so many contradictions in the various stories about the bullet that it's impossible to establish the basic facts about the bullet.
By the same logic, we might just as well all stop posting because for nearly everything in this case it's impossible to establish basic facts.
But I strongly disagree with that "logic" as the facts are there. You just need to find them. For that one needs to focus on details rather than looking at the big picture and making assumptions.
There are so many contradictions in the various stories about the bullet that it's impossible to establish the basic facts about the bullet.
We can know that CE399 was not fired through JFK and JBC ..... That much is obvious...... So who introduced the pristine bullet into the evidence stream?.....Who ever they were they were pretty stupid to think that a large percentage of the folks who saw the bullet would fall for the idea that a 6.5 mm bullet could have caused all of the injuries to JFK and JBC and remain in such pristine condition.
Which, in your opinion, leaves us with what conclusion exactly?
-
What are you? The forum police?
All you've done so far in this thread is give us your flawed opinion, stuck by it and dismiss everything that didn't agree with it. That's what happens if you have an opinion about everything. It limits your ability to accept and/or understand other points of view.
Your stubborn unrealistic stance isn't leaving much room for debate anyway and besides, we're still talking about coincidences....
First you tried to tell me how you thought I should respond to your BS and now you want to dictate what we can write in this thread. What are you? A bit of a control freak, perhaps?
Your stubborn unrealistic stance isn't leaving much room for debate anyway and besides, we're still talking about coincidences....
Nothing to do with being stubborn. I have scrutinized the evidence (most of which can be described as the historical record) and come to logical conclusions. There's no reason why I should change my mind. Occasionally, I present "insights" to demonstrate the absurdity of conspiracy theories which almost always rely on ignoring blatantly obvious realities. This subject is one of those.
First you tried to tell me how you thought I should respond to your BS and now you want to dictate what we can write in this thread. What are you? A bit of a control freak, perhaps?
Dictate? No. Hijacking a Subject is not a legitimate response to a previous comment.
Your "changing the subject" is unjustified. You just do it because you cannot focus on the matter at hand or have exhausted your list of absurd speculations.
This segue to an unrelated topic indicates any "untidy" mind: The same flawed thinking that refuses to see that if you dismiss evidence then it must lead to an alternative explanation of an aspect of the crime. You pretend to be still parsing the evidence (after years) and are not yet ready to come to a conclusion. This leads sensible thinkers to realize that you (and like-minded others) are taking refuge in contrarianism.
-
Your stubborn unrealistic stance isn't leaving much room for debate anyway and besides, we're still talking about coincidences....
Nothing to do with being stubborn. I have scrutinized the evidence (most of which can be described as the historical record) and come to logical conclusions. There's no reason why I should change my mind. Occasionally, I present "insights" to demonstrate the absurdity of conspiracy theories which almost always rely on ignoring blatantly obvious realities. This subject is one of those.
Exactly what I said. In your mind your opinion is always the correct one which makes your position a stubborn unrealistic stance!
There's no reason why I should change my mind.
Which means there is no reason to waste any time talking to you. So, why are you even here? To preach to the already converted?
I present "insights" to demonstrate the absurdity of conspiracy theories which almost always rely on ignoring blatantly obvious realities. This subject is one of those.
Only in your flawed opinion. Three people have already explained to you why your theory is flawed but you are just too stubborn to learn. So be it!
First you tried to tell me how you thought I should respond to your BS and now you want to dictate what we can write in this thread. What are you? A bit of a control freak, perhaps?
Dictate? No. Hijacking a Subject is not a legitimate response to a previous comment.
Your "changing the subject" is unjustified. You just do it because you cannot focus on the matter at hand or have exhausted your list of absurd speculations.
I didn't hijack the thread and I didn't change the subject. I merely responded to comments made by somebody else. And you don't get to decide what is a "legitimate response" or "unjustified". No matter how superior you think you are, you simply do get to decide that.
This segue to an unrelated topic indicates any "untidy" mind: The same flawed thinking that refuses to see that if you dismiss evidence then it must lead to an alternative explanation of an aspect of the crime.
Stop whining... I did not dismiss evidence (that's you, who does that!), I and others have merely pointed out that your conclusions are flawed.
You pretend to be still parsing the evidence (after years) and are not yet ready to come to a conclusion. This leads sensible thinkers to realize that you (and like-minded others) are taking refuge in contrarianism.
There is the same old crappy "you are a contrarian" BS again... and it's coming from the biggest contrarian of them all. I prefer not to have an opinion on everything, too quickly, like you seem to do, because, as you so clearly show with every post, having opinions means you have already made up your mind and are unwilling to accept anything that does not compute with your opinion. That is the definition of a true contrarian! I prefer to leave the door open for additional information which may help me to ultimately form an opinion.
The most stupid thing anybody can do is believe that his opinion is the right one and stick by it. But it seems you didn't get that memo.
-
Exactly what I said. In your mind your opinion is always the correct one which makes your position a stubborn unrealistic stance!
There's no reason why I should change my mind.
Which means there is no reason to waste any time talking to you. So, why are you here?
