If Oswald Was The Assassin, Did He Plan His Escape From The TSBD Very Well?

[John Mytton]

Pay attention, I gave you the evidence,

No, you didn't. You gave me a bunch of questionable circumstantial crap that in no way even begins to prove that "Oswald's rifle was in Ruth's garage till the 22nd.".

All it actually did prove is that you simply can not provide any actual evidence for your idiotic claim. So, here's some news for you; You chosing to believe that Oswald owned a rifle and stored it in Ruth Paine's garage until 11/22/63 isn't evidence.

No worries, let's agree to disagree.

Btw I just wasted a whole day doing this and I really don't know how you can do this day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, but good luck with your fantasies. Anyway lucky for me that the accepted events as I described will live on in the History Books for eternity, cop u later, much later.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

No worries, let's agree to disagree.

Btw I just wasted a whole day doing this and I really don't know how you can do this day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, but good luck with your fantasies. Anyway lucky for me that the accepted events as I described will live on in the History Books for eternity, cop u later, much later.

JohnM

No worries, let's agree to disagree.

Translation: "I've got nothing. I can not present you with any evidence for my claim as there simply is none, but I will never admit that, so I'll just run..."


Btw I just wasted a whole day doing this

Oh poor boy. You could have stopped and any moment, but your ego didn't let you, right?
Never mind, you've been wasting similar days for years now. Tomorrow you'll be doing it somewhere else, boring people on another forum or on YouTube.

I really don't know how you can do this day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year,

Don't be silly, of course you know. You've been doing it for years. You were here years before I joined the forum and you will still be here long after I have left.

Anyway lucky for me that the accepted events as I described will live on in the History Books for eternity,

Why is that lucky for you? And who accepted those events? You do know there has never been a majority of people in the country that believe the crap you defend?

Personally, I couldn't care less what's in the history books. For the future, what's on the internet is far more important and there the narrative you so desperately want to believe is being destroyed time after time....

[Colin Crow]

In answer to the OP question. Who knows how much was planned. He got out, planned or otherwise.

[Richard Smith]

Yeah, yeah... I know all that. It's a bunch of assumptions and a few bits of highly questionable physical evidence twisted into a made up narrative that does not withstand any kind of scrutiny.

But putting all this circumstantial BS and highly speculative and partly unproven "evidence" aside, where is the actual evidence for your idiotic claim;

What evidence do you believe is lacking from John's list that would prove to your satisfaction that Oswald ordered and received his rifle?  It is comprehensive and exactly the type of evidence that law enforcement would use to prove that fact.  And has often done so in many other cases.  But you suggest it is a "bunch of assumptions."  What you appear to be suggesting is that no amount of evidence could ever prove that fact by applying an impossible standard of proof and then concluding the evidence is lacking for that reason.  A Catch 22 - it is impossible to prove a fact if facts are impossible to prove.   If not, then explain to us what you would consider as "actual evidence" sufficient to prove that Oswald ordered and received the rifle.

[Thomas Graves]

Ok.....does anyone know why the Danny Kaye rhyming stuff it being inserted in posts? Have we been hacked again?

Dear Colin,

Why get all paranoid?

It's just Duncan's clever way of hiding words, phrases and names he finds offensive.

Like the name of the guy at Jumbo Duh's defacto forum whose first name rhymes with "candy," and who co-developed the idea with me that Gloria Calvery is the big, tall gal in Zapruder who can later be seen talking with a practically bald-headed man on the lower TSBD steps in Darnell ...

... and like the three-letter synonym for "donkey" that starts with an "A" and which, in America English, also refers to the part of your body that's in direct contact with a chair when you're sitting on it ...

Or like the four-letter British word for that same part of your body, and which also begins with an "A", but rhymes with "farce" instead of "gas" or "class" ...

... and, of course, like the seven-letter word that refers to the hole in that part of your body through which fecal matter is expelled from your large intestine, colon and anus, etc, etc, etc

Or at least one hopes it is.

--  MWT

[Martin Weidmann]

What evidence do you believe is lacking from John's list that would prove to your satisfaction that Oswald ordered and received his rifle?  It is comprehensive and exactly the type of evidence that law enforcement would use to prove that fact.  And has often done so in many other cases.  But you suggest it is a "bunch of assumptions."  What you appear to be suggesting is that no amount of evidence could ever prove that fact by applying an impossible standard of proof and then concluding the evidence is lacking for that reason.  A Catch 22 - it is impossible to prove a fact if facts are impossible to prove.   If not, then explain to us what you would consider as "actual evidence" sufficient to prove that Oswald ordered and received the rifle.

