https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1778.pdf
Quoting from the statement that apparently someone fails to see...
Marina Oswald advised that Lee Harvey Oswald owned a rifle which he used in Russia about two years ago. She observed what she presumed to be the same rifle in a blanket.
I saw it. I read it carefully. I also saw the word "
presumed" in there. Did you miss that?
Marina Oswald advised that Lee Harvey Oswald owned a rifle which he used in Russia about two years ago. She observed what she presumed to be the same rifle in a blanket.
Do you understand why that word weakens your argument to the point of meaninglessness? It's merely an presumption by her that it was the same rifle. You claimed "she told the feds that Lee brought it from Russia"... turns out what she actually said when we read the statement with care (without her or you apparently realizing it) was she couldn't tell the difference between a rifle and a shotgun, and she was merely assuming it was the same weapon. It wasn't. It couldn't be. We know that for a fact.
And the fact she couldn't tell a rifle from a shotgun doesn't remove or weaken her admission on the afternoon of the assassination that Oswald kept his rifle in the blanket (there are no photographs of Oswald with a shotgun, for example. Only with a rifle). There's no order form from Kleins or PO Money Order signed by Oswald where Oswald ordered a shotgun, only a rifle. What Marina saw and what she admitted to seeing on the afternoon of the assassination was Oswald's rifle. There's no doubt about that.
....Why argue this point except for just the sake of arguing?
So although it was originally claimed that "She [Marina] also wasn't a useful witness on Oswald's ownership of a rifle", when it's established her first statement on that subject was effectively "Yes, My husband owned a rifle, and he stored it here, in the Paine garage, wrapped within a blanket", now it's just arguing for the sake of arguing? I would think it's pointing out errors of fact - which I happen to think is worthwhile.
Also, why does someone need to be a handwriting expert to see if certain signatures look alike?
Signatures----
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1599.msg75787.html#msg75787
You said originally "But it doesn't seem likely that someone could/would sign Oswald's name so perfectly [just as a lark]".
"Perfectly" was the word you used. But you're backing away from that allegation of a perfect signature, and merely saying you think they now "look alike". And it appears you answered my question -- you don't have any handwriting expert to quote, and are merely telling us what your uneducated eye (in terms of handwriting analysis) sees.
Again, I still fail to understand what conspiracy objective is advanced by having someone masquerading as Oswald in various parts of the country and going around signing his name in various registers, especially at times when we know Oswald was elsewhere.
Again, if there's no point to it (and there doesn't appear to be, as you can't even suggest one), then it's more than likely exactly what I suggested rather than part of some master plot or anything nefarious.
Hank