I present "insights" to demonstrate the absurdity of conspiracy theories which almost always rely on ignoring blatantly obvious realities. This subject is one of those.
Only in your flawed opinion. Three people have already explained to you why your theory is flawed but you are just too stubborn to learn. So be it!
I didn't hijack the thread and I didn't change the subject. I merely responded to comments made by somebody else. And you don't get to decide what is a "legitimate response" or "unjustified". No matter how superior you think you are, you simply do get to decide that.
This segue to an unrelated topic indicates any "untidy" mind: The same flawed thinking that refuses to see that if you dismiss evidence then it must lead to an alternative explanation of an aspect of the crime.
Stop whining... I did not dismiss evidence (that's you, who does that!), I and others have merely pointed out that your conclusions are flawed.
You pretend to be still parsing the evidence (after years) and are not yet ready to come to a conclusion. This leads sensible thinkers to realize that you (and like-minded others) are taking refuge in contrarianism.
There is the same old crappy "you are a contrarian" BS again... and it's coming from the biggest contrarian of the all. I prefer not to have an opinion on everything, too quickly, like you seem to do, because, as you so clearly show with every post, having opinions means you have already made up your mind and are unwilling to accept anything that does not compute with your opinion. That is the definition of a true contrarian!
The most stupid thing an intelligent person can do is believe that his opinion is the right one and stick by it. But it seems you didn't get that memo.
More nonsense with no specific rebuttal to the matters raised; just vague criticism with unfounded assertions.
Regarding your indecision as to who assassinated President John F. Kennedy and murdered Officer J.D.Tippit: You remind me of the long serving New Jersey State Police detective (circa 1950) who would not focus on solving current crimes. His excuse; when asked to get to work? No, no; I'm still working on the Lindbergh baby kidnapping!!!
Incidentally, I don't qualify as a contrarian. I present conclusions based on the historical record of the case and then invite others to provide evidence to prove my conclusions are incorrect.
A contrarian is someone who takes an opposing view, especially for the sake of being difficult, contentious or in opposition to the generally held view. This could also be used as an adjective.
Presenting a Subject that aligns with what's in the history books (qualifies as a generally held view by historians) is not contrarian-ism. Explaining the facts of an event (Randle's necessity to have coffee with a neighbor of Paine's for Oswald's to get a TSBD job) is not contrarian-ism. You saying that it is: That's nothing more than "assertion-ism".
-
Your stubborn unrealistic stance isn't leaving much room for debate anyway and besides, we're still talking about coincidences....
Nothing to do with being stubborn. I have scrutinized the evidence (most of which can be described as the historical record) and come to logical conclusions. There's no reason why I should change my mind. Occasionally, I present "insights" to demonstrate the absurdity of conspiracy theories which almost always rely on ignoring blatantly obvious realities. This subject is one of those.
First you tried to tell me how you thought I should respond to your BS and now you want to dictate what we can write in this thread. What are you? A bit of a control freak, perhaps?
Dictate? No. Hijacking a Subject is not a legitimate response to a previous comment.
Your "changing the subject" is unjustified. You just do it because you cannot focus on the matter at hand or have exhausted your list of absurd speculations.
This segue to an unrelated topic indicates any "untidy" mind: The same flawed thinking that refuses to see that if you dismiss evidence then it must lead to an alternative explanation of an aspect of the crime. You pretend to be still parsing the evidence (after years) and are not yet ready to come to a conclusion. This leads sensible thinkers to realize that you (and like-minded others) are taking refuge in contrarianism.
Are you trying to replace logical fallacy with "common sense"? You are not a logistician and you don't know how critical thinking works. Try to construct your arguments in the form of logical inferences leading up to a conclusion. Don't start with the conclusion and make "common sense" assumptions to make it fit your hypothesis. That's ass-backwards, logistically speaking.
You LNers need to recognize that 1 strike and you're out! But you always call balls and walk the batter, which is a direct reflection of your bias.
-
More nonsense with no specific rebuttal to the matters raised; just vague criticism with unfounded assertions.
Regarding your indecision as to who assassinated President John F. Kennedy and murdered Officer J.D.Tippit: You remind me of the long serving New Jersey State Police detective (circa 1950) who would not focus on solving current crimes. His excuse; when asked to get to work? No, no; I'm still working on the Lindbergh baby kidnapping!!!
Incidentally, I don't qualify as a contrarian. I present conclusions based on the historical record of the case and then invite others to provide evidence to prove my conclusions are incorrect.
A contrarian is someone who takes an opposing view, especially for the sake of being difficult, contentious or in opposition to the generally held view. This could also be used as an adjective.
Presenting a Subject that aligns with what's in the history books (qualifies as a generally held view by historians) is not contrarian-ism. Explaining the facts of an event (Randle's necessity to have coffee with a neighbor of Paine's for Oswald's to get a TSBD job) is not contrarian-ism. You saying that it is: That's nothing more than "assertion-ism".
Incidentally, I don't qualify as a contrarian. I present conclusions based on the historical record of the case and then invite others to provide evidence to prove my conclusions are incorrect.