What evidence do you believe is lacking from John's list that would prove to your satisfaction that Oswald ordered and received his rifle?

The only direct evidence there is, that somebody using the name Hidell ordered a rifle from Kleins, is a handwritten order form and money order that may or may not have been filled out by Oswald. You have no evidence at all that Oswald actually bought the money order and all the other Kleins docucuments as well as Waldmann's testimony are derived from that one order form, of which we don't even have the original. Basically, all you really have to tie Oswald to the purchase of the MC rifle is the questional opinion of a handwriting expert. That's it!

In other words; if the order form and money order received by Kleins are not written by Oswald, all the other Kleins documents and Waldmann's testimony are fruits of a poisonous tree and prove nothing.

Just in case, you don't understand what I am saying, this is how it works; a person using the name Hidell (who may or may not be Oswald) uses a handwritten order form and a money order to order a rifle from Kleins. Upon receipt of the order form, Kleins makes a microfilm copy of the documents and destroys the originals. They then proceed to prepare the invoice and shipping documents. None of that involves Oswald in any way, shape or form, and all of it is only a consequence of the receipt of the order form. The WC then turns to Waldmann who basically tells them nothing more than that he believes that the internal documents justify the conclusion that the rifle must have been send to whoever ordered it. He doesn't provide any proof of the actual shipment or the reception of it because he hasn't got any.

That's why I say there is no evidence that Oswald received a rifle from Kleins. If you disagree, just post that evidence (not assumptions!) and I'll admit I'm wrong.

It is comprehensive and exactly the type of evidence that law enforcement would use to prove that fact.

No, it's not comprehensive and most of what you call evidence is nothing more than a highly questionable prosecutorial circumstantial narrative

But you suggest it is a "bunch of assumptions."

Circumstantial evidence is by definition nothing more than assumptions to connect the dots between pieces of direct physical evidence to create a narrative. Circumstantial evidence is the weakest type of evidence there is and has the highest risk of error as many circumstances can have multiple explanations.

What you appear to be suggesting is that no amount of evidence could ever prove that fact by applying an impossible standard of proof and then concluding the evidence is lacking for that reason.

Nope... that's not what I am suggesting at all. I am suggesting that when you make a claim like "Oswald's rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage" that you have at least some physical evidence to back up that claim ..... The whole saga of Oswald's trip to Irving is one assumption on top of another and when you closely examine the entire "rifle in the blanket" narrative, you end up with a multitude of assumptions for which there isn't a shred of evidence.

A Catch 22 - it is impossible to prove a fact if facts are impossible to prove.

There is no catch 22.... When you claim that Oswald received a rifle from Kleins, you should be able to provide evidence for that. It simply won't do to say that he was photographed with a rifle, so he must have received it from Kleins, when the rifle he is holding in the photograph could just as easily have belonged to somebody else. We have been down this path before. Can you seriously exclude, on solid grounds, the possibility that the rifle Oswald is holding in the photograph belonged to somebody else? Now, don't start asking your usual stupid questions, like who I think it belonged to etc.... Just give me a factual reason why that rifle in the photograph must be owned by Oswald and Oswald alone.... Go on then, I'm waiting

It is also complete BS to claim that just because Oswald ordered a rifle in March (if that's what he did) and was photographed with a rifle (if that was the same one), the rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage (if there ever was one to begin with) from late September to 11/22/63 must be the same rifle that he allegedly ordered from Kleins.

The holes in the official narrative that you have to explain away by speculation and assumptions, rather than actual evidence, are as massive as meteor craters. 

If not, then explain to us what you would consider as "actual evidence" sufficient to prove that Oswald ordered and received the rifle.

Some sort of document confirming the actual receipt of the package, would go a long way. Not only to prove he received the rifle but also that he thus must have ordered it. Think about it for a second; Kleins is sending a rifle which has already been paid for to a P.O. Box in Dallas. If they do not obtain some sort of document confirming the receipt of the package, how are they ever going to prove that the client has received what he ordered? In other words, it's in Kleins interest and just good common business sense to ensure that the recipient signs for the merchandise. So, where is the receipt?

