Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD  (Read 11907 times)

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3068
Re: How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD
« Reply #30 on: March 12, 2018, 03:20:09 PM »
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!

Offline Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 977
Re: How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD
« Reply #31 on: March 12, 2018, 03:46:11 PM »
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.   

Offline Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 977
Re: How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD
« Reply #32 on: March 12, 2018, 03:55:44 PM »
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?

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3068
Re: How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD
« Reply #33 on: March 12, 2018, 04:04:56 PM »
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?

Offline Wesley Johnson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
Re: How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD
« Reply #34 on: March 12, 2018, 04:56:20 PM »
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. 

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3068
Re: How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD
« Reply #35 on: March 12, 2018, 05:28:36 PM »

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....
« Last Edit: March 12, 2018, 05:31:27 PM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Gary Craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
Re: How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD
« Reply #36 on: March 12, 2018, 05:59:49 PM »
"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-


Offline Wesley Johnson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
Re: How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD
« Reply #37 on: March 12, 2018, 06:18:12 PM »
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? 

Offline Wesley Johnson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
Re: How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD
« Reply #38 on: March 12, 2018, 06:34:07 PM »
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?

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3068
Re: How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD
« Reply #39 on: March 12, 2018, 06:49:53 PM »

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?
« Last Edit: March 12, 2018, 07:52:28 PM by