Yes I know... It's the classic "I am right unless you prove me wrong" crap we already know from you. You are not right by default, regardless of just how much you think you are. But it's true, that doesn't make you a contrarian, it makes you an extremely unreasonable and narrow minded individual.
A contrarian is someone who takes an opposing view, especially for the sake of being difficult, contentious or in opposition to the generally held view. This could also be used as an adjective.
And you are not someone who takes an opposing view, despite three other people telling you your conclusion is flawed? Of course you are, and that makes you a classic contrarian. You will even argue about the fact that you are not argueing about something....
Presenting a Subject that aligns with what's in the history books (qualifies as a generally held view by historians) is not contrarian-ism.
True.. it is blindly accepting what's in the history books without understanding that not everything in the history books is actually correct.
For instance; For some 600 years the history books said that the Donation of Constantine was authentic, until it turned out to be a fake after all.
Explaining the facts of an event (Randle's necessity to have coffee with a neighbor of Paine's for Oswald's to get a TSBD job) is not contrarian-ism.
True, that's not contrarian-ism, it's just plain stupid when, like in this case, the conclusions you attached to it are flawed and outright wrong.
Just how many people need to tell you your conclusions are flawed before you are willing to accept that they are? A million perhaps?
-
Incidentally, I don't qualify as a contrarian. I present conclusions based on the historical record of the case and then invite others to provide evidence to prove my conclusions are incorrect.
Yes I know... It's the classic "I am right unless you prove me wrong" crap we already know from you. You are not right by default, regardless of just how much you think you are. But you're right, that doesn't make you a contrarian, it makes you an extremely unreasonable and narrow minded individual.
A contrarian is someone who takes an opposing view, especially for the sake of being difficult, contentious or in opposition to the generally held view. This could also be used as an adjective.
And you are not someone who takes an opposing view, despite three other people telling you your conclusion is flawed? Of course you are, and that makes you a classic contrarian.
Presenting a Subject that aligns with what's in the history books (qualifies as a generally held view by historians) is not contrarian-ism.
True.. it is blindly accepting what's in the history books without understanding that not everything in the history books is actually correct.
For instance; For some 600 years the history books said that the Donation of Constantine was authentic, until it turned out to be a fake after all.
Explaining the facts of an event (Randle's necessity to have coffee with a neighbor of Paine's for Oswald's to get a TSBD job) is not contrarian-ism.
True, that's not contrarian-ism, it's just plain stupid when, like in this case, the conclusions you attached to it are flawed and outright wrong.
Just how many people need to tell you your conclusions are flawed before you are willing to accept that they are? A million perhaps?
To address your silliest assertion.
And you are not someone who takes an opposing view, despite three other people telling you your conclusion is flawed? Of course you are, and that makes you a classic contrarian.
That is the:
Bandwagon Fallacy
Just because a significant population of people believe a proposition is true, doesn't automatically make it true. Popularity alone is not enough to validate an argument, though it's often used as a standalone justification of validity. Arguments in this style don't take into account whether or not the population validating the argument is actually qualified to do so, or if contrary evidence exists.
Your three (3) are simply those who disagree with the fact expressed in this Subject title:
No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD
The three (3) who will not or can not provide any evidence that disputes the accuracy of the statement!
True, that's not contrarian-ism, it's just plain stupid when, like in this case, the conclusions you attached to it are flawed and outright wrong.
Explain how the conclusion [No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD] is flawed. No "thumb-suckers", just proof. Saying that Oswald "could" have learned about a TSBD job some other way is not proof. You need a witness who claimed to have told Lee Oswald (after Paine/Marina told...) about a job at the TSBD. Additionally, that Lee Oswald said in reply--words to the effect: "Thanks, I already know about it". Got that have you?
For your education: If something actually happened it is the truth; it doesn't matter if thousands disagree. It's still the truth.
-
To address your silliest assertion.
And you are not someone who takes an opposing view, despite three other people telling you your conclusion is flawed? Of course you are, and that makes you a classic contrarian.
That is the:
Bandwagon Fallacy
Just because a significant population of people believe a proposition is true, doesn't automatically make it true. Popularity alone is not enough to validate an argument, though it's often used as a standalone justification of validity. Arguments in this style don't take into account whether or not the population validating the argument is actually qualified to do so, or if contrary evidence exists.
Your three (3) are simply those who disagree with the fact expressed in this Subject title:
No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD
The three (3) who will not or can not provide any evidence that disputes the accuracy of the statement!
True, that's not contrarian-ism, it's just plain stupid when, like in this case, the conclusions you attached to it are flawed and outright wrong.
Explain how the conclusion [No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD] is flawed. No "thumb-suckers", just proof. Saying that Oswald "could" have learned about a TSBD job some other way is not proof. You need a witness who claimed to have told Lee Oswald (after Paine/Marina told...) about a job at the TSBD. Additionally, that Lee Oswald said in reply--words to the effect: "Thanks, I already know about it". Got that have you?
For your education: If something actually happened it is the truth; it doesn't matter if thousands disagree. It's still the truth.
Still confused about the meaning of the word "possibility", I see.... And you're changing the goalposts as well.... always a sign of weakness! The same is asking for an explanation and then turning it into a demand for proof for an event that, could have taken place, but never did.
