JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Wesley Johnson on March 11, 2018, 03:50:07 PM
-
How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD? And why is it important? I'm just curious about how many different stories there are in regards to LHO's employment at the TSBD. It's very simple CTers, if you cannot place Oswald at work in the TSBD by a conspiracy then there was no conspiracy.
-
How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD? And why is it important? I'm just curious about how many different stories there are in regards to LHO's employment at the TSBD. It's very simple CTers, if you cannot place Oswald at work in the TSBD then there was no conspiracy.
Hey, Wes, you trying to say he didn't work there?
-
Hey, Wes, you trying to say he didn't work there?
No Ray. I had to add to my original statement "by a conspiracy"
-
No Ray. I had to add to my original statement "by a conspiracy"
We can't prove that he was put there by anybody. That's the problem. However the convenience of his being employed there, so close to the assassination, sounds the warning bells, in my mind. Just because we can't prove who and why he was put there, doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy.
-
We can't prove that he was put there by anybody. That's the problem. However the convenience of his being employed there, so close to the assassination, sounds the warning bells, in my mind. Just because we can't prove who and why he was put there, doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy.
It's been known how he got the job at the TSBD from 22 November 1963 until now. It never has been a mystery Ray. Linnie Mae Randle, Frazier's sister, and Ruth Paine, along with Marina Oswald had all gathered at Dorothy Robert's house to have coffee and chat. Just like a lot of housewives did back then. During their conversation the subject of Lee's unemployment came up. Linnie Mae Randle said that her brother Buell had just got a job at the TSBD and it might be a good idea to have Lee apply there. Marina asked Ruth if she could call the TSBD for her. Ruth called Roy Truly and Mr. Truly told her to have Lee come and apply. Lee went there and got hired. There were two buildings that TSBD worked out of. There were two men that Truly hired and he picked the other man to work at the warehouse down the road and Lee to work at the TSBD on Elm St. Oswald went to work at the TSBD on 16 October 1963. You see the problem don't you Ray? On 16 October it had not even been finalized that the President would come to Dallas. The motorcade route was not even set yet. So, what CTers want me to believe is that these conspirators could read the future and know that the president would come to Dallas and ride in an open car and drive by the TSBD. If you believe that Ray then you have to include, Ruth Paine, Marina Oswald, Linnie Mae Randle, Dorothy Roberts and good old Roy Truly in on the conspiracy. You don't really believe that these Texas house wives and a warehouse manager were just suddenly recruited by the KGB, CIA, FBI Secret Service, Dallas Police or any numbers of silly theories, to put little old Lee in the building, so he could be framed by them? It is ridiculous when you start looking at it Ray.
-
We can't prove that he was put there by anybody. That's the problem. However the convenience of his being employed there, so close to the assassination, sounds the warning bells, in my mind. Just because we can't prove who and why he was put there, doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy.
Ray, he may not even have been put there on purpose.
Who said that a conspiracy already had a solid and completely worked out plan in mind, months, or even weeks, prior to the assassination? Yet, that's what LNs seem to imply. If there was a conspiracy, there may well have been some sort of master plan in place, known to only a few people and able to be put into action at short notice based upon the actual circumstances at the time.
There are those who believe there had already been two previous attempts to execute the plan, in Miami and Chicago, which both failed. Perhaps it was just a case of third time lucky with all the variables falling into place in Dallas.
-
Ray, he may not even have been put there on purpose.
Who said that a conspiracy already had a solid and completely worked out plan in mind, months, or even weeks, prior to the assassination? Yet, that's what LNs seem to imply. If there was a conspiracy, there may well have been some sort of master plan in place, known to only a few people and able to be put into action at short notice based upon the actual circumstances at the time.
There are those who believe there had already been two previous attempts to execute the plan, in Miami and Chicago, which both failed. Perhaps it was just a case of third time lucky with all the variables falling into place in Dallas.
Hello Martin.
"there may well have been some sort of master plan in place, known to only a few people and able to be put into action at short notice based upon the actual circumstances at the time."
Right!! I believe that! ::)
And what you are implying is that these people with this "master plan" in a matter of days were able to put this elaborate plan to frame Oswald in play? LOL In all of the years since the president's assassination there is not one shred of evidence to indicate there were any "mysterious" people hanging around manipulating Oswald or any one else. And that's what it would have took. Boots on the ground. No evidence of that. Zero.
-
Hello Martin.
"there may well have been some sort of master plan in place, known to only a few people and able to be put into action at short notice based upon the actual circumstances at the time."
Right!! I believe that! ::)
And what you are implying is that these people with this "master plan" in a matter of days were able to put this elaborate plan to frame Oswald in play? LOL In all of the years since the president's assassination there is not one shred of evidence to indicate there were any "mysterious" people hanging around manipulating Oswald or any one else. And that's what it would have took. Boots on the ground. No evidence of that. Zero.
Right!! I believe that! ::)
I am not really interested in what you believe or not.
And what you are implying is that these people with this "master plan" in a matter of days were able to put this elaborate plan to frame Oswald in play?
I am not implying anything. I started by comment by saying "If there was a conspiracy" but, dishonest as you seem to be, you left that out of the quote. Why?
What makes you even think, if there was a conspiracy, it was an elaborate plan to frame Oswald in particular or that it was the only option in play at any given time? I get the impression you do not play chess very well.
In all of the years since the president's assassination there is not one shred of evidence to indicate there were any "mysterious" people hanging around manipulating Oswald or any one else.
So what? That's just your opinion and it could just mean that you are not paying attention very well or that you are so bias that you dismiss everything you don't like out of hand. It tells me nothing. When would somebody even qualify as "mysterious" in your mind?
And that's what it would have took. Boots on the ground. No evidence of that. Zero.
Opinions, opinions and opinions... you seem to have a lot of them, but hey, whatever works for you, right?
-
Right!! I believe that! ::)
I am not really interested in what you believe or not.
And what you are implying is that these people with this "master plan" in a matter of days were able to put this elaborate plan to frame Oswald in play?
I am not implying anything. I started by comment by saying "If there was a conspiracy" but, dishonest as you seem to be, you left that out of the quote. Why?
What makes you even think, if there was a conspiracy, it was an elaborate plan to frame Oswald in particular or that it was the only option in play at any given time? I get the impression you do not play chess very well.
In all of the years since the president's assassination there is not one shred of evidence to indicate there were any "mysterious" people hanging around manipulating Oswald or any one else.
So what? That's just your opinion and it could just mean that you are not paying attention very well or that you are so bias that you dismiss everything you don't like out of hand. It tells me nothing. When would somebody even qualify as "mysterious" in your mind?
And that's what it would have took. Boots on the ground. No evidence of that. Zero.
Opinions, opinions and opinions... you seem to have a lot of them, but hey, whatever works for you, right?
Martin, you seem to be a little bit agitated. You can get through it. Actually I play a real good game of chess. I'll play you any time you like. I'm sure we could figure out how to get that done. You really need to stop being in denial and except that you are a CT buff.
-
Ray, he may not even have been put there on purpose.
Who said that a conspiracy already had a solid and completely worked out plan in mind, months, or even weeks, prior to the assassination? Yet, that's what LNs seem to imply. If there was a conspiracy, there may well have been some sort of master plan in place, known to only a few people and able to be put into action at short notice based upon the actual circumstances at the time.
No, it?s not LNers who imply this. It is what most CTers say. It is CTers who say that Oswald was working for the CIA:
** While in the Marines, working with radar.
** When he went to the Soviet Union.
** When he passed out pro Castro leaflets in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.
I?m not saying a conspiracy theory is impossible. I?m just saying a conspiracy theory that had Oswald as part of the plan before October 1963 makes no sense. It?s not my fault that CTers postulate a conspiracy that falls apart when the question of how Oswald got his job.
Essentially, what CTers want, is to point out things that they say indicates that Oswald was working for the CIA for a long time. But then, when it is pointed out the problems this causes them, to suggest that maybe he wasn?t. CTers want their cake and to eat it to. They want to argue that Oswald basically was working for the CIA while suggesting he wasn?t to side step problems with logic that this causes them. And then go back to believing he was working for the CIA all along.
There are those who believe there had already been two previous attempts to execute the plan, in Miami and Chicago, which both failed. Perhaps it was just a case of third time lucky with all the variables falling into place in Dallas.
Plans based on hoping to find and identify someone who works along a motorcade route who:
** Works in an old, mostly empty building, on the edge of town, where there likely would be floor with no people.
** With an employee who has military training with a rifle.
** With the same employee having lived in the Soviet Union
** With the same employee recently passing out Pro Communist leaflets.
Are prone to failure. It would not be surprising such a plot would fail in Miami or Chicago or one hundred straight times. Real world plots don?t work like this.
-
Martin, you seem to be a little bit agitated. You can get through it. Actually I play a real good game of chess. I'll play you any time you like. I'm sure we could figure out how to get that done. You really need to stop being in denial and except that you are a CT buff.
Martin, you seem to be a little bit agitated. You can get through it.
Funny... The truth is I just don't like guys much who think they know it all.
Actually I play a real good game of chess.
So far, there hasn't been much evidence of it on this board. You seem to plan ahead no more than one reply (which you likely have already prepared) when you ask a (mostly loaded) question. Considering options doesn't seem to be your forte.
But, then again, overestimation isn't uncommon amongst LNs...
You really need to stop being in denial and except that you are a CT buff.
Do you need this kind of crap to boost your ego?
-
Martin, you seem to be a little bit agitated. You can get through it.
Funny... The truth is I just don't like guys much how think they know it all.
Actually I play a real good game of chess.
So far, there hasn't been much evidence of it on this board. You seem to plan ahead no more than one reply (which you likely have already prepared) when you ask a (mostly loaded) question. Considering options doesn't seem to be your forte.
But, then again, overestimation isn't uncommon amongst LNs...
You really need to stop being in denial and except that you are a CT buff.
Do you need this kind of crap to boost your ego?
When are we playing? ::)
"The truth is I just don't like guys much how think they know it all."
Very funny Martin. That is what I think about most CTers. Ego plays no part Martin. It is just idle entertainment. When you get tired of walking the fence then maybe we could discuss some real evidence.
-
Instead of being wishy washy, I would like Martin Weidmann to state:
** It is most probably that Oswald was, knowingly or unknowingly, part of the conspiracy before October 1963.
** It is most probably that Oswald was selected by the conspiracy to play his part after mid October 1963, based on where he worked and other factors that make him a plausible assassin.
Likely, Martin will not do so, because neither stand can really hold up. Both have serious problems. So, Oswald must forever remain in some sort of Quantum state. Maybe part of the conspiracy all along. Maybe not. This is how one holds onto bad theories.
-
No, it?s not LNers who imply this. It is what most CTers say. It is CTers who say that Oswald was working for the CIA:
** While in the Marines, working with radar.
** When he went to the Soviet Union.
** When he passed out pro Castro leaflets in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.
I?m not saying a conspiracy theory is impossible. I?m just saying a conspiracy theory that had Oswald as part of the plan before October 1963 makes no sense. It?s not my fault that CTers postulate a conspiracy that falls apart when the question of how Oswald got his job.
I?m just saying a conspiracy theory that had Oswald as part of the plan before October 1963 makes no sense.
I agree... if you consider Oswald to be the only possible patsy in play, that is.
It?s not my fault that CTers postulate a conspiracy that falls apart when the question of how Oswald got his job.
You've lost me there, but then I never postuated such a conspiracy in the first place.
Essentially, what CTers want, is to point out things that they say indicates that Oswald was working for the CIA for a long time. But then, when it is pointed out the problems this causes them, to suggest that maybe he wasn?t. CTers want their cake and to eat it to. They want to argue that Oswald basically was working for the CIA while suggesting he wasn?t to side step problems with logic that this causes them. And then go back to believing he was working for the CIA all along.
Essentially, what CTers want, is to point out things that they say indicates that Oswald was working for the CIA for a long time. But then, when it is pointed out the problems this causes them, to suggest that maybe he wasn?t. CTers want their cake and to eat it to. They want to argue that Oswald basically was working for the CIA while suggesting he wasn?t to side step problems with logic that this causes them. And then go back to believing he was working for the CIA all along.
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "working for the CIA", nor do I really see what logical problems it causes if he did.