Anybody can fill in an order form (and even forge a handwriting if need be) and send it to Kleins, but nobody other than Oswald himself could have collected the package containing the rifle. So, show me proof that Oswald received the rifle and I'll instantly accept that he must have ordered it. Is that good enough for you?

Now, why do I doubt it isn't?.... Hmmmmm

[Thomas Graves]

What evidence do you believe is lacking from John's list that would prove to your satisfaction that Oswald ordered and received his rifle?

The only direct evidence there is that somebody using the name Hidell ordered a rifle from Kleins is the handwritten order form that may or may not have been filled out by Oswald. All the other Kleins docucuments and Waldmann's testimony are derived from that one order form, of which we don't even have the original. Basically, all you really have to tie Oswald to the purchase of the MC rifle is the opinion of a handwriting expert. That's it!

In other words; if the order form and money order received by Kleins are not written by Oswald, all the other Kleins documents as well as Waldmann's testimony are fruits of a poisonous tree.

Just in case, you don't understand what I am saying, this is how it works; Hidell (who may or may not be Oswald) uses a handwritten order form and a money order to order a rifle from Kleins. Upon receipt of the order form, Kleins makes a microfilm copy of the document and destroys the original. They then proceed to prepare the invoice and shipping documents. None of that involves Oswald in any way, shape or form, and all of it is only a consequence of the receipt of the order form. The WC then turns to Waldmann who basically tells then nothing more than that he believes that the internal documents justify the conclusion that the rifle must have been send to whoever ordered it. He doesn't provide any proof of the actual shipment or the reception of it because he hasn't got any.

That's why I say there is no evidence that Oswald received a rifle from Kleins. If you disagree, just post that evidence (not assumptions!) and I'll admit I'm wrong.

It is comprehensive and exactly the type of evidence that law enforcement would use to prove that fact.

No, it's not comprehensive and most of what you call evidence is nothing more than a highly questionable prosecutorial circumstantial narrative

But you suggest it is a "bunch of assumptions."

Circumstantial evidence is by definition nothing more than assumptions to connect the dots between pieces of direct physical evidence.

What you appear to be suggesting is that no amount of evidence could ever prove that fact by applying an impossible standard of proof and then concluding the evidence is lacking for that reason.

Nope... that's not what I am suggesting at all. I am suggesting that when you make a claim like "Oswald's rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage" that you have at least some physical evidence to connect the dots..... The whole saga of Oswald's trip to Irving is one assumption on top of another!

A Catch 22 - it is impossible to prove a fact if facts are impossible to prove.

There is no catch 22.... When you claim that Oswald received a rifle from Kleins, you should be able to provide evidence for that. It simply won't do to say that he was photographed with a rifle, so he must have received it from Kleins, when the rifle he is holding in the photograph could just as easily have belonged to somebody else. We have been down this path before. Can you seriously exclude, on solid grounds, the possibility that the rifle Oswald is holding in the photograph belonged to somebody else? Now, don't start asking your usual stupid questions, like who I think it belonged to etc.... Just give me a factual reason why that rifle in the photograph must be owned by Oswald.... Go on then, I'm waiting

It is also complete BS to claim that just because Oswald ordered a rifle in March (if that's what he did) and was photographed with a rifle (if that was the same one), the rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage (if there ever was one to begin with) from late September to 11/22/63 must be the same rifle that he allegedly ordered from Kleins.

The holes in the official narrative that you have to explain away by speculation and assumptions, rather than actual evidence, are as massive as meteor craters. 

If not, then explain to us what you would consider as "actual evidence" sufficient to prove that Oswald ordered and received the rifle.

Dear Marty,

If Hidell wasn't Oswald, then who was he?

A guy whose real name was Hidell?

An evil, evil, evil CIA / FBI / DPD agent or officer?

A humanitarian KGB ... saint?

(You tend to believe it was the former, right?)

--  MWT 

PS  Is handwriting analysis done by specialists at the FBI to be ignored when it tells you something you don't want to hear?

PPS  Can you prove that "Hidell's" money order /  paperwork was handled suspiciously differently than that of other customers by the same mail order gun company(s) / post office(s) / bank(s) / etc?

PPPS  How many conspirators do you figure were involved in the assassination and "the cover up"?

Hundreds?  Thousands?