You, now, seem to have backed away from your initial conclusion that Oswald wouldn't have gotten the TSBD job if Paine and Randle didn't have coffee together (which could be true, but doesn't have to be) and that this in turn, according to you, meant : No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy.
A wise decision to drop that because that was the main conclusion that was flawed.
For your education: If something actually happened it is the truth; it doesn't matter if thousands disagree. It's still the truth.
First of all, you are to stupid to educate me about anything. Secondly, I don't disagree with that. But you are not the one who gets to decide what the truth is and that's where you go wrong every time.
-
Still confused about the meaning of the word "possibility", I see.... And you're changing the goalposts as well.... always a sign of weakness!
You, now, seem to have backed away from your initial conclusion that Oswald wouldn't have gotten the TSBD job if Paine and Randle didn't have coffee together and that this in turn, according to you, meant : No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy.
A wise decision to drop that because that was the main conclusion that was flawed.
For your education: If something actually happened it is the truth; it doesn't matter if thousands disagree. It's still the truth.
First of all, you are to stupid to educate me about anything. Secondly, I don't disagree with that. But you are not the one who gets to decide what the truth is and that's where you go wrong every time.
You, now, seem to have backed away from your initial conclusion that Oswald wouldn't have gotten the TSBD job if Paine and Randle didn't have coffee together and that this in turn, according to you, meant : No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy.
No, I have not backed away (or even seemed to) from the statement in the title of my Subject:
Re: No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD
You're saying that... with no justification.
Oh by the way; you appear to have intentionally left out my challenge to you:
Explain how the conclusion [No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD] is flawed. No "thumb-suckers", just proof. Saying that Oswald "could" have learned about a TSBD job some other way is not proof. You need a witness who claimed to have told Lee Oswald (after Paine/Marina told...) about a job at the TSBD. Additionally, that Lee Oswald said in reply--words to the effect: "Thanks, I already know about it" Got that have you?
To credibly dispute the statement in the Subject title, you need more than a "could have".
Speculative guesswork like "could haves" are meaningless. Anything "could" happen. I could win the lottery next week, but wont. People will not take you (or me) seriously, if we claim "something" for which there is no evidence. That's why I'm not taking your assertions seriously. I will if you:
Name a witness who claimed to have told Lee Oswald (after Paine/Marina told...) about a job at the TSBD. Additionally, that Lee Oswald said in reply--words to the effect: "Thanks, I already know about it".
Go ahead.
-
You, now, seem to have backed away from your initial conclusion that Oswald wouldn't have gotten the TSBD job if Paine and Randle didn't have coffee together and that this in turn, according to you, meant : No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy.
No, I have not backed away (or even seemed to) from the statement in the title of my Subject:
Re: No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD
You're saying that... with no justification.
I don't give a damn about the title of the thread. Anybody who reads the opening post knows exactly what your flawed "No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy" conclusion was. And that was only the first one of several flawed conclusions that followed.
Oh by the way; you appear to have intentionally left out my challenge to you:
Explain how the conclusion [No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD] is flawed. No "thumb-suckers", just proof. Saying that Oswald "could" have learned about a TSBD job some other way is not proof. You need a witness who claimed to have told Lee Oswald (after Paine/Marina told...) about a job at the TSBD. Additionally, that Lee Oswald said in reply--words to the effect: "Thanks, I already know about it" Got that have you?
That's not a challenge. It's not even a fair question. Instead it's you, once again, playing games and trying to let your flawed opinion prevail by not only shifting the burden of proof but also raising the bar in a completely absurd, unreasonable manner. Asking for an explanation is one thing, but subsequently adding on a demand for proof and then even qualifying in advance what kind of proof (i.e. a witness statement) would only be acceptable to you exposes your bad faith.
Nobody in their right mind needs proof to understand and accept that Oswald could have heard about the TSBD job from somebody else. The fact that he didn't doesn't mean it could not have happened. Asking for proof and even witness statements for an event that obviously could have happened but likely didn't is pure asinine.
If I were like you, I could easily ask you for conclusive proof that Oswald could not have heard about the TSBD job from somebody else, because that's what you need to believe to maintain your own flawed conclusion. Well, just out of curiosity, do you have such conclusive proof? Or is it one rule for you and another for everybody else?
To credibly dispute the statement in the Subject title, you need more than a "could have".
Speculative guesswork like "could haves" are meaningless. Anything "could" happen. I could win the lottery next week, but wont. People will not take you (or me) seriously, if we claim "something" for which there is no evidence. That's why I'm not taking your assertions seriously. I will if you:
Name a witness who claimed to have told Lee Oswald (after Paine/Marina told...) about a job at the TSBD. Additionally, that Lee Oswald said in reply--words to the effect: "Thanks, I already know about it".
Go ahead.
And once again you expose how disingenuous you truly are because you are implicitely saying that you won't take my assertions seriously no matter what. What you ask for is completely idioctic and you know full well (at least you would know, if you had a functional brain) that there isn't even a slight possibility that anybody could know that, even if it did happen. Nobody was with Oswald 24/7 and thus there is no way anybody could comply with that "request".