Plans based on hoping to find and identify someone who works along a motorcade route who:
** Works in an old, mostly empty building, on the edge of town, where there likely would be floor with no people.
** With an employee who has military training with a rifle.
** With the same employee having lived in the Soviet Union
** With the same employee recently passing out Pro Communist leaflets.
Are prone to failure. It would not be surprising such a plot would fail in Miami or Chicago or one hundred straight times. Real world plots don?t work like this.
I agree, but then I don't believe that any conspiracy to kill the President would ever depend on such detailed requirements. If there was a conspiracy, it would IMO involve some highly skilled indivuals with a great deal of know how about how to operate. I seriously doubt they would let the execution of their plans depend on such minor issues.
One of the problems with this kind of stuff is that one is easily tempted to overthink things based on what one thinks to know, when reality (which is often stranger than fiction) is perhaps not so complicated at all.
Real world plots don?t work like this.
Do you have much experience with "real world plots" or are you merely assuming (sorry, you likely call it "common sense") this?
-
Real world plots don?t work like this.
Do you have much experience with "real world plots" or are you merely assuming (sorry, you likely call it "common sense") this?
I know of no real-world plots that worked this way.
Question 1:
Name me one real world plot that did work this way.
Question 2:
Name me one major CT book that makes this argument. That Oswald was not part of the plot all along but was chosen no earlier than mid-October 1963?
I expect you will dodge either Question 1 or 2, maybe both.
A conspiracy wanted to commit a crime. There were multiple opportunities to commit it. But they waited until the perfect patsy who just happened to be in the right place at the right time turned up.
Can you imagine a November 1963 CIA meeting with: ?OK. We have another motorcade going through Dallas. Give me a report on all people who work along the route. And have it on my desk by Monday morning.?
-
Instead of being wishy washy, I would like Martin Weidmann to state:
** It is most probably that Oswald was, knowingly or unknowingly, part of the conspiracy before October 1963.
** It is most probably that Oswald was selected by the conspiracy to play his part after mid October 1963, based on where he worked and other factors that make him a plausible assassin.
Likely, Martin will not do so, because neither stand can really hold up. Both have serious problems. So, Oswald must forever remain in some sort of Quantum state. Maybe part of the conspiracy all along. Maybe not. This is how one holds onto bad theories.
neither stand can really hold up. Both have serious problems.
Pray tell, what are those serious problems? I'm interested to see how your mind works.
Maybe part of the conspiracy all along. Maybe not. This is how one holds onto bad theories.
What exactly does "part of the conspiracy" mean to you?
-
I know of no real-world plots that worked this way.
Question 1:
Name me one real world plot that did work this way.
Question 2:
Name me one major CT book that makes this argument. That Oswald was not part of the plot all along but was chosen no earlier than mid-October 1963?
I expect you will dodge either Question 1 or 2, maybe both.
The one dodging the question is you.
I asked you if you had much experience with "real world plots". I did not ask you about "plots that worked this way", whatever that means.
You stated "Real world plots don?t work like this" and the purpose of my question was to find out on what you based that claim. Telling me that you "don't know of no real-world plots that worked this way" is a meaningless statement which most certainly does not answer my question.
A conspiracy wanted to commit a crime. There were multiple opportunities to commit it. But they waited until the perfect patsy who just happened to be in the right place at the right time turned up.
Can you imagine a November 1963 CIA meeting with: ?OK. We have another motorcade going through Dallas. Give me a report on all people who work along the route. And have it on my desk by Monday morning.?
What is it with LNs and strawman arguments?
Where do you get that a conspiracy would have waited for the pefect patsy to be in the right place at the right time? Why do you assume that a conspiracy at that level (if there was one) would rely on just one scenario and just one possible patsy?
Some food for thought; eloborate magic tricks are impossible to understand and/or explain until they are explained to you and they suddenly become obvious and easy. What smoke and mirrors can't achieve, right?
-
The one dodging the question is you.
I asked you if you had much experience with "real world plots". I did not ask you about "plots that worked this way", whatever that means.
I have not been a part of any real-world plots. I have read about various conspiracies, but I don?t know of any that work the way you postulate, finding the perfect patsy by accident.
There, I have answered your question.
Now, stop dodging my Questions 1 and 2. Or are you going to dodge them by asking another question.
Question 1:
Name me one real world plot that did work this way. Bypassing opportunities time and time again until they somehow found the perfect patsy, within one month.
Question 2:
Name me one major CT book that makes this argument. That Oswald was not part of the plot all along but was chosen no earlier than mid-October 1963?
-
I have not been a part of any real-world plots. I have read about various conspiracies, but I don?t know of any that work the way you postulate, finding the perfect patsy by accident.
When did I ever postulate finding the perfect patsy by accident? If you don't understand what I have said, then please ask me and don't start making up your own versions of what you think it means what I have said.
There, I have answered your question.
Now, stop dodging my Questions 1 and 2. Or are you going to dodge them by asking another question.
Question 1:
Name me one real world plot that did work this way. Bypassing opportunities time and time again until they somehow found the perfect patsy, within one month.
Question 2:
Name me one major CT book that makes this argument. That Oswald was not part of the plot all along but was chosen no earlier than mid-October 1963?
I am not dodging your questions. They are too absurd and vague to be answered.
Name me one real world plot that did work this way. Bypassing opportunities time and time again until they somehow found the perfect patsy, within one month.
Why are you misrepresenting what I said? I have never claimed any plot worked that way, nor have I ever said a word about opportunities being bypassed. It's just another strawman.
Name me one major CT book that makes this argument.
What makes you assume that I read CT books? I don't!
That Oswald was not part of the plot all along but was chosen no earlier than mid-October 1963?
I never made such a claim, nor do I know of any book that makes such a claim. It's actually a claim that is way too vague to be taken seriously. What does "part of the plot" even mean?
-
A real world conspiracy to assassinate the US President.
John Wilkes Booth was employed at the Ford Theatre and collected his mail there.
Booth learned of Lincoln's attendance at the theatre that morning.....
The logic of the LN argument falls at the first hurdle.
-
On October 4, 1963, Oswald applied for a job as a ?typesetter trainee? at the Padgett Printing Company in Dallas and was turned down because (the bottom of the application reads) ?Bob Stovall [the president of Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall, where Oswald previously worked] does not recommend this man. He was released [there] because of his record as a troublemaker.? Stovall also informed Padgett that Oswald had ?communistic tendencies.?59
If Oswald was the scheduled hit man in a conspiracy to murder Kennedy, why would those behind him (CIA, mob, FBI, etc.) have him apply for a job just seven weeks before the assassination that wasn?t on the presidential motorcade route and would never be? Padgett Printing is located today where it was back in 1963, at 1313 North Industrial Boulevard in Dallas, a boulevard of light industry and no tall office buildings, where large crowds of people would be nonexistent. After the presidential limousine was scheduled to get off Elm Street onto the Stemmons Freeway en route to the Trade Mart, North Industrial Boulevard, to the west of the freeway, would be running roughly parallel to it, including the location at 1313 North Industrial Boulevard. However, per Dave Torok, president of Padgett Printing, the company?s building has always been only one story, and the Stemmons Freeway, he said, ?is a good half mile away, and you can?t see it from our building, even from the roof.?60
The point, of course, is that if Padgett Printing Company had hired Oswald on October 4, Kennedy would not have been a target for Oswald to shoot and kill on November 22. And if Oswald were scheduled to be the hit man for the conspiracy to murder Kennedy, why would his employers (CIA, mob, etc.) have him apply for a job that, if he were hired, would eliminate him as their chosen assassin?
But there?s more bad news for the poor, hapless conspiracy theorists, who would gladly settle for anything real, no matter how small, to keep their hopes alive, instead of getting hit with one haymaker after another to their dreams. On October 8, the Texas Employment Commission (TEC) sent Oswald out for a job interview at the Solid State Electronics Company of Texas. He didn?t get the job because the company was looking for a sales clerk, and he had no experience that qualified him for that position. ?I sure would like to have the job,? he told James Hunter of Solid State, who interviewed him. ?Every place I go they want experience.?61 And again, the problem for the theorists is that Solid State was located at 2647 Myrtle Springs in Dallas, out beyond Parkland Hospital and nowhere near the motorcade route.
The next day, October 9, the TEC sent Oswald to the Burton-Dixie Corporation for a job as a clerk trainee. Emmett Hobson at Burton-Dixie knows that the company didn?t hire Oswald, but told the FBI he didn?t recall why, and could not recall the background information Oswald had given him. Burton-Dixie was located at 817 Corinth in Dallas, an industrial area near Oak Cliff, which again, unfortunately for the buffs, was nowhere near the motorcade route.62 On October 14, Oswald applied for a job at the Wiener Lumber Company in Dallas. The proprietor, Sam Wiener, was impressed with Oswald as a prospective employee until Oswald was asked to show his Honorable Discharge Card, which Oswald, of course, was unable to do. In the ?Remarks? section of Oswald?s application, Wiener typed, ?Although this man makes an excellent appearance and seems quite intelligent he seemed unable to understand when I continually and clearly asked him for his honorable discharge card or papers for the latest (just ended) hitch. I believe he does not have [it] and will not get such a card or paper. Do not consider for this reason only.?
The lumber company was at the corner of Inwood Road and Maple Avenue, near Love Field, so was close to the motorcade route, but again, not on it. The closest that the president?s motorcade came to this location was at the intersection of Lemmon Avenue and Inwood Road, a little more than three-quarters of a mile from Wiener Lumber.63
Again, the fact, alone, that Oswald was applying for jobs up through October 14 at locations not on the motorcade route virtually precludes the notion of conspiracy among rational people.
RHVB
(https://s17.postimg.org/lj6p1hiz3/padgett_job_application.jpg)
JohnM
-
A real world conspiracy to assassinate the US President.
John Wilkes Booth was employed at the Ford Theatre and collected his mail there.
Booth learned of Lincoln's attendance at the theatre that morning.....
The logic of the LN argument falls at the first hurdle.
A false example. There was not a conspiracy to use John Wilkes Booth to assassinate President Lincoln. And then, after Booth was selected to be part of this conspiracy, he fell into a job at the Ford theatre, giving himself the perfect opportunity to murder President Lincoln.
Also, it is possible that one of the reasons Booth first thought about kidnapping and possibility killing President Lincoln was that he knew that his employment at Ford?s Theatre might someday provide him with a perfect opportunity. He surely knew that President Lincoln sometimes visited the Ford Theatre. Had he not been a famous actor, he, like thousands of others, may have hated Lincoln but maybe would never have taken any concrete steps to try to murder him.
The assassins Booth and Oswald were similar to each other. Each were lucky enough to have the President pass by or visit a place they worked at or used to work at. The only difference is that Booth had enough fame and wealth to recruit others into his plan, making it a conspiracy. But both were fundamentally ?Lone Nuts?. Except Booth, after first becoming a ?Lone Nut?, was able to recruit others.
-
The assassination took place at workplaces of the assassin. The decision to assassinate Lincoln at the Ford theatre only occurred hours before the assassination. It was a conspiracy.
-
Nothing has to add up for a closet CTer like Martin. Like Sgt. Schultz he feigns to know nothing about a conspiracy while taking issue with all the evidence against Oswald. Does he believe the evidence proves Oswald ordered a MC rifle and was sent such a rifle with a specific serial number in March '63? No. But here we learn he believes any conspiracy didn't begin before Oct '63. So all the allegedly faked documents and BY photos relating to the rifle are left unexplained. Martin is just playing the lazy contrarian always arguing the evidence is deficient to his impossible subjective standard of proof so he never has to support anything. It just happens that the evidence he takes issue with is always that of Oswald's guilt. When Marina looks into the blanket and says she saw a "rifle" Martin interprets this to mean she saw some unspecified object made of wood. LOL. You can't make that sort of nonsense up. But remember he is not alleging anything like a conspiracy that requires proof or at least a coherent narrative! Oswald apparently just has the worst luck of anyone in history to be caught up in this plot like Mr. Magoo while going about his life in blissful ignorance.
-
As I predicted, Martin Weidmann has dodge my two questions. So, I will answer them for him.
Question 1:
Name me one real world plot that did work this way. Bypassing opportunities time and time again until they somehow found the perfect patsy, within one month.
