Et tu, Bonnie?

[Martin Weidmann]

The contrarian logic at work.  Oswald denied owning ANY rifle but the contrarian takes issue with the suggestion Oswald denied ownership of the MC rifle found on the 6th floor!  Even after being shown a picture of himself holding the rifle.  Wow.

The misrepresentation continues....

Yes, Oswald denied owing a rifle (if the reports are to be believed), which obviously includes the MC rifle found at the TSBD, but you claimed that Oswald lied about his ownership of the rifle (by which you clearly mean the MC rifle), to which I replied that he was never shown the MC rifle or asked about the ownership. Your little wordgame didn't work!

You also falsely claimed that Oswald provided no explanation for the presence of the MC rifle at the TSBD.

So I asked you who asked Oswald for an explanation of the MC rifle being found at the TSBD?

Since you claim was obviously false, you can't answer and thus pathetically try to pivot away to another false claim.

[Alan J. Ford]

Nobody "confirmed" Oswald was on a bus.  A landlady who could not prove she ever rented to Oswald or that she was even on a bus at that time claimed she saw Oswald on a bus.

An excellent point, Mr. Iacoletti, once again here's yet another instance highlighting the prevailing fallacious of a hastily contrived script to frame the wrongly accused.

[Alan J. Ford]

Soooo encouraging to read the astute assessments shared within this thread by Mr. Weidmann & Mr. Ford as it relates to more than a few "witnesses" changing their statements. This is encouraging because the absolute truth has been concealed from public consumption far too loooong now, but light, truth & justice shall prevail.

Critical-thinking researchers like these two and a great many others are quite capable of discerning the difference between a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure and reality. The wrongly accused was Framed. The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.

[Richard Smith]

The misrepresentation continues....

Yes, Oswald denied owing a rifle (if the reports are to be believed), which includes the MC rifle found at the TSBD, but that wasn't the point I replied to.

You falsely claimed that Oswald provided no explanation for the presence of the MC rifle at the TSBD.

So I asked you who asked Oswald for an explanation of the MC rifle being found at the TSBD?

Since you claim was obviously false, you can't answer and thus pathetically try to pivot away to another false claim.

Good grief.  Oswald denied he owned ANY rifle or carried any long bag that morning - including by implication the MC rifle found on the 6th floor and shown in the BY photo which he claimed was faked.  That is his answer regarding the rifle.  He was also asked if he had ever seen any rifle in the building and he comes up with the rifles that were brought to the building a couple days beforehand.  He says nothing about seeing the MC rifle or knowing how it came to be there when asked about a seeing a rifle in the building.  If he had indicated that he had seen the MC rifle, I'm sure the DPD would have asked him further questions.  But Oswald's position is that he did not own any rifle and had no information about any other rifle in the building except those brought by Castor earlier that week.   As a result, he provided no explanation for his rifle's presence in the building despite many obvious opportunities to explain it.  Instead he lies and denies any knowledge of it.

[Richard Smith]

An excellent point, Mr. Iacoletti, once again here's yet another instance highlighting the prevailing fallacious of a hastily contrived script to frame the wrongly accused.

Let's see.  A witness who indicated that she knew Oswald beforehand confirmed his presence on the bus.  And Oswald had a bus transfer that can be traced to the driver of that bus.  But there is no evidence of his presence on the bus in contrarian land?  LOL.  Instead what is cited as evidence is an estimate of the length of a bag that a witness admits he had little cause to notice and his description of how the bag was carried while walking at a distance behind Oswald.  This estimate is deemed to be scientifically precise down to the inch. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Good grief.  Oswald denied he owned ANY rifle or carried any long bag that morning - including by implication the MC rifle found on the 6th floor and shown in the BY photo which he claimed was faked.  That is his answer regarding the rifle.  He was also asked if he had ever seen any rifle in the building and he comes up with the rifles that were brought to the building a couple days beforehand.  He says nothing about seeing the MC rifle or knowing how it came to be there when asked about a seeing a rifle in the building.  If he had indicated that he had seen the MC rifle, I'm sure the DPD would have asked him further questions.  But Oswald's position is that he did not own any rifle and had no information about any other rifle in the building except those brought by Castor earlier that week.   As a result, he provided no explanation for his rifle's presence in the building despite many obvious opportunities to explain it.  Instead he lies and denies any knowledge of it.

He was also asked if he had ever seen any rifle in the building and he comes up with the rifles that were brought to the building a couple days beforehand.  He says nothing about seeing the MC rifle or knowing how it came to be there when asked about a seeing a rifle in the building.

Which leads to the logical conclusion that he did not see the MC rifle or knew how it got into the TSBD.

As a result, he provided no explanation for his rifle's presence in the building despite many obvious opportunities to explain it.

Who, other than you, says that it is "his rifle"?

Instead he lies and denies any knowledge of it.

Only if you start with the flawed conclusion that he owned the MC rifle found at the TSBD, for which there is no evidence!

[Alan J. Ford]

Mr. Smith,

Lest you forget you have been on the clock now since April 7th to produce an actual photo image of the lying rooftop tandem standing atop that otherwise locked roof from the inside. We all understand if you cannot produce that kind of irrefutable evidence...there's a reason for that (they outright lied amid a hastily contrived script to frame the wrongly accused).

Now, as we continue to await your irrefutable proof that clearly shows the lying rooftop tandem atop that otherwise locked roof from the inside, let's take into consideration the manufactured/planted bus transfer. Just a simple question: Why is it in such pristine condition?

Before you answer, lest you forget there's plenty of evidence of an intense struggle with the wrongly accused inside the Texas Theatre that afternoon, so don't offer up the excuse of magic was evident to avoid the planted bus-transfer from natural, normal tearing, wrinkling, etc. There's been way too much magic in this case already (a magic bullet, the magical exploits of the lying rooftop tandem magically gaining access to an otherwise locked roof from the inside, while at the same time magically locking themselves out of the building from the otherside)...you cannot make this stuff up but considering it's all a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure, well anything magical is possible. The issue here is they had to frame an innocent party in a short period of time... not exactly enough time though to thoroughly vett their lies.

Lest you forget, you are still on the clock to produce irrefutable proof of the lying rooftop tandem standing atop that otherwise locked roof from the inside. We all understand if you continue to avoid the challenge. There's a reason for that. Only the absolute truth can stand the test of time--no phony hastily contrived revision(s), do-overs, etc.

[Richard Smith]

He was also asked if he had ever seen any rifle in the building and he comes up with the rifles that were brought to the building a couple days beforehand.  He says nothing about seeing the MC rifle or knowing how it came to be there when asked about a seeing a rifle in the building.

Which leads to the logical conclusion that he did not see the MC rifle or knew how it got into the TSBD.

Uh no.  Obviously, another explanation is that he lied.  If the rifle was owned by Oswald, he could have admitted ownership and conjured up some explanation for his rifle being there like he planned to go hunting that weekend or that the rifle had been stolen etc.  He has ample opportunity to provide an explanation for his rifle's presence in the building which is the point you took issue with (i.e. he was not directly asked).  Instead he decides to deny ownership or any knowledge of how the rifle came to be there despite a mountain of evidence from a variety of different sources that link him to that rifle including his palm print on it.