However, just in case you want to go there, just because nobody can provide that "evidence" doesn't mean it didn't or couldn't have happened. It only means that nobody knows about it and it also doesn't mean that you are right. Your conclusions are just as flawed as before and the argue otherwise would be just another demonstration of your bad faith.
People will not take you (or me) seriously, if we claim "something" for which there is no evidence.
Remember this?
Incidentally: If Oswald does not get a job at the TSBD, President Kennedy leaves Dallas alive. Don't give me that "a backup plan was in the works" nonsense. We can only deal with the historical record. Accordingly, "No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD" means that President Kennedy would have lived to complete his first term and probably would have been elected to a second term as President of the United States.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. There is no evidence that Kennedy would have left Dallas alive if Oswald had not gotten his job at the TSBD. Yet you claimed exactly that, so now prove it! And don't give me just your opinion. You need provide actual proof that your claim is true.
-
The process by which Lee Harvey Oswald obtained the job at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) is well-known: It's part of the historical record of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
The first week in October 1963, Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald went next-door to have coffee with a neighbor, Mrs Roberts. Another neighbor from "across the street", Linnie Mae Randle joined the party.
The subject of Marina Oswald's plight came up in conversation. She was 8+ months pregnant and her husband Lee Oswald was unemployed and needed work. Mrs Randle explained that her brother, Buell Frasier, had found work at the Texas School Book Depository and that "they might be still hiring". Mrs Paine phoned the TSBD and spoke to the manager Roy Truly. There was a temporary position available as an order-filler.
When Lee Oswald telephoned the Paine residence that evening, he was told about the job opportunity. He went for an interview with Mr Truly, the next day, and got the job at the TSBD.
The circumstances of Lee Harvey Oswald getting a job at a building on the route of President Kennedy's motorcade (5 weeks later) was just happenstance. The idea that plotters in a conspiracy had him "placed" at the TSBD is impossible. No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy. If Mrs Randle decides to stay home or go somewhere else instead of across the street to Mrs Roberts house for coffee: Lee Oswald never learns about the job at the TSBD. He never gets a job there and is never in a position to assassinate President Kennedy at 12:30 PM (CST), 22 November 1963.
That's why I say: "No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the Texas School Book Depository".
Why didn't Ruth Paine tell Lee that the airport had called and wanted him to come in for an employment interview..... The job at the airport paid better and was a permanent job ( non seasonal) but Ruth never told Marina or Lee about the airport job.......
-
The process by which Lee Harvey Oswald obtained the job at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) is well-known: It's part of the historical record of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
The first week in October 1963, Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald went next-door to have coffee with a neighbor, Mrs Roberts. Another neighbor from "across the street", Linnie Mae Randle joined the party.
The subject of Marina Oswald's plight came up in conversation. She was 8+ months pregnant and her husband Lee Oswald was unemployed and needed work. Mrs Randle explained that her brother, Buell Frasier, had found work at the Texas School Book Depository and that "they might be still hiring". Mrs Paine phoned the TSBD and spoke to the manager Roy Truly. There was a temporary position available as an order-filler.
When Lee Oswald telephoned the Paine residence that evening, he was told about the job opportunity. He went for an interview with Mr Truly, the next day, and got the job at the TSBD.
The circumstances of Lee Harvey Oswald getting a job at a building on the route of President Kennedy's motorcade (5 weeks later) was just happenstance. The idea that plotters in a conspiracy had him "placed" at the TSBD is impossible. No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy. If Mrs Randle decides to stay home or go somewhere else instead of across the street to Mrs Roberts house for coffee: Lee Oswald never learns about the job at the TSBD. He never gets a job there and is never in a position to assassinate President Kennedy at 12:30 PM (CST), 22 November 1963.
That's why I say: "No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the Texas School Book Depository".
Replying without reading the entire thread since.
"The idea that plotters in a conspiracy had him "placed" at the TSBD is impossible. No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy. If Mrs Randle decides to stay home or go somewhere else instead of across the street to Mrs Roberts house for coffee: Lee Oswald never learns about the job at the TSBD. He never gets a job there and is never in a position to assassinate President Kennedy at 12:30 PM (CST), 22 November 1963."
It was known that JFK was going to Dallas before Ozzie got the job.
A lot of effort was made, by Connally I believe, to have JFK speak at the Trade Mart, the route to which takes him by the TSBD, rather than another venue.
If Ozzie hadn't got the job at the TSBD there were many locations along the way he could have been employed that would have offered opportunity to patsy him. There was job offer at Love Field, that Ruth Paine took a phone call about, that paid better, that she never told LHO or Marina about for one example.
Also interesting is almost the same time he gets the job at the TSBD the FBI takes him off a watch list.
"JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE
Why He Died And Why It Matters"[/b]
By James W. Douglas
p.177
-snip-
"On October 9, 1963, one week before Lee Harvey Oswald began his job at a site overlooking the president's future parade route,
an FBI official in Washington, D.C., disconnected Oswald from a federal alarm system that was about to identify him as a threat to
national security. The FBI man's name was Marvin Gheesling. He was a supervisor in the Soviet espionage section at FBI headquarters.