No, Martin cannot name another such murder plot. Where someone was first selected to take part in a murder plot. And then they lucked into a job that gave them a good opportunity to commit the murder. Nor can anyone else name one.
Colin presented the Lincoln assassination as such a case, but this is false. Booth was not selected to take part in a plot to murder President Lincoln. And then lucked into a job as an actor in the Ford Theatre. Presenting him with a perfect opportunity to murder the President.
Instead, things happened in this order:
1. Booth became a famous actor.
2. Lincoln was elected President.
3. Booth started acting, some of the time, within Washington D. C. Possibly, he could have chosen to act in other theatres, with other acting groups, but chose an acting company that performed in Washington D. C.
4. Booth used his past employment at the Ford Theatre to murder President Lincoln.
The only parallel is that Booth was part of a conspiracy, but Booth was the recruiter of others in a plot, first to kidnap Lincoln and later to murder him. He started out as a lone nut.
Neither Martin nor Colin has given an example, in all history, of a conspiracy to commit a murder, recruited the assassin and/or patsy, or multiple assassins and/or patsies and waited from one of them to luck into a job that gives them a good opportunity to murder the President, or to be framed for doing so.
Question 2:
Name me one major CT book that makes this argument. That Oswald was not part of the plot all along but was chosen no earlier than mid-October 1963?
No one has come up with such a book.
Basically, CTers argue that Oswald was part of the conspiracy for several years. In the Marines, sent to the U. S. S. R., ordered to do suspicious things once he returned. But, when problems come up with his, they temporarily suggest that he was, or perhaps was, selected as part of the conspiracy a month before the assassination.
Honest arguments don?t argue things both ways. They have simply present the most likely scenario. And stick to it.
But if no good scenario can be found, they develop arguments that have schizophrenia. There is no solid scenario. Scenario A is first presented. When problems are pointed out to it, they switch to Scenario B. When problems are point out to it, they switch back to Scenario A.
Hence, after over 50 years, CTers have no coherent scenario. Oswald was part of this conspiracy for months or years. Although, to deal with logical problems with this, one could temporarily adopt the position that maybe he wasn?t. But basically, think that he was, or probably was.
-
Nothing has to add up for a closet CTer like Martin. Like Sgt. Schultz he feigns to know nothing about a conspiracy while taking issue with all the evidence against Oswald. Does he believe the evidence proves Oswald ordered a MC rifle and was sent such a rifle with a specific serial number in March '63? No. But here we learn he believes any conspiracy didn't begin before Oct '63. So all the allegedly faked documents and BY photos relating to the rifle are left unexplained. Martin is just playing the lazy contrarian always arguing the evidence is deficient to his impossible subjective standard of proof so he never has to support anything. It just happens that the evidence he takes issue with is always that of Oswald's guilt. When Marina looks into the blanket and says she saw a "rifle" Martin interprets this to mean she saw some unspecified object made of wood. LOL. You can't make that sort of nonsense up. But remember he is not alleging anything like a conspiracy that requires proof or at least a coherent narrative! Oswald apparently just has the worst luck of anyone in history to be caught up in this plot like Mr. Magoo while going about his life in blissful ignorance.
But here we learn he believes any conspiracy didn't begin before Oct '63.
There are two possibilities here; either you have great difficulty understanding what I have written or you are just a plain liar who makes up stuff. Either way; I never said it.
BY photos relating to the rifle are left unexplained.
Another lie. I am on record as saying that I believe the BY photos are probably authentic. Since I am no photographic expert and never saw the originals of the photos, that's the best I can conclude. I just don't attach the same significance to the photos as you do.
always arguing the evidence is deficient to his impossible subjective standard of proof so he never has to support anything. It just happens that the evidence he takes issue with is always that of Oswald's guilt.
I am not here to support anything. I don't have a theory, I don't really care if Oswald did it, did it alone or if there was a conspiracy and the evidence being discussed here just happens to be predominantly material used to support the claim of Oswald's guilt. You just don't like that I find the evidence less persuasive than you do. But truth be told, your constant complaining like a cry-baby that I do not agree with you is getting pretty tiresome.
When Marina looks into the blanket and says she saw a "rifle" Martin interprets this to mean she saw some unspecified object made of wood. LOL.
Another misrepresentation, or shall I just call them outright lies from now on. I don't interpret anything of the kind.
In her testimony, Marina was told there was a rifle in the blanket. Rankin treated it as a given;
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that 1 was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, 1 saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.
Marina herself saw the wooden part of it. I just take her by her word.
But remember he is not alleging anything like a conspiracy that requires proof or at least a coherent narrative!
At least I don't have to lie or misrepresent stuff, as you do constantly.
-
When Marina looks into the blanket and says she saw a "rifle" Martin interprets this to mean she saw some unspecified object made of wood. LOL.
Another misrepresentation, or shall I just call them outright lies from now on. I don't interpret anything of the kind.
In her testimony, Marina was told there was a rifle in the blanket. Rankin treated it as a given;
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that 1 was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, 1 saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.
Marina herself saw the wooden part of it. I just take her by her word.
A rifle?
(https://s17.postimg.org/6gz250t3j/end_oswald_rifle.jpg)
A rifle?
(https://media.suthlbr.com/images/thumbnails/1500x1500/100/2X4_SPF.jpg)
JohnM
-
As I predicted, Martin Weidmann has dodge my two questions. So, I will answer them for him.
Question 1:
Name me one real world plot that did work this way. Bypassing opportunities time and time again until they somehow found the perfect patsy, within one month.
No, Martin cannot name another such murder plot. Where someone was first selected to take part in a murder plot. And then they lucked into a job that gave them a good opportunity to commit the murder. Nor can anyone else name one.
Colin presented the Lincoln assassination as such a case, but this is false. Booth was not selected to take part in a plot to murder President Lincoln. And then lucked into a job as an actor in the Ford Theatre. Presenting him with a perfect opportunity to murder the President.
Instead, things happened in this order:
1. Booth became a famous actor.
2. Lincoln was elected President.
3. Booth started acting, some of the time, within Washington D. C. Possibly, he could have chosen to act in other theatres, with other acting groups, but chose an acting company that performed in Washington D. C.
4. Booth used his past employment at the Ford Theatre to murder President Lincoln.
The only parallel is that Booth was part of a conspiracy, but Booth was the recruiter of others in a plot, first to kidnap Lincoln and later to murder him. He started out as a lone nut.
Neither Martin nor Colin has given an example, in all history, of a conspiracy to commit a murder, recruited the assassin and/or patsy, or multiple assassins and/or patsies and waited from one of them to luck into a job that gives them a good opportunity to murder the President, or to be framed for doing so.
Question 2:
Name me one major CT book that makes this argument. That Oswald was not part of the plot all along but was chosen no earlier than mid-October 1963?
No one has come up with such a book.
Basically, CTers argue that Oswald was part of the conspiracy for several years. In the Marines, sent to the U. S. S. R., ordered to do suspicious things once he returned. But, when problems come up with his, they temporarily suggest that he was, or perhaps was, selected as part of the conspiracy a month before the assassination.
Honest arguments don?t argue things both ways. They have simply present the most likely scenario. And stick to it.
But if no good scenario can be found, they develop arguments that have schizophrenia. There is no solid scenario. Scenario A is first presented. When problems are pointed out to it, they switch to Scenario B. When problems are point out to it, they switch back to Scenario A.
Hence, after over 50 years, CTers have no coherent scenario. Oswald was part of this conspiracy for months or years. Although, to deal with logical problems with this, one could temporarily adopt the position that maybe he wasn?t. But basically, think that he was, or probably was.
As expected, you are having a conversation with yourself, repeating the same thing over and over again, and simply ignore what I have written in my reply. You are just playing pathetic games, asking nonsensical strawman questions and expecting a comprehensive reply on your terms, when you can't even define the term "part of a conspiracy".
-
As expected, you are having a conversation with yourself, repeating the same thing over and over again, and simply ignore what I have written in my reply. You are just playing pathetic games, asking nonsensical strawman questions and expecting a comprehensive reply on your terms, when you can't even define the term "part of a conspiracy".
Of course, people will repeat themselves when you dodge their questions. So, I will ask again, at the risk of repeating myself, when are you going to answer my questions one and two?
What does ?part of a conspiracy? mean? With Oswald it means that Oswald was selected, unknowing or unknowingly to by the assassin or patsy in the conspiracy to murder President Kennedy.
In the case of any conspiracy it means someone who was selected to take part in it, to help the conspiracy to succeed or to act as a patsy. Such a person would be ?part of the conspiracy? whether they knew it or not.
-
In her testimony, Marina was told there was a rifle in the blanket. Rankin treated it as a given;
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that 1 was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, 1 saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.
Marina herself saw the wooden part of it. I just take her by her word.
This is rich. Martin still implying that Marina saw something other than a rifle by quoting her testimony in which she says that "I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle." A "rifle"! Not just an object made of wood like your head. Marina is "told" there was a rifle in the blanket and that is why she repeatedly affirms it was a rifle instead of saying I just saw a piece of wood? This is the same blanket that she directs the DPD to on Nov. 22 (long before her WC testimony) when asked if Oswald has a rifle. Why would Marina direct the DPD to the blanket when asked about - wait for it - A RIFLE if she thought it only contained some unspecified object made of wood? This kind of lazy disbarred defense attorney tactic is what you get from Martin and John I.
-
This is rich. Martin still implying that Marina saw something other than a rifle by quoting her testimony in which she says that "I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle." A "rifle"! Not just an object made of wood like your head. Marina is "told" there was a rifle in the blanket and that is why she repeatedly affirms it was a rifle instead of saying I just saw a piece of wood? This is the same blanket that she directs the DPD to on Nov. 22 (long before her WC testimony) when asked if Oswald has a rifle. Why would Marina direct the DPD to the blanket when asked about - wait for it - A RIFLE if she thought it only contained some unspecified object made of wood? This kind of lazy disbarred defense attorney tactic is what you get from Martin and John I.
Let's make this as easy to comprehend as possible for you.
This is rich. Martin still implying that Marina saw something other than a rifle by quoting her testimony in which she says that "I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle." A "rifle"! Not just an object made of wood like your head.
No, Martin is not implying anything. Martin is quoting from Marina's testimony in which she explains what she actually saw. It was Rankin who asked her a loaded question to which she responded with the line you selectively have quoted. However - what you being your usual dishonest self fail to mention - she becomes more specific after yet another loaded question from Rankin, by explaning what she actually saw, being the "wooden part of it".
Marina is "told" there was a rifle in the blanket and that is why she repeatedly affirms it was a rifle instead of saying I just saw a piece of wood?
You can read, can't you? Or... on second thought, perhaps not. It was obvious that by the time of her testimony Marina, based upon what she was told by investigators and the media, was convinced her husband was the gunman and so it must have been a rifle in the blanket. Do you really expect her to correct Rankin every time he brings up the rifle? You really are so gullible, it's beyond pathetic.
This is the same blanket that she directs the DPD to on Nov. 22 (long before her WC testimony) when asked if Oswald has a rifle. Why would Marina direct the DPD to the blanket when asked about - wait for it - A RIFLE if she thought it only contained some unspecified object made of wood?
Really? So why didn't she confirm in her DPD affidavit that same day that Oswald owned a rifle? She talks about a rifle he owned in Russia and does not recognize the rifle shown to her. In reality it was Ruth (I've been expecting you, officers) Paine who "translated" and told the officers about the blanket.
This kind of lazy disbarred defense attorney tactic is what you get from Martin and John I.
Still beats the crap out of your misrepresentations, strawman arguments and outright lies!
-
Let's make this as easy to comprehend as possible for you.
This is rich. Martin still implying that Marina saw something other than a rifle by quoting her testimony in which she says that "I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle." A "rifle"! Not just an object made of wood like your head.
No, Martin is not implying anything. Martin is quoting from Marina's testimony in which she explains what she actually saw. It was Rankin who asked her a loaded question to which she responded with the line you selectively have quoted. However - what you being your usual dishonest self fail to mention - she becomes more specific after yet another loaded question from Rankin, by explaning what she actually saw, being the "wooden part of it".
Marina is "told" there was a rifle in the blanket and that is why she repeatedly affirms it was a rifle instead of saying I just saw a piece of wood?
You can read, can't you? Or... on second thought, perhaps not. It was obvious that by the time of her testimony Marina, based upon what she was told by investigators and the media, was convinced her husband was the gunman and so it must have been a rifle in the blanket. Do you really expect her to correct Rankin every time he brings up the rifle? You really are so gullible, it's beyond pathetic.
This is the same blanket that she directs the DPD to on Nov. 22 (long before her WC testimony) when asked if Oswald has a rifle. Why would Marina direct the DPD to the blanket when asked about - wait for it - A RIFLE if she thought it only contained some unspecified object made of wood?
Really? So why didn't she confirm in her DPD affidavit that same day that Oswald owned a rifle? She talks about a rifle he owned in Russia and does not recognize the rifle shown to her. In reality it was Ruth (I've been expecting you, officers) Paine who "translated" and told the officers about the blanket.
This kind of lazy disbarred defense attorney tactic is what you get from Martin and John I.
Still beats the crap out of your misrepresentations, strawman arguments and outright lies!
More nonsense and shell game. Let's try again. Forget Rankin. Marina was asked on Nov. 22 (long before Rankin or anyone else could have"told" her that her husband owned a rifle) if her husband owned a rifle and she directed the DPD to the blanket because that is where she knew he kept his rifle. There is no reasonable explanation for her having done this on Nov. 22 just hours after the assassination unless she had reason to believe herself that is where Oswald kept his rifle. And why would she come to this conclusion? Because she had looked into the blanket and "saw a rifle." To interpret that any other way is the height of the silly, contrarian defense attorney approach you have taken to this case. What you are suggesting doesn't even make chronological sense. She confirms the rifle was kept in the blanket on Nov. 22, but your silly explanation is that she was convinced of this months later.
-
To get back to the OP. In order for there to be some type of conspiracy here then the following must have been in on the plot. Buell Frazier since he starts the TSBD chain by getting a job there. Linnie Randle his sister since she takes Frazier in and conveys the job opening to Ruth/Marina. Ruth Paine since she agrees to move into a house near LR and take in Oswald's family. Marina since she agrees to move in with Paine. Oswald himself since he accepts the job. Roy Truly since he offers Oswald the job and retains him until the assassination. Secret service agents since they must confirm a route that passes the TSBD. Some high ranking members of the government to ensure that JFK even comes to Dallas. And that is just to get this set up. It doesn't even get into the framing, cover up, actual hit team etc. But no one is suggesting a vast conspiracy - right?
-
More nonsense and shell game. Let's try again. Forget Rankin. Marina was asked on Nov. 22 (long before Rankin or anyone else could have"told" her that her husband owned a rifle) if her husband owned a rifle and she directed the DPD to the blanket because that is where she knew he kept his rifle. There is no reasonable explanation for her having done this on Nov. 22 just hours after the assassination unless she had reason to believe herself that is where Oswald kept his rifle. And why would she come to this conclusion? Because she had looked into the blanket and "saw a rifle." To interpret that any other way is the height of the silly, contrarian defense attorney approach you have taken to this case. What you are suggesting doesn't even make chronological sense. She confirms the rifle was kept in the blanket on Nov. 22, but your silly explanation is that she was convinced of this months later.
Never mind that she did not confirm Oswald owned a rifle in her DPD affidavit and did not recognize the rifle when it was shown to her, right?
Shall we just overlook that as well, Richard?
-
Never mind that she did not confirm Oswald owned a rifle in her DPD affidavit and did not recognize the rifle when it was shown to her, right?
Shall we just overlook that as well, Richard?
Weak response Martin. The question for you is, "do you dispute how Oswald got the job at the TSBD?" Do you understand the importance of that? That was a powerful response by Richard and now I know who he is. And I know why you guys say the things you do about him. You are weak and the CTers have no evidence at all. I don't know what you do for a living but it better not involve having some common sense, logic or critical thinking. Most of the CTers have zero deductive reasoning skills. The shear magnitude of what it would take to set-up a conspiracy, as you and the CTers claim, is unsustainable. It all falls apart after a minutes scrutiny. I would love to have Oswald in the hot seat at court. At the end of it, I would pin the bag, the rifle, the revolver, the bullet, the fragments, the shell casings, the documents, proving Oswald's ownership of the weapons, and the eye witness testimonies, right to little old Oswaldovich's head. And after the defense, blew all the smoke and put up all the mirrors, the jury would see that they had zero, physical, or ballistic evidence to support their defense. It is hilarious.
-
Weak response Martin. The question for you is, "do you dispute how Oswald got the job at the TSBD?" Do you understand the importance of that? That was a powerful response by Richard and now I know who he is. And I know why you guys say the things you do about him. You are weak and the CTers have no evidence at all. I don't know what you do for a living but it better not involve having some common sense, logic or critical thinking. Most of the CTers have zero deductive reasoning skills. The shear magnitude of what it would take to set-up a conspiracy, as you and the CTers claim, is unsustainable. It all falls apart after a minutes scrutiny. I would love to have Oswald in the hot seat at court. At the end of it, I would pin the bag, the rifle, the revolver, the bullet, the fragments, the shell casings, the documents, proving Oswald's ownership of the weapons, and the eye witness testimonies, right to little old Oswaldovich's head. And after the defense, blew all the smoke and put up all the mirrors, the jury would see that they had zero, physical, or ballistic evidence to support their defense. It is hilarious.
Oh great... another misguided "king of assumption and speculation" who thinks he knows what would have happened at a trial that will never take place and now he starts to do John "powerful evidence" Mytton imitations as well. Great stuff....
Weak response Martin.
You know what's really weak?.... Not having a response to a comment you call weak.
The shear magnitude of what it would take to set-up a conspiracy, as you and the CTers claim, is unsustainable.
What conspiracy do I claim? Pray tell....
-
"JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE
Why He Died And Why It Matters"
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."
-snip-
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/oct_63-08.jpg)
-
Oh great... another misguided "king of assumption and speculation" who thinks he knows what would have happened at a trial that will never take place and now he starts to do John "powerful evidence" Mytton imitations as well. Great stuff....
Weak response Martin.
You know what's really weak?.... Not having a response to a comment you call weak.
The shear magnitude of what it would take to set-up a conspiracy, as you and the CTers claim, is unsustainable.
What conspiracy do I claim? Pray tell....
Martin, you just keep telling yourself you don't believe in a conspiracy. Do you ever question the information (can't call it evidence) from any of the dozens of conspiracy theories? I'm just curious. And by the way you ducked the question again. How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD? If you disagree with how I said he did get the job, then say so. And then tell me how you say he got the job. If you agree with how I say he got the job, then you have a long way to go to explain how this conspiracy plan that you mentioned in an earlier post take place?
-
Martin, you seem to be a little bit agitated. You can get through it.
Funny... The truth is I just don't like guys much who think they know it all.
Actually I play a real good game of chess.
So far, there hasn't been much evidence of it on this board. You seem to plan ahead no more than one reply (which you likely have already prepared) when you ask a (mostly loaded) question. Considering options doesn't seem to be your forte.
But, then again, overestimation isn't uncommon amongst LNs...
You really need to stop being in denial and except that you are a CT buff.
Do you need this kind of crap to boost your ego?
My mistake Martin. You are correct. You didn't say "open ended questions" you said loaded questions. How are my questions loaded? They are very logical questions to ask. Explain to me how asking how he got the job at the TSBD is loaded? Now when you said it could have been a "master plan" in place that had failed in Chicago and Miami, could you explain that. Did you mean a few days before he went to Texas?
-
Martin, you just keep telling yourself you don't believe in a conspiracy. Do you ever question the information (can't call it evidence) from any of the dozens of conspiracy theories? I'm just curious. And by the way you ducked the question again. How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD? If you disagree with how I said he did get the job, then say so. And then tell me how you say he got the job. If you agree with how I say he got the job, then you have a long way to go to explain how this conspiracy plan that you mentioned in an earlier post take place?
Martin, you just keep telling yourself you don't believe in a conspiracy.
I don't need to, for one simple reason; I do in fact believe a conspiracy could have occurred, but I also consider it possible that Oswald did indeed do it alone. My problem is with the weak, predominantly circumstantial, case against him. The weaker that case is, the more likely becomes a cover up (to wrap the case around Oswald regardless of his guilt or innocence) or the possibility of a conspiracy.
Do you ever question the information (can't call it evidence) from any of the dozens of conspiracy theories?
I have in fact dismissed the majority of conspiracy theories as being too wacky or not credible. And for your information; everything that's used in support of a claim is in fact evidence, regardless if you want to call it that or not. Just not all of it is actually proof.
And by the way you ducked the question again. How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD? If you disagree with how I said he did get the job, then say so. And then tell me how you say he got the job.
Unlike you, I find it completely insignificant how Oswald got his job, but if it makes you happy, I think it's unlikely it was arranged by any third party.
If you agree with how I say he got the job, then you have a long way to go to explain how this conspiracy plan that you mentioned in an earlier post take place?
I have nothing of the kind to explain to you. My basic premise is that if there was indeed a conspiracy, it would have been executed in a way that stayed as close to the truth as possible and was adapted to the actual situation.
Btw what conspiracy plan did I mention in an earlier post?
-
Never mind that she did not confirm Oswald owned a rifle in her DPD affidavit and did not recognize the rifle when it was shown to her, right?
Shall we just overlook that as well, Richard?
Never mind that Marina testified that she doesn't know one rifle from another in the first place. Never mind that an affidavit is not a Q&A. Never mind that Marina confirmed that the rifle in the blanket she knew to be theirs was missing on 11.22.63
-
Ray, he may not even have been put there on purpose.
Who said that a conspiracy already had a solid and completely worked out plan in mind, months, or even weeks, prior to the assassination? Yet, that's what LNs seem to imply. If there was a conspiracy, there may well have been some sort of master plan in place, known to only a few people and able to be put into action at short notice based upon the actual circumstances at the time.
There are those who believe there had already been two previous attempts to execute the plan, in Miami and Chicago, which both failed. Perhaps it was just a case of third time lucky with all the variables falling into place in Dallas.
" If there was a conspiracy, there may well have been some sort of master plan in place"
"master plan"?
Okay, Martin I won't accuse you of being a CTer anymore. If Oswald was not placed in employment at the TSBD by a conspirator, conspirators, government agency, or madmen, then they would have had a huge problem of including LHO in their "master plan". And I don't see why you are claiming the evidence against Oswald is weak.
"Unlike you, I find it completely insignificant how Oswald got his job, but if it makes you happy, I don't think it was arranged by conspirators."
By you saying that it takes a lot for a conspiracy to be involved. President Kennedy is the one that decided to go to Dallas against the advice of Vice President Johnson and Governor Connally. That alone kind of kills the "LBJ did it" theory. Logistically Martin it is just not believable. Let's take a look:
1. The master plan would have had to know about Oswald in the first place.
2. They would have had to know he bought a rifle.
3. They would have had to know he owned a revolver.
4. They would have had to know he was going to work that day. What if he called in sick?
5. They would have had to know where he lived and where his wife lived and that he went to see her there.
6. They would have had to know he was going to Ruth's on Thursday instead of Friday. They would have had to steal Oswald's rifle.
7. They would have had to know he kept his rifle at Ruth Paine's house in the garage. (I know CTers like to claim the rifle wasn't linked to him but it was Martin).
8. They would have had to sneak someone into the TSBD that day to fire from the 6th floor window. (do you dispute that there were shots fired from that window?) No one at the TSBD reported any strange men in the building that day.
I could add some more. Now let's look at the "why questions" that concern logic and deductive reasoning.
1. Why did Lee go to Ruth Paine's on Thursday?
2. Why did he tell Frazier he had curtain rods in the package he had with him?
3. Why did he tell Capt. Fritz that he had lunch on the first floor? (circumstantial evidence as you call it) indicates he lied.
4. Why did he tell Capt. Fritz he had his lunch in the bag when he told Frazier it was curtain rods?
5. Why was he the only employee that left the TSBD that day. Cters claim he wasn't the only to leave. Maybe so, but they came back, Oswald didn't.
6. Logically speaking why would someone after being close to such a historical event, as the assassination of a president, right in front of were they worked, go home get his revolver and then go to a movie? You can't sell that one.
7. Why did these conspirators kill JD Tippit? They could not have known that Oswald would even leave the building!! No one will ever make me believe that one.
8. Why did the conspirators let Oswald roam around the TSBD where he could be seen which would kill their plan dead? Very funny.
9. Why did said conspirators let Oswald leave in the first place where he fell into police hands for two days of questioning? Now they have to have Ruby ready to go.
10. The conspirators could not have known what wounds would have been on the president's body to have some team ready to go to kidnap the president's body so they could alter it.
11. How did the conspirators know that the autopsy was not going to be done at Parkland by Dr. Rose?
12 How did the conspirators know that the autopsy was not going to be done at Walter Reed instead of at Bethesda? Mrs. Kennedy was the one who wanted that. That means two teams of Dr.'s ready and willing to implicate themselves in the murder of JFK. And why were Humes, Boswell, and Finck left alive???
Martin I could go on but I'm sure you see the point. All of these things require men on the ground plotting and manipulating everything. It would have taken a small army to get it done. And all of them would have had to keep their mouths shut. And these conspirators would have had to do this all unseen by anyone in Dallas. It is ridiculous to even ponder.
-
Never mind that Marina testified that she doesn't know one rifle from another in the first place. Never mind that an affidavit is not a Q&A. Never mind that Marina confirmed that the rifle in the blanket she knew to theirs was missing the morning of 11.22.63
Never mind that Marina testified that she doesn't know one rifle from another in the first place.
Which still does not explain why she did not confirm that Oswald owned a rifle, when asked by DPD officers on Friday night? Come to think of it, why ask such a question if Marina had indeed pointed police officers to the blanket. On the other hand, if it was Ruth Paine who pointed the officers to the blanket, the question put to Marina is understandable.
Never mind that an affidavit is not a Q&A.
Doesn't matter. It is a statement under oath and the result of questions asked by officers and/or the notary. But if you want to play that game; never mind that hearing testimony from witnesses who were prepped in advance without any kind of cross-examination isn't much better.
Never mind that Marina confirmed that the rifle in the blanket she knew to theirs was missing the morning of 11.22.63
So what? Did she also confirm that the rifle was still in the blanket a day earlier? If not, her confirmation of the obvious fact that a blanket was empty is meaningless.
-
" If there was a conspiracy, there may well have been some sort of master plan in place"
"master plan"?
Okay, Martin I won't accuse you of being a CTer anymore. If Oswald was not placed in employment at the TSBD by a conspirator, conspirators, government agency, or madmen, then they would have had a huge problem of including LHO in their "master plan". And I don't see why you are claiming the evidence against Oswald is weak.
"Unlike you, I find it completely insignificant how Oswald got his job, but if it makes you happy, I don't think it was arranged by conspirators."
By you saying that it takes a lot for a conspiracy to be involved. President Kennedy is the one that decided to go to Dallas against the advice of Vice President Johnson and Governor Connally. That alone kind of kills the "LBJ did it" theory. Logistically Martin it is just not believable. Let's take a look:
1. The master plan would have had to know about Oswald in the first place.
2. They would have had to know he bought a rifle.
3. They would have had to know he owned a revolver.
4. They would have had to know he was going to work that day. What if he called in sick?
5. They would have had to know where he lived and where his wife lived and that he went to see her there.
6. They would have had to know he was going to Ruth's on Thursday instead of Friday. They would have had to steal Oswald's rifle.
7. They would have had to know he kept his rifle at Ruth Paine's house in the garage. (I know CTers like to claim the rifle wasn't linked to him but it was Martin).
8. They would have had to sneak someone into the TSBD that day to fire from the 6th floor window. (do you dispute that there were shots fired from that window?) No one at the TSBD reported any strange men in the building that day.
I could add some more. Now let's look at the "why questions" that concern logic and deductive reasoning.
1. Why did Lee go to Ruth Paine's on Thursday?
2. Why did he tell Frazier he had curtain rods in the package he had with him?
3. Why did he tell Capt. Fritz that he had lunch on the first floor? (circumstantial evidence as you call it) indicates he lied.
4. Why did he tell Capt. Fritz he had his lunch in the bag when he told Frazier it was curtain rods?
5. Why was he the only employee that left the TSBD that day. Cters claim he wasn't the only to leave. Maybe so, but they came back, Oswald didn't.
6. Logically speaking why would someone after being close to such a historical event, as the assassination of a president, right in front of were they worked, go home get his revolver and then go to a movie? You can't sell that one.
7. Why did these conspirators kill JD Tippit? They could not have known that Oswald would even leave the building!! No one will ever make me believe that one.
8. Why did the conspirators let Oswald roam around the TSBD where he could be seen which would kill their plan dead? Very funny.
9. Why did said conspirators let Oswald leave in the first place where he fell into police hands for two days of questioning? Now they have to have Ruby ready to go.
10. The conspirators could not have known what wounds would have been on the president's body to have some team ready to go to kidnap the president's body so they could alter it.
11. How did the conspirators know that the autopsy was not going to be done at Parkland by Dr. Rose?
12 How did the conspirators know that the autopsy was not going to be done at Walter Reed instead of at Bethesda? Mrs. Kennedy was the one who wanted that. That means two teams of Dr.'s ready and willing to implicate themselves in the murder of JFK. And why were Humes, Boswell, and Finck left alive???
Martin I could go on but I'm sure you see the point. All of these things require men on the ground plotting and manipulating everything. It would have taken a small army to get it done. And all of them would have had to keep their mouths shut. And these conspirators would have had to do this all unseen by anyone in Dallas. It is ridiculous to even ponder.
You seem to be overthinking the whole thing to be able to reach your pre-determined conclusion.
What is it that scares you so much in the possibility of a conspiracy?
In any event, you are asking way too many questions for me to answer in one post. Most have been discussed (and no doubt will be again) on this board and I am sure different people have different answers to them. As for me, I think you are asking all the wrong questions.
If Oswald was not placed in employment at the TSBD by a conspirator, conspirators, government agency, or madmen, then they would have had a huge problem of including LHO in their "master plan".
I don't see why. Alternative arrangement could have been made. Do you think it would have been impossible to get Oswald where they wanted him to be, regardless of where he worked?
And I don't see why you are claiming the evidence against Oswald is weak.
Because it is.... too many witnesses need to be mistaken, too many "honest mistakes" and contradictions need to be overlooked and too many assumptions have to be spot on to make the official narrative work. There isn't a single piece of physical evidence that isn't tainted in one way or another.
By you saying that it takes a lot for a conspiracy to be involved. President Kennedy is the one that decided to go to Dallas against the advice of Vice President Johnson and Governor Connally. That alone kind of kills the "LBJ did it" theory.
Not necessarily. I think you are jumping to a conclusion without thinking it through. If there was a conspiracy, what makes you think the only option was in Dallas?
-
You seem to be overthinking the whole thing to be able to reach your pre-determined conclusion.
What is it that scares you so much in the possibility of a conspiracy?
In any event, you are asking way too many questions for me to answer in one post. Most have been discussed (and no doubt will be again) on this board and I am sure different people have different answers to them. As for me, I think you are asking all the wrong questions.
If Oswald was not placed in employment at the TSBD by a conspirator, conspirators, government agency, or madmen, then they would have had a huge problem of including LHO in their "master plan".
I don't see why. Alternative arrangement could have been made. Do you think it would have been impossible to get Oswald where they wanted him to be, regardless of where he worked?
And I don't see why you are claiming the evidence against Oswald is weak.
Because it is.... too many witnesses need to be mistaken, too many "honest mistakes" and contradictions need to be overlooked and too many assumptions have to be spot on to make the official narrative work. There isn't a single piece of physical evidence that isn't tainted in one way or another.
By you saying that it takes a lot for a conspiracy to be involved. President Kennedy is the one that decided to go to Dallas against the advice of Vice President Johnson and Governor Connally. That alone kind of kills the "LBJ did it" theory.
Not necessarily. I think you are jumping to a conclusion without thinking it through. If there was a conspiracy, what makes you think the only option was in Dallas?
Martin you seem to not want to come to grips that it looks pretty bad for Oswald.
"There isn't a single piece of physical evidence that isn't tainted in one way or another."
Okay, are you saying Oswald did not own a rifle (the rifle was linked to Oswald you say it's tainted how)? I have thought all of this through very carefully. Marina confirmed by her statements that Lee owned a rifle and that she took the photo of him holding it. Do you call her a liar? Give me one instance that supports there were people manipulating Oswald to frame him. Got anything? Can you name any piece of physical evidence to support a conspiracy theory?
-
Martin you seem to not want to come to grips that it looks pretty bad for Oswald.
"There isn't a single piece of physical evidence that isn't tainted in one way or another."
Okay, are you saying Oswald did not own a rifle (the rifle was linked to Oswald you say it's tainted how)? I have thought all of this through very carefully. Marina confirmed by her statements that Lee owned a rifle and that she took the photo of him holding it. Do you call her a liar? Give me one instance that supports there were people manipulating Oswald to frame him. Got anything? Can you name any piece of physical evidence to support a conspiracy theory?
Martin you seem to not want to come to grips that it looks pretty bad for Oswald.
What looks bad for Oswald? The official narrative? Of course it does, at least on a superficial level. But IMO that's what it was made for. The bigger question should be if the narrative is truthful and conclusive upon closer inspection, and I don't think it is. Way too many loose ends and unanswered questions....
Okay, are you saying Oswald did not own a rifle (the rifle was linked to Oswald you say it's tainted how)?
I don't know if he owned a rifle or not. I find the Klein's paperwork not credible enough to support the conclusion that Oswald owned a rifle, but that does not preclude that he might have had a rifle at some point in time.
Marina confirmed by her statements that Lee owned a rifle and that she took the photo of him holding it. Do you call her a liar?
I don't have to call Marina a liar. She confirmed herself that she had lied to investigators. That should have been a red flag, but somehow it wasn't. They probably needed her testimony too desperately to care.
Marina did confirm that she took the photo(s), but even if we disregard that she did not know how the camera worked and got the numbers of photos she took wrong as well, what does a photo taken of Oswald holding a rifle in late March 1963 prove to you? I was once photographed holding a rifle... Do you think that means I owned that weapon?
Give me one instance that supports there were people manipulating Oswald to frame him. Got anything? Can you name any piece of physical evidence to support a conspiracy theory?
There you go again with the loaded questions. There are some pieces of physical evidence (and the handling of them) that give me cause to wonder, but whether they sufficiently support a conspiracy theory is another matter.
-
Martin you seem to not want to come to grips that it looks pretty bad for Oswald.
What looks bad for Oswald? The official narrative? Of course it does, at least on a superficial level. But IMO that's what it was made for. The bigger question should be if the narrative truthful and conclusive upon closer inspection, and I don't think it is. Way too many loose ends and unanswered questions....
Okay, are you saying Oswald did not own a rifle (the rifle was linked to Oswald you say it's tainted how)?
I don't know if he owned a rifle or not. I find the Klein's paperwork not credible enough to support the conclusion that Oswald owned a rifle, but that does not preclude that he might have had a rifle at some point in time.
Marina confirmed by her statements that Lee owned a rifle and that she took the photo of him holding it. Do you call her a liar?
I don't have to call Marina a liar. She confirmed herself that she had lied to investigators. That should have been a red flag, but somehow it wasn't. They probably needed her testimony too desperately to care.
Marina did confirm that she took the photo(s), but even if we disregard that she did not know how the camera worked and got the numbers of photos she took wrong as well, what does a photo taken of Oswald holding a rifle in late March 1963 prove to you?
Give me one instance that supports there were people manipulating Oswald to frame him. Got anything? Can you name any piece of physical evidence to support a conspiracy theory?
There you go again with the loaded questions. There are some pieces of physical evidence (and the handling of them) that give me cause to wonder, but whether they sufficiently support a conspiracy theory is another matter.
Okay Martin just keep questioning every little piece of evidence. As for the photo it shows Oswald had a rifle and revolver.
-
Okay Martin just keep questioning every little piece of evidence. As for the photo it shows Oswald had a rifle and revolver.
just keep questioning every little piece of evidence.
Is it your position that evidence, no matter how small, should not be examined and questioned?