His timing was remarkable. As author John Newman remarked in an analysis of this phenomenon, Gheesling "turned off the alarm switch
on Oswald literally an instant before it would have gone off."
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/oct_63-08.jpg)
-
Why didn't Ruth Paine tell Lee that the airport had called and wanted him to come in for an employment interview..... The job at the airport paid better and was a permanent job ( non seasonal) but Ruth never told Marina or Lee about the airport job.......
Ruth Paine likely considered that Lee Oswald could not take that job. It might require travel off bus-routes and Oswald could not drive a car and did not own a car.
-
I don't give a damn about the title of the thread. Anybody who reads the opening post knows exactly what your flawed "No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy" conclusion was. And that was only the first one of several flawed conclusions that followed.
That's not a challenge. It's not even a fair question. Instead it's you, once again, playing games and trying to let your flawed opinion prevail by not only shifting the burden of proof but also raising the bar in a completely absurd, unreasonable manner. Asking for an explanation is one thing, but subsequently adding on a demand for proof and then even qualifying in advance what kind of proof (i.e. a witness statement) would only be acceptable to you exposes your bad faith.
Nobody in their right mind needs proof to understand and accept that Oswald could have heard about the TSBD job from somebody else. The fact that he didn't doesn't mean it could not have happened. Asking for proof and even witness statements for an event that obviously could have happened but likely didn't is pure asinine.
If I were like you, I could easily ask you for conclusive proof that Oswald could not have heard about the TSBD job from somebody else, because that's what you need to believe to maintain your own flawed conclusion. Well, just out of curiosity, do you have such conclusive proof? Or is it one rule for you and another for everybody else?
And once again you expose how disingenuous you truly are because you are implicitely saying that you won't take my assertions seriously no matter what. What you ask for is completely idioctic and you know full well (at least you would know, if you had a functional brain) that there isn't even a slight possibility that anybody could know that, even if it did happen. Nobody was with Oswald 24/7 and thus there is no way anybody could comply with that "request".
However, just in case you want to go there, just because nobody can provide that "evidence" doesn't mean it didn't or couldn't have happened. It only means that nobody knows about it and it also doesn't mean that you are right. Your conclusions are just as flawed as before and the argue otherwise would be just another demonstration of your bad faith.
People will not take you (or me) seriously, if we claim "something" for which there is no evidence.
Remember this?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. There is no evidence that Kennedy would have left Dallas alive if Oswald had not gotten his job at the TSBD. Yet you claimed exactly that, so now prove it! And don't give me just your opinion. You need provide actual proof that your claim is true.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. There is no evidence that Kennedy would have left Dallas alive if Oswald had not gotten his job at the TSBD. Yet you claimed exactly that, so now prove it! And don't give me just your opinion. You need provide actual proof that your claim is true.
You lack the ability to see the difference.
My statement is credible because it only requires a single "subtraction" from known events.
No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD ... means the first link in the chain (Linnie Mae Randle) is broken and therefore the other links (> Mrs Robert's coffee klatch > Paine/Marina Oswald attend > Ruth Paine mentions Lee Oswald's lack of employment > Randle mentions TSBD Job > Ruth Paine calls Mr Truly > Truly says Lee Oswald should come by the TSBD > Ruth/Marina advise Lee Oswald of the TSBD job > Lee Oswald interviewed by Mr Truly > Lee Oswald starts work at the TSBD) never come to exist.
Your statement is NOT credible because it requires "additions" with no evidence to justify them. Not only don't you have a chain you don't even have one link.
You are too wrapped up in the speculative "could have" protocol. "Could have" consists of thousands of possibilities (millions?) none of which you can prove have a chance in hell of actually happening.
Remove Randle from the Robert's "coffee klatch" and the consequence is:
-- NO Oswald as the assassin from the 6th floor of the TSBD (acting alone).
-- NO Hit-man as the assassin from 6th floor of the TSBD (hired by conspirators to frame the patsy Oswald). Oswald is not there TO frame.
*** Consequently it's reasonable to CONCLUDE: President Kennedy gives his speech at the Trade Mart and leaves Dallas alive.
[I'm not obliged to speculate about other jobs for Oswald (on the motorcade route) or the possible plans of groups who might want to assassinate JFK in Dallas or anywhere else in Texas. I could not and would not; because it would only be "guessing" with no evidence to justify such imaginations.]
*** Alternately, for you to be correct, JFK would still have been assassinated in Dallas. Instead of one (1) random event (subtracted); you have to "add" many events (conspiracy factors) with no proof they would ever happen. They only exist in your imagination. You cannot CONCLUDE anything because you don't have ANY evidence--only opinions.
-
Bandwagon Fallacy[/b]
Just because a significant population of people believe a proposition is true, doesn't automatically make it true.
Says the guy who appeals to “history books”. :D
Your three (3) are simply those who disagree with the fact expressed in this Subject title:
No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD
The three (3) who will not or can not provide any evidence that disputes the accuracy of the statement!
Because it’s pure speculation that you’re trying to pass off as fact. You haven’t proven squat. You’ve just done your little “I’m automatically right unless you prove me wrong” dance like you always do.
-
To credibly dispute the statement in the Subject title, you need more than a "could have".
Speculative guesswork like "could haves" are meaningless.
The thing that you seem unable to comprehend is that your statement is a “couldn’t have”, and is just as speculative.
-
Ruth Paine likely considered that Lee Oswald could not take that job. It might require travel off bus-routes and Oswald could not drive a car and did not own a car.
Why is that “likely”? Sounds like more speculation. No buses to the airport? Really?
Besides, that wasn’t her place to decide on her own.
-
Says the guy who appeals to “history books”. :D
Because it’s pure speculation that you’re trying to pass off as fact. You haven’t proven squat. You’ve just done your little “I’m automatically right unless you prove me wrong” dance like you always do.
Says the guy who appeals to “history books”. :D
Different John, very different.
Bandwagon fallacy: Numbers, usually based on a count or a survey. The numbers (people) are usually uninformed about the matter.
Historical record: Written and recorded by people who are informed about the events and subjects.
Isn't the Warren Report (and the 26 volumes of evidence) to which you often refer, "part of the historical record"? Just a tad hypocritical of you to exclude it from that category, John.
-
The thing that you seem unable to comprehend is that your statement is a “couldn’t have”, and is just as speculative.
You've got it wrong again, John. My statement is designed to demonstrate that Oswald's employment at the TSBD is happenstance. Eliminate one simple event (decision) and a particular result does not happen. How often do I have to explain this to you?
Ever heard of Occam's razor: "The simplest solution is most likely the right one".
-
Why is that “likely”? Sounds like more speculation. No buses to the airport? Really?
Besides, that wasn’t her place to decide on her own.
Why is that “likely”? Sounds like more speculation. No buses to the airport? Really?
Ruth Paine is on record "somewhere" mentioning other jobs that required personal transport to get to. So, I'm not really speculating. You're resorting to hair-splitting for something to complain about.
Anyway, several buses might be required. One into town and another out to the airport.
Besides, that wasn’t her place to decide on her own.
Yes it was. People act unilaterally all the time.
-
Why didn't Ruth Paine tell Lee that the airport had called and wanted him to come in for an employment interview..... The job at the airport paid better and was a permanent job ( non seasonal) but Ruth never told Marina or Lee about the airport job.......
Must have been the assassination conspirators who told Ruth Paine not to mention the Airport job. They thought it would be too difficult to assassinate JFK there. Better to switch to the Dealey Plaza plan. After all, they'd already paid Randle, Roberts and Paine to maneuver Lee Oswald into the TSBD job. :D
-
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. There is no evidence that Kennedy would have left Dallas alive if Oswald had not gotten his job at the TSBD. Yet you claimed exactly that, so now prove it! And don't give me just your opinion. You need provide actual proof that your claim is true.
You lack the ability to see the difference.
My statement is credible because it only requires a single "subtraction" from known events.
Just what I thought. One set of rules for you and another for everybody else. Your statement is nothing more than pure speculation for which you do not have a shred of evidence. Calling the statement "credible" doesn't make it so.
But thank you for showing the forum just how unreasonable you really are.
No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD ... means the first link in the chain (Linnie Mae Randle) is broken and therefore the other links (> Mrs Robert's coffee klatch > Paine/Marina Oswald attend > Ruth Paine mentions Lee Oswald's lack of employment > Randle mentions TSBD Job > Ruth Paine calls Mr Truly > Truly says Lee Oswald should come by the TSBD > Ruth/Marina advise Lee Oswald of the TSBD job > Lee Oswald interviewed by Mr Truly > Lee Oswald starts work at the TSBD) never come to exist.
Your statement is NOT credible because it requires "additions" with no evidence to justify them. Not only don't you have a chain you don't even have one link.
Complete BS. You just want to be right when you aren't.
It is indeed true that if Randle had not told Ruth Paine about the TSBD the sequence of events, as we currently know it, would either not exist or would have been different. Nobody is arguing with the facts as they happened, at least not up until the point where Oswald gets the job at the TSBD, but that's where the facts in your sequence stop!
Your entire argument rests on the assumption that this was the only way Oswald possibly could have gotten the TSBD job and that's simply not true. You can not argue, at least not in good faith, that Oswald wouldn't or couldn't have gotten the TSBD job if Ruth Paine had not made that phone call to Truly, because - and this is where you keep going wrong - there is no way to know with any kind of certainty that Oswald couldn't have found the TSBD job by other means. If it was happenstance that Oswald got the job one way, it could just as easily be happenstance for him to get the same job in another way.
But the sequence up until Oswald getting the job after talking to Truly isn't really the issue. It's everything that comes after that in your sequence - which you now conveniently leave out - that is pure speculation on your part. It is in no way credible to claim (without a shred of evidence) that Kennedy would have left Dallas alive and won a second term if Oswald hadn't worked at the TSBD.
You are too wrapped up in the speculative "could have" protocol. "Could have" consists of thousands of possibilities (millions?) none of which you can prove have a chance in hell of actually happening.
I'm getting a bit tired of having to say this, but those self-evident "could have" arguments destroy your entire claim. That's why you don't like them and dismiss them outright. Your sneaky "you can not prove that those 'could have' possibilities have a chance in hell of actually happening" exposes the weakness of your position. Asking for proof that something could have happened is as dishonest as it gets and it will not help you. Your basic argument is that Kennedy was killed (either by Oswald or conspirators) as a direct result of Oswald getting a job at the TSBD and that's simply pure speculation.
Remove Randle from the Robert's "coffee klatch" and the consequence is:
-- NO Oswald as the assassin from the 6th floor of the TSBD (acting alone).
-- NO Hit-man as the assassin from 6th floor of the TSBD (hired by conspirators to frame the patsy Oswald). Oswald is not there TO frame.
*** Consequently it's reasonable to CONCLUDE: President Kennedy gives his speech at the Trade Mart and leaves Dallas alive.
More BS... No, it is not reasonable to conclude that. You can not even say with any kind of certainty that Randle not telling Ruth Paine about the TSBD would have resulted in Oswald not getting a job there. Every other employee at the TSBD got their job without Randle and Paine being involved and the same could have applied to Oswald. Denying such a simple fact is just asinine.
You are stuck in the sequence of events as you think they happened and seem to believe that Oswald could only have gotten the TSBD job thanks to Ruth Paine and that Kennedy could only have been shot from the TSBD, when in reality, Oswald not having a job at the TSBD would probably, if not likely, have resulted in a different sequence of events and an assassination attempt elsewhere in Dallas.
[I'm not obliged to speculate about other jobs for Oswald (on the motorcade route) or the possible plans of groups who might want to assassinate JFK in Dallas or anywhere else in Texas. I could not and would not; because it would only be "guessing" with no evidence to justify such imaginations.]
Where the hell do you come up with these crappy arguments? You are in fact coming up with pure 100% guess work yourself. You've just confirmed that it is no more than your conclusion (IMO based on flawed reasoning) that Kennedy would have left Dallas alive if Oswald had not worked at the TSBD. That is pure guessing! You can call it a "reasonable conclusion" (which it isn't) but that doesn't make it so. It's still guessing, pure and simple.
Without apparently understanding it, you are speculating that Oswald was the killer or that another killer did in fact shoot from the TSBD when none of that is established by conclusive evidence. The entire "evidence" you rely on (your so-called "historical record") is based upon one assumption after another.
*** Alternately, for you to be correct, JFK would still have been assassinated in Dallas. Instead of one (1) random event (subtracted); you have to "add" many events (conspiracy factors) with no proof they would ever happen. They only exist in your imagination. You cannot CONCLUDE anything because you don't have ANY evidence--only opinions.
Oh please give me a break. You've only convinced me that you are completely insane.
You basic argument is and always has been;
"I am right unless you prove me wrong, but you can never prove me wrong because I am too stubborn to accept anything that doesn't agree with my opinion".
It is obnoxious arrogance and stupidity beyond belief. John Cleese was right; for a person to understand just how stupid he or she is requires that person to have a certain level of intelligence to make that determination. Since a really stupid person does not have that basic intelligence, he or she will never understand just how stupid he or she really is.
In the same vein; how does one convince a fool that he is a fool? The answer is; Tell him he is sane and hope he will argue against it!
I've tried to come down to your level to explain some basic things to you, but I now have to admit I have failed. I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt. I now give up as I simply can not come down any further. You are just an exhausting, dishonest, waste of time, contrarian who will argue for argument's sake about just about any detail and who will say just about anything, no matter how wacky, to "win the argument" by exhaustion. You really need to get help!
-
Just a few more comments before I terminate the conversation (if that's what it was).....
Bandwagon Fallacy
Just because a significant population of people believe a proposition is true, doesn't automatically make it true.
It also doesn't automatically make it untrue. Assuming that they are wrong simply because there is more than one person who shares the same opinion, is another example of your flawed reasoning.
Bandwagon fallacy: Numbers, usually based on a count or a survey. The numbers (people) are usually uninformed about the matter.
Who says those people are "usually uninformed about the matter"? You?
In this instance there are three people who are very well informed about the matter, so your pathetic attempt to weaken the strength of their combined argument is just painfully silly
Historical record: Written and recorded by people who are informed about the events and subjects.
Isn't the Warren Report (and the 26 volumes of evidence) to which you often refer, "part of the historical record"? Just a tad hypocritical of you to exclude it from that category, John.
Isn't the Warren Report (and the 26 volumes of evidence) to which you often refer, "part of the historical record"?
Yes, and it is a collection of massive assumptions and conclusions that are not supported by the evidence in the 26 volumes. That's what you fail to understand!
You just assume that the Warren Report is correct, but that's only your assumption.
-
To add to what Martin said, what history books are we talking about here? People who have actually studied the evidence in this case, or general history books that just parrot the “official” conclusions? The latter are not “informed”. And invoking them is a false appeal to authority. History is written by the victors.
Appealing to the “historical record” is just yet another “I’m automatically right until you prove me wrong” argument.