As for the photo it shows Oswald had a rifle and revolver.
I was once photographed with a rifle. Do you think that means I owned that rifle?
-
The assassination took place at workplaces of the assassin. The decision to assassinate Lincoln at the Ford theatre only occurred hours before the assassination. It was a conspiracy.
The assassination took place at workplaces of the assassin.
So Lee Oswald assassinated President Kennedy from his workplace?
-
A rifle?
(https://s17.postimg.org/6gz250t3j/end_oswald_rifle.jpg)
A rifle?
(https://media.suthlbr.com/images/thumbnails/1500x1500/100/2X4_SPF.jpg)
JohnM
(https://i.imgur.com/7Fp3t2Q.jpg)
-
What conspiracy do I claim? Pray tell....
Are the Dallas Police tapes authentic?
-
So Lee Oswald assassinated President Kennedy from his workplace?
I am not sure Bill. He may have. I was using the official versions of both assassinations to hilight the fallacy of Joe's assumptions.
Certainly if you have anything more I am more than willing to be convinced. Then again conspiracy does not require Oswald not to be the shooter, does it?
-
I am not sure Bill. He may have. I was using the official versions of both assassinations to hilight the fallacy of Joe's assumptions.
Certainly if you have anything more I am more than willing to be convinced. Then again conspiracy does not require Oswald not to be the shooter, does it?
There are no fallacies in my argument. Only yours.
Question:
Is the Booth assassination of Lincoln an example of a conspiracy where Booth was selected to take part, the other conspirators waited until Booth lucked into a job that gave him a good chance to assassinate the President and then assassinated the President?
Answer:
No.
Booth was an actor before he thought of kidnapping or killing Lincoln. Booth was an actor before Lincoln was elected President. There were thousands of men in the Washington D. C. area who hated Lincoln. Booth, unlike the other thousands, may have started to think about kidnapping or murdering Lincoln because he knew that Lincoln sometimes visited the place he had worked in, the Ford?s Theatre. Booth lucked into a job that allowed him a good chance to kill the President before there was a conspiracy.
Question:
Can you name a single instance, that a conspiracy chose a participant in an assassination, and waited for that participant to luck unto a job putting him in a good position to commit the murder? And then had him commit the murder or to serve as a patsy.
Don?t re-word the question to something like, ?Can you think of an example that a Lone Nut happened to work in the same place the President often visited, and decided to murder the President, and then recruited others, making it a conspiracy.? I need an example where the Conspiracy came first, then one of the participants lucked into a certain job. Not an example where someone lucked into a job and decided to form a conspiracy.
If your answer is, ?Yes, the Booth-Lincoln assassination? then you have failed to come up with an example. The formation of the conspiracy must occur before the fortunate job. Like CTers alleged happened with the Oswald-Kennedy assassination.
I am confident you cannot come up with a single example.
-
Are the Dallas Police tapes authentic?
Only the part that the HSCA used to come up with their 95% probability of conspiracy finding. ;D
-
just keep questioning every little piece of evidence.
Is it your position that evidence, no matter how small, should not be examined and questioned?
As for the photo it shows Oswald had a rifle and revolver.
I was once photographed with a rifle. Do you think that means I owned that rifle?
Read the quote again Martin. Since I have a feel for how you and others operate here I intentionally worded it "as for the photo it shows Oswald had a rifle and revolver" to see if you would say rifle"Do you think that means I owned that rifle ?"You didn't fail me Martin. Although I believe the rifle was linked to Ozzie quite well.
-
Never mind that she did not confirm Oswald owned a rifle in her DPD affidavit and did not recognize the rifle when it was shown to her, right?
Shall we just overlook that as well, Richard?
Keep dancing like a circus monkey and changing the topic. You have argued that Marina confirmed Oswald's ownership of the rifle only after being convinced of such by Rankin and the press. That is preposterous but the question presented in the context of your explanation is why she would direct the DPD to the blanket on Nov. 22 - before she comes into contact with Rankin or the press - when asked about Oswald's rifle? The only explanation for doing so is that she had seen a rifle in that blanket. That is consistent with her WC testimony. Absent a time machine, we know your silly explanation is a complete failure because Marina confirms the presence of the rifle in the blanket BEFORE she encounters Rankin or any press to convince her of this fact. Thus, your explanation is not only implausible but chronologically impossible.
-
Keep dancing like a circus monkey and changing the topic. You have argued that Marina confirmed Oswald's ownership of the rifle only after being convinced of such by Rankin and the press. That is preposterous but the question presented in the context of your explanation is why she would direct the DPD to the blanket on Nov. 22 - before she comes into contact with Rankin or the press - when asked about Oswald's rifle? The only explanation for doing so is that she had seen a rifle in that blanket. That is consistent with her WC testimony. Absent a time machine, we know your silly explanation is a complete failure because Marina confirms the presence of the rifle in the blanket BEFORE she encounters Rankin or any press to convince her of this fact. Thus, your explanation is not only implausible but chronologically impossible.
The only explanation for doing so is that she had seen a rifle in that blanket. That is consistent with her WC testimony.
Even if that is true and she saw indeed a rifle, how do we know it was owned by Oswald?
That is preposterous but the question presented in the context of your explanation is why she would direct the DPD to the blanket on Nov. 22 - before she comes into contact with Rankin or the press - when asked about Oswald's rifle?
I don't believe for a second Marina did that. It was Ruth Paine who was "translating" or do you think the officers spoke Russian?
Thus, your explanation is not only implausible but chronologically impossible.
And still Marina did not confirm that Oswald owned a rifle in her day 1 affidavit. Go figure... in the afternoon she allegedly shows officers where Oswald's rifle is hidden and a few hours later she fails to confirm that he owned a rifle.... Yeah, that makes sense!
-
Read the quote again Martin. Since I have a feel for how you and others operate here I intentionally worded it "as for the photo it shows Oswald had a rifle and revolver" to see if you would say rifle"Do you think that means I owned that rifle ?"You didn't fail me Martin. Although I believe the rifle was linked to Ozzie quite well.
Of course you believe the rifle was linked to Oswald, you are just not certain enough to claim he owned it, right?
I'm just curious which rifle you are talking about. The one he allegedly bought from Klein's under an alias or the one seen in the photo?
Also, let me ask you again; what exactly do you think it means that Oswald was photographed with a rifle and a revolver in late March 1963?
-
Martin, you should have learned by now that when you look at the totality of this mountain of little pieces of evidence that can be picked apart you've got your man, Oswald!
Earth to Captain Tom:
📡📡📡📡📡📡📡📡📡📡
Thanks for confirming Bug's statement that you lot 'split hairs, and then split the split hairs'
-
Earth to Captain Tom:
📡📡📡📡📡📡📡📡📡📡
Thanks for confirming Bug's statement that you lot 'split hairs, and then split the split hairs'
Pretty obvious why Bugs would say that.
Just image what would happen when serious people take a closer look at the "evidence", or (even worse) they start asking questions for which credible explanations are required, right?
Can't have that, now can we?...... Whatever happened to the good old days when gullible people accepted that Oswald killed Kennedy because he left his wedding ring in a cup?
-
Pretty obvious why Bugs would say that.
Just image what would happen when serious people take a closer look at the "evidence", or (even worse) they start asking questions for which credible explanations are required, right?
Can't have that, now can we?...... Whatever happened to the good old days when gullible people accepted that Oswald killed Kennedy because he left his wedding ring in a cup?
'because he left his wedding ring in a cup'
> Guilty based on just that? You cannot be serious.
I've never claimed that the wedding ring thing would be enough to convict.
-
'because he left his wedding ring in a cup'
> Guilty based on just that? You cannot be serious.
I've never claimed that the wedding ring thing would be enough to convict.
Check with Bugs. It's one of his 53 pieces of "evidence" that he claims point to Oswald's guilt.
-
Of course you believe the rifle was linked to Oswald, you are just not certain enough to claim he owned it, right?
I'm just curious which rifle you are talking about. The one he allegedly bought from Klein's under an alias or the one seen in the photo?
Also, let me ask you again; what exactly do you think it means that Oswald was photographed with a rifle and a revolver in late March 1963?
Come on Martin this is getting droll. I do believe the evidence that linked Oswald to the rifle and all of the other hard, physical, ballistic evidence. I find it very amusing how the CTers operate. When asked for physical, ballistic evidence, all they do is try and show any discrepancies in the real evidence and claim "it proves conspiracy", without ever producing any evidence, no rifle, no bullets, no fragments and no prints or anything at all to show a second gunman. But it does keep me laughing.
-
Come on Martin this is getting droll. I do believe the evidence that linked Oswald to the rifle and all of the other hard, physical, ballistic evidence. I find it very amusing how the CTers operate. When asked for physical, ballistic evidence, all they do is try and show any discrepancies in the real evidence and claim "it proves conspiracy", without ever producing any evidence, no rifle, no bullets, no fragments and no prints or anything at all to show a second gunman. But it does keep me laughing.
You seem to be complaining more about the way CTs operate then you are answering simple questions. Why is that?
I do believe the evidence that linked Oswald to the rifle and all of the other hard, physical, ballistic evidence.
Of course you do, but such a blanket statement doesn't tell me much and you seem unable or unwilling to explain in more detail what you are talking about. I really would like to know what you consider to be "hard, physical, ballistic evidence". For me, solid (physical and/or ballistic) evidence is conclusive, persuasive and able to hold up to close scrutiny.
I think I have a good idea why you are so reluctant to answer my simple straight forward question, but I'll ask it again anyway;
What exactly do you think it means that Oswald was photographed with a rifle and a revolver in late March 1963?
A straight forward answer will do. I already know how you feel about CTs
-
You seem to be complaining more about the way CTs operate then you are answering simple questions. Why is that?
I do believe the evidence that linked Oswald to the rifle and all of the other hard, physical, ballistic evidence.
Of course you do, but such a blanket statement doesn't tell me much and you seem unable or unwilling to explain in more detail what you are talking about. I really would like to know what you consider to be "hard, physical, ballistic evidence". For me, solid (physical and/or ballistic) evidence is conclusive, persuasive and able to hold up to close scrutiny.
I think I have a good idea why you are so reluctant to answer my simple straight forward question, but I'll ask it again anyway;
What exactly do you think it means that Oswald was photographed with a rifle and a revolver in late March 1963?
A straight forward answer will do. I already know how you feel about CTs
Very simple Martin. I believe the photo shows Oswald was in possession of a rifle and revolver. The original thread was how he got the job. So, do you believe how I stated he got the job at the TSBD. And if you are going to try and say the photo was faked you will have a hard time. That photo has been tested every way possible and found to be authentic. Your turn. ;D
-
Very simple Martin. I believe the photo shows Oswald was in possession of a rifle and revolver. The original thread was how he got the job. So, do you believe how I stated he got the job at the TSBD. And if you are going to try and say the photo was faked you will have a hard time. That photo has been tested every way possible and found to be authentic. Your turn. ;D
I believe the photo shows Oswald was in possession of a rifle and revolver.
Fine... but did he own those weapons or was he just holding them?
The original thread was how he got the job. So, do you believe how I stated he got the job at the TSBD.
Most threads do not stay on topic. I have already answered your question and I am not in the habit of repeating myself.
And if you are going to try and say the photo was faked you will have a hard time.
I am on record as saying that I believe the BY photos are most likely authentic, although I do have my doubts about who really took them and for what purpose.
That photo has been tested every way possible and found to be authentic.
No it hasn't.
-
Very simple Martin. I believe the photo shows Oswald was in possession of a rifle and revolver.
Not just a rifle. It was the rifle.
(239) In the Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photographs identified as 133A Stovall,133A de Mohrenschildt, and CE-134, that same gouge is quite visible and can be measured and compared with the gouge on the questioned rifle . They are identical in every respect.
(240) Based upon this system of identification, the rifle in these photographs can be positively identified as the same rifle that is presently in the custody of the National Archives . Finally, it should be noted that although an FBI expert declined to make a positive identification of the rifle in question based upon this gouge mark, this expert did not have access to all of the same quality photographic prints that were available to the Panel. For example, the 133A de Mohrenschildt and 133A Stovall prints, both of which are of high quality, were obtained and reviewed by the committee in 1977 and 1978 respectively. This was the first time that these materials were analyzed . In addition, positive identification of the rifle was based upon an examination of CE-134, a very good enlargement (from the original negative) of CE-133A.* The FBI's expert in 1964, however, apparently did not consider this photograph in reaching his conclusion .
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk6/assass.htm
-
I believe the photo shows Oswald was in possession of a rifle and revolver.
Fine... but did he own those weapons or was he just holding them?
The original thread was how he got the job. So, do you believe how I stated he got the job at the TSBD.
Most threads do not stay on topic. I have already answered your question and I am not in the habit of repeating myself.
And if you are going to try and say the photo was faked you will have a hard time.
I am on record as saying that I believe the BY photos are most likely authentic, although I do have my doubts about who really took them and for what purpose.
That photo has been tested every way possible and found to be authentic.
No it hasn't.
Yes it has. No, the photo does not show ownership, but with the documentation linking it to Oswald it is damning evidence for sure. If you don't believe the photo has been tested explain.
-
Yes it has. No, the photo does not show ownership, but with the documentation linking it to Oswald it is damning evidence for sure. If you don't believe the photo has been tested explain.
Oh, I know the photo has been tested. I just don't agree with your over exaggerated claim that it was "found to be authentic"
the documentation linking it to Oswald
What documentation is linking what to Oswald?
-
Not just a rifle. It was the rifle.
(239) In the Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photographs identified as 133A Stovall,133A de Mohrenschildt, and CE-134, that same gouge is quite visible and can be measured and compared with the gouge on the questioned rifle . They are identical in every respect.
(240) Based upon this system of identification, the rifle in these photographs can be positively identified as the same rifle that is presently in the custody of the National Archives . Finally, it should be noted that although an FBI expert declined to make a positive identification of the rifle in question based upon this gouge mark, this expert did not have access to all of the same quality photographic prints that were available to the Panel. For example, the 133A de Mohrenschildt and 133A Stovall prints, both of which are of high quality, were obtained and reviewed by the committee in 1977 and 1978 respectively. This was the first time that these materials were analyzed . In addition, positive identification of the rifle was based upon an examination of CE-134, a very good enlargement (from the original negative) of CE-133A.* The FBI's expert in 1964, however, apparently did not consider this photograph in reaching his conclusion .
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk6/assass.htm
So, the experts don't agree.... Go figure!
-
So, the experts don't agree.... Go figure!
Martin, I suspect that you haven't given it a proper reading. You should make an effort to do so. Here it is again:
(239) In the Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photographs identified as 133A Stovall,133A de Mohrenschildt, and CE-134, that same gouge is quite visible and can be measured and compared with the gouge on the questioned rifle . They are identical in every respect.
(240) Based upon this system of identification, the rifle in these photographs can be positively identified as the same rifle that is presently in the custody of the National Archives . Finally, it should be noted that although an FBI expert declined to make a positive identification of the rifle in question based upon this gouge mark, this expert did not have access to all of the same quality photographic prints that were available to the Panel. For example, the 133A de Mohrenschildt and 133A Stovall prints, both of which are of high quality, were obtained and reviewed by the committee in 1977 and 1978 respectively. This was the first time that these materials were analyzed . In addition, positive identification of the rifle was based upon an examination of CE-134, a very good enlargement (from the original negative) of CE-133A.* The FBI's expert in 1964, however, apparently did not consider this photograph in reaching his conclusion .
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk6/assass.htm
-
Martin, I suspect that you haven't given it a proper reading. You should make an effort to do so. Here it is again:
(239) In the Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photographs identified as 133A Stovall,133A de Mohrenschildt, and CE-134, that same gouge is quite visible and can be measured and compared with the gouge on the questioned rifle . They are identical in every respect.
(240) Based upon this system of identification, the rifle in these photographs can be positively identified as the same rifle that is presently in the custody of the National Archives . Finally, it should be noted that although an FBI expert declined to make a positive identification of the rifle in question based upon this gouge mark, this expert did not have access to all of the same quality photographic prints that were available to the Panel. For example, the 133A de Mohrenschildt and 133A Stovall prints, both of which are of high quality, were obtained and reviewed by the committee in 1977 and 1978 respectively. This was the first time that these materials were analyzed . In addition, positive identification of the rifle was based upon an examination of CE-134, a very good enlargement (from the original negative) of CE-133A.* The FBI's expert in 1964, however, apparently did not consider this photograph in reaching his conclusion .
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk6/assass.htm
I have read it, Tim
You've got the panel's experts going further than the FBI expert was willing to go and they explain it by basically saying they had better material to work with. |That may be, but it is still one expert declining to make a positive identification and another making one. So, they are not in agreement. Obviously if you prefer the opinion of the one over the other, that's fine, but that doesn't alter the basic fact that the experts are not in agreement.
-
I have read it, Tim
You've got the panel's experts going further than the FBI expert was willing to go and they explain it by basically saying they had better material to work with. |That may be, but it is still one expert declining to make a positive identification and another making one. So, they are not in agreement. Obviously if you prefer the opinion of the one over the other, that's fine, but that doesn't alter the basic fact that the experts are not in agreement.
They are not in disagreement. It's not me preferring the opinion of the one over the other. Shaneyfelt did not have access to all of the same quality photographic prints that were available to the Panel. You can't rightly just acknowledge that and then dismiss it.
-
They are not in disagreement. It's not me preferring the opinion of the one over the other. Shaneyfelt did not have access to all of the same quality photographic prints that were available to the Panel. You can't rightly just acknowledge that and then dismiss it.
I don't dismiss anything. They are only not in disagreement if you assume that Shaneyfelt would have reached the same conclusion if he had the same prints.
The problem is that you can only assume that and the fact of the matter is that the record shows that Shaneyfelt declined to make a positive identification.
-
Oh, I know the photo has been tested. I just don't agree with your over exaggerated claim that it was "found to be authentic"
the documentation linking it to Oswald
What documentation is linking what to Oswald?
Martin do you want me to name all of the people that have tested the photo? I will if you want, but I think you are already aware of some of them. Why don't you tell me who and how it is disputed.
-
Not just a rifle. It was the rifle.
(239) In the Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photographs identified as 133A Stovall,133A de Mohrenschildt, and CE-134, that same gouge is quite visible and can be measured and compared with the gouge on the questioned rifle . They are identical in every respect.
(240) Based upon this system of identification, the rifle in these photographs can be positively identified as the same rifle that is presently in the custody of the National Archives . Finally, it should be noted that although an FBI expert declined to make a positive identification of the rifle in question based upon this gouge mark, this expert did not have access to all of the same quality photographic prints that were available to the Panel. For example, the 133A de Mohrenschildt and 133A Stovall prints, both of which are of high quality, were obtained and reviewed by the committee in 1977 and 1978 respectively. This was the first time that these materials were analyzed . In addition, positive identification of the rifle was based upon an examination of CE-134, a very good enlargement (from the original negative) of CE-133A.* The FBI's expert in 1964, however, apparently did not consider this photograph in reaching his conclusion .
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk6/assass.htm
Thanks Tim. I know it is the rifle. I was just talking about the authenticity of the photo. The rifle in the photo is also the same rifle they found on the 6th floor. You know how it goes with these guys. One hundred experts could verify something and one non-expert could say something different and the CT's would claim the one as "evidence of a conspiracy".
-
Thanks Tim. I know it is the rifle. I was just talking about the authenticity of the photo. The rifle in the photo is also the same rifle they found on the 6th floor. You know how it goes with these guys. One hundred experts could verify something and one non-expert could say something different and the CT's would claim the one as "evidence of a conspiracy".
One hundred experts could verify something and one non-expert could say something different and the CT's would claim the one as "evidence of a conspiracy".
Another OTT statement!
What exactly did one hundred experts verify and are you calling an FBI expert a "non-expert"?
The rifle in the photo is also the same rifle they found on the 6th floor.
Is it? And you know this, how?
-
One hundred experts could verify something and one non-expert could say something different and the CT's would claim the one as "evidence of a conspiracy".
Another OTT statement!
What exactly did one hundred experts verify and are you calling an FBI expert a "non-expert"?
The rifle in the photo is also the same rifle they found on the 6th floor.
Is it? And you know this, how?
You are not dense Martin. It was just an over the top illustration. You'll get over it. Now why don't you tell me how you know it is not the rifle. Or are you still walking that fence?
-
Cite this "damning" evidence.
What's the matter Rob? No one posting on your threads? I think you know full well what documentation I am referring to. Now why don't you name any physical, or ballistic evidence that points to a different shooter than Oswald. Should be easy for you. Have anything? A bullet? A print maybe? Oh, what, nothing to offer? 8)
-
You are not dense Martin. It was just an over the top illustration. You'll get over it. Now why don't you tell me how you know it is not the rifle. Or are you still walking that fence?
I don't know if it is the rifle that was found at the TSBD or not.
It may well be, but I think we will disagree about what it means if it is indeed the same rifle.
-
I don't know if it is the rifle that was found at the TSBD or not.
It may well be, but I think we will disagree about what it means if it is indeed the same rifle.
Okay Martin, that is a fair answer. We can agree to disagree as the saying goes.
-
I don't dismiss anything. They are only not in disagreement if you assume that Shaneyfelt would have reached the same conclusion if he had the same prints.
The problem is that you can only assume that and the fact of the matter is that the record shows that Shaneyfelt declined to make a positive identification.
They are not in disagreement. They are only in disagreement if you assume that Shaneyfelt would have reached a different conclusion if he had the same prints.
-
Thanks Tim. I know it is the rifle. I was just talking about the authenticity of the photo. The rifle in the photo is also the same rifle they found on the 6th floor. You know how it goes with these guys. One hundred experts could verify something and one non-expert could say something different and the CT's would claim the one as "evidence of a conspiracy".
Wes, the authenticity of the backyard photos is not in doubt. They were authenticated by the HSCA's photographic analysis panel. Of which there were 22 members.
On edit, I see that you are already aware of that.
-
What's the matter Wes? Don't you have any evidence to cite? Of course you don't as the WC didn't give you any to cite.
Since I haven't claimed that so and so killed JFK I don't have to cite any evidence. *YOU* OTOH have ACCUSED LHO of committing two murders. So when will you cite physical or ballistic evidence showing that he did?
Never would be my guess.
I didn't accuse the little weasel the DPD did. The best thing and only thing you "buffs" do is try and dispute the evidence that was gathered in the case. You know it, and I know it. We both also know that you CTers after over 54 years can not present any "new" physical, or ballistic evidence to indicate a second shooter or a different shooter than Oswald. All you have is hearsay evidence, some of it not even made until years after the fact. So, what theory do you believe Rob? Come on cowboy up. Which one? There are so many I would really hate to have to name them all. I believe Oswald acted alone and killed the president. See how easy Rob? Now which one is your favorite this week?
-
They are not in disagreement. They are only in disagreement if you assume that Shaneyfelt would have reached a different conclusion if he had the same prints.
Tim,
I am not assuming anything. I am merely stating that Shaneyfelt declined to make a positive identification and in doing so his opinion is not the same as the panel's expert.
You can speculate all you like about what would and coud have been if Shaneyfelt had better photos but I prefer to stick with the facts.
-
Tim,
I am not assuming anything. I am merely stating that Shaneyfelt declined to make a positive identification and in doing so his opinion is not the same as the panel's expert.
You can speculate all you like about what would and coud have been if Shaneyfelt had better photos but I prefer to stick with the facts.
Martin, Shaneyfelt and Kirk were not opining on the same thing. Shaneyfelt did not express an opinion on the quality prints that Kirk had at his disposal. Shaneyfelt and Kirk were not in disagreement.
-
Wes, the authenticity of the backyard photos is not in doubt. They were authenticated by the HSCA's photographic analysis panel. Of which there were 22 members.
On edit, I see that you are already aware of that.
Yeah, I know Tim. It's just fun debating these guys on their crap they put out.
-
What conspiracy do I claim? Pray tell....
Are the Dallas Police tapes authentic?
Only the part that the HSCA used to come up with their 95% probability of conspiracy finding. ;D
Indeed.
-
Pardon the pun, but that is a cop-out. You accept the DPD's UNSUPPORTED claims so you are just as guilty of falsely accusing LHO.
I still see no evidence showing that LHO was guilty as you claim.
You are using the Mcadams term of "buff" a lot. To me a buff is someone who takes things in a laissez-faire way and either does NOT learn the evidence or makes accusations with NO supporting evidence. That would be you "Wes the buff".
Oh, you really told me Rob. I'm so impressed. You have zero evidence. Explain how the evidence gathered by the DPD is unsupported.
-
Neither Martin nor Colin has given an example, in all history, of a conspiracy to commit a murder, recruited the assassin and/or patsy, or multiple assassins and/or patsies and waited from one of them to luck into a job that gives them a good opportunity to murder the President, or to be framed for doing so.
What is it with you and the strawman arguments? Did Martin or Colin ever claim that Oswald was recruited by anybody for any assassination-related purpose prior to getting a job at the TSBD?
-
A rifle?
(https://s17.postimg.org/6gz250t3j/end_oswald_rifle.jpg)
Typical dishonest Mytton illustration. Do you really think that this is a valid representation of what Marina would have seen peering into the end of a rolled up blanket that was tied with string?
-
I would love to have Oswald in the hot seat at court. At the end of it, I would pin the bag, the rifle, the revolver, the bullet, the fragments, the shell casings, the documents, proving Oswald's ownership of the weapons, and the eye witness testimonies, right to little old Oswaldovich's head. And after the defense, blew all the smoke and put up all the mirrors, the jury would see that they had zero, physical, or ballistic evidence to support their defense. It is hilarious.
You know what's hilarious? Your ego.
-
Martin I could go on but I'm sure you see the point. All of these things require men on the ground plotting and manipulating everything. It would have taken a small army to get it done. And all of them would have had to keep their mouths shut. And these conspirators would have had to do this all unseen by anyone in Dallas. It is ridiculous to even ponder.
I agree. Most of the stuff that people like you and Richard make up to illustrate what you think a conspiracy would have to do is ridiculous nonsense.
It doesn't take any of that ridiculous nonsense to pin it on somebody after the fact.
-
You know what's hilarious? Your ego.
You don't know me, so your statement is asinine. What is really hilarious, is people like you on here that claim they believe there was a conspiracy and not secure enough to even name which conspiracy. All you guys have is, to try and dispute the evidence that exists incriminating Ozzie and claim that there is no evidence. Remarkable. You rail on and on about there is no evidence, and yet, you try so hard to dispute that which you claim does not exist. It borders on irrationality and insanity. I seriously think some of you should seek therapy.
-
Not just a rifle. It was the rifle.
(239) In the Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photographs identified as 133A Stovall,133A de Mohrenschildt, and CE-134, that same gouge is quite visible and can be measured and compared with the gouge on the questioned rifle . They are identical in every respect.
(240) Based upon this system of identification, the rifle in these photographs can be positively identified as the same rifle that is presently in the custody of the National Archives . Finally, it should be noted that although an FBI expert declined to make a positive identification of the rifle in question based upon this gouge mark, this expert did not have access to all of the same quality photographic prints that were available to the Panel. For example, the 133A de Mohrenschildt and 133A Stovall prints, both of which are of high quality, were obtained and reviewed by the committee in 1977 and 1978 respectively. This was the first time that these materials were analyzed . In addition, positive identification of the rifle was based upon an examination of CE-134, a very good enlargement (from the original negative) of CE-133A.* The FBI's expert in 1964, however, apparently did not consider this photograph in reaching his conclusion .
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk6/assass.htm
Bull-pucky.
That conclusion is not supported by the actual testimony.
Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.
Sgt. Kirk based his unique identification of the rifle in the photo on his view that tire tracks and moon craters are unique.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/kirk.gif)
-
You've got the panel's experts going further than the FBI expert was willing to go and they explain it by basically saying they had better material to work with.
And they didn't know that Shanelyfelt didn't consider CE-134 (which was a WC exhibit after all), they just presumed it.
And CE-134 was made from a negative that is one of those pieces of evidence that wound up "missing". Go figure.
-
You don't know me, so your statement is asinine. What is really hilarious, is people like you on here that claim they believe there was a conspiracy and not secure enough to even name which conspiracy.
When have I ever claimed that I believe there was a conspiracy?
All you guys have is, to try and dispute the evidence that exists incriminating Ozzie and claim that there is no evidence.
You have yet to actually enumerate any of this "evidence that exists incriminating Ozzie". You just keep insisting that it does.
Remarkable. You rail on and on about there is no evidence, and yet, you try so hard to dispute that which you claim does not exist. It borders on irrationality and insanity. I seriously think some of you should seek therapy.
Such hypocrisy. You don't know any of us, so your statement is asinine.
-
When have I ever claimed that I believe there was a conspiracy?
Weidmann tries the exact same trick in some sort of bizarre attempt to appear neutral, why do you people bother?
JohnM
-
Weidmann tries the exact same trick in some sort of bizarre attempt to appear neutral, why do you people bother?
JohnM
You do know that there are about as many "neutrals" as those that believe Oswald acted alone.....dont you?
-
"Wes the buff" is here for games. It is clear by now that he is incapable of citing any evidence to support his claims.
"Me thinks you doth protest too much mister." You know what evidence Rob and every one on here knows. It is the same evidence that you seem obsessed with discrediting. Your only tactic along, with the other people on here, that are not even secure enough to say they believe a conspiracy, is to wait until someone that believes Oswald acted alone states the evidence and then you try to dispute it. That is weak. Instead, let's just say I believe you. Now what? Why don't you give me an alternative narrative of what you say happened.
-
You do know that there are about as many "neutrals" as those that believe Oswald acted alone.....dont you?
That would be more believable Colin if your "neutrals" would question the false statements made by "buffs". It is easy and safe, you see, to just say, "I question the evidence against Oswald. But I never said I believe in a conspiracy." That's weak.
-
I sometimes wonder if Wesley actually knows the difference between his beloved evidence and actual proof.
Can you name some of that "actual proof" Martin? :D
-
Can you name some of that "actual proof" Martin? :D
You want others to do your work for you, again?
-
You want others to do your work for you, again?
Martin, you are being hypocritical again. It is no different than you asking me to cite evidence that you know exists. What's good for you is for me. So, can you cite some of that "actual proof?" I'll be waiting a long time.
-
Martin, you are being hypocritical again. It is no different than you asking me to cite evidence that you know exists. What's good for you is for me. So, can you cite some of that "actual proof?" I'll be waiting a long time.
I'll be waiting a long time.
That's true for sure.
You seem to mistakenly believe that something that is presented as evidence is automatically proof of something.
No wonder why you believe what you believe.
Oh and btw.. you never ever cite any evidence whatsoever. All you do is make claims without backing then up.
-
I'll be waiting a long time.
That's true for sure.
You seem to mistakenly believe that something that is presented as evidence is automatically proof of something.
No wonder why you believe what you believe.
Oh and btw.. you never ever cite any evidence whatsoever. All you do is make claims without backing then up.
"You seem to mistakenly believe that something that is presented as evidence is automatically proof of something."
"you never ever cite any evidence whatsoever. All you do is make claims without backing then up."
[/quote]
Kind of contradictory there Martin. And all you do is make assumptions without backing them up.
-
"You seem to mistakenly believe that something that is presented as evidence is automatically proof of something."
"you never ever cite any evidence whatsoever. All you do is make claims without backing then up."
Kind of contradictory there Martin. And all you do is make assumptions without backing them up.
Only contradictory to a warped mind. You seem to live in a world of your own. Best keep the door to the outside world closed.
-
Only contradictory to a warped mind. You seem to live in a world of your own. Best keep the door to the outside world closed.
"Only contradictory to a warped mind. You seem to live in a world of your own. Best keep the door to the outside world closed."
[/quote]
And this is just the kind of response that I got when I first got on here. And your buddy Mark wonders why I respond the way I do? Hilarious. I live in the real world Martin where I have to go to work, pay my taxes and put my children through college. I don't see monsters in the closet. Like a lot of you.
-
"Only contradictory to a warped mind. You seem to live in a world of your own. Best keep the door to the outside world closed."
And this is just the kind of response that I got when I first got on here. And your buddy Mark wonders why I respond the way I do? Hilarious. I live in the real world Martin where I have to go to work, pay my taxes and put my children through college. I don't see monsters in the closet. Like a lot of you.
And this is just the kind of response that I got when I first got on here.
It's the kind of response you will continue to get every time you provoke it. Don't play the victim, you came here full guns blazing.
One of my first responses to you;
Martin, you seem to be a little bit agitated. You can get through it.
Funny... The truth is I just don't like guys much who think they know it all.
Still true to this day.
-
And this is just the kind of response that I got when I first got on here.
It's the kind of response you will continue to get every time you provoke it. Don't play the victim, you came here full guns blazing.
One of my first responses to you;
Still true to this day.
Oh, I'm no victim Martin. At least I don't live in la-la land like some on here.
-
"I've shot people" card that ex-military guys pull out of their back pockets frequently.
I'm not ex-military and never claimed it. Nor have I said "I've shot people". I'm a hunter Mark, so don't claim I posted something that I didn't.
I happen to be lucky and unfortunate enough to have a job where I work online and have two computers, so I can post on here when I want. So, I wouldn't put too much into how many posts I make. I'm not impressed by you doing this for 20 years. I've debated with the conspiracy folks a lot and it's the same old story with you guys. When someone won't bend to your way of thinking you attack them. But that's okay. You showed your true colors when you made it "personal" with me right from the start. It's what you guys always do.
When someone won't bend to your way of thinking you attack them.
Pot.. meet kettle
-
Oh, I'm no victim Martin. At least I don't live in la-la land like some on here.
La-la land sounds like a nice place to go....
-
When someone won't bend to your way of thinking you attack them.
Pot.. meet kettle
Pot.. meet kettle
I'm glad you are starting to see it my way Martin. We'll meet in the middle some day.
-
(http://wanna-joke.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/cool-online-judging-posting.jpg)
-
That would be more believable Colin if your "neutrals" would question the false statements made by "buffs". It is easy and safe, you see, to just say, "I question the evidence against Oswald. But I never said I believe in a conspiracy." That's weak.
Another sign that you are completely clueless. I question false statements made by "buffs" all the time. Maybe you should try some intellectual honesty.
-
As do you. Never been a bully in my life. I found out very quickly on here after I made it clear that I believe Oswald acted alone just how the game is played. I immediately got the condescending remarks and insults from people on here. So, you can cut the sanctimonious crap Mark.
You're delusional. You started out with the arrogance and the logical fallacies as soon as you arrived. And now you're playing victim?
-
You're delusional. You started out with the arrogance and the logical fallacies as soon as you arrived. And now you're playing victim?
John here you go with the insults. I'm no victim. I have noticed that quite a few on here seem to think they rule the site. If it comes across as being arrogant because I stand firm on what I believe, oh well. Since when does making logical statements deserve to be insulted? Don't reply if you don't like what I write. That is your choice.
-
Another sign that you are completely clueless. I question false statements made by "buffs" all the time. Maybe you should try some intellectual honesty.
Go soak your bald head John. Did I mention your name? No. You are not that relevant John. Get over yourself.
-
John here you go with the insults. I'm no victim. I have noticed that quite a few on here seem to think they rule the site. If it comes across as being arrogant because I stand firm on what I believe, oh well. Since when does making logical statements deserve to be insulted? Don't reply if you don't like what I write. That is your choice.
Since when does making logical statements deserve to be insulted?
Can you give me an example of a "logical statement" that you have made.
Go soak your bald head John. Did I mention your name? No. You are not that relevant John. Get over yourself.
I bet you think you are relevant, though... right?
-
Since when does making logical statements deserve to be insulted?
Can you give me an example of a "logical statement" that you have made.
I bet you think you are relevant, though... right?
Give me one example of a true statement that you have made. Are you relevant Martin? Right?
-
Give me one example of a true statement that you have made. Are you relevant Martin? Right?
Pathetic
-
If it comes across as being arrogant because I stand firm on what I believe, oh well.
No, you come off as being arrogant because you're arrogant.
And I didn't insult you.
-
Go soak your bald head John. Did I mention your name? No. You are not that relevant John. Get over yourself.
Then who exactly did you mean when you said "if your 'neutrals' would question the false statements made by 'buffs'"? Be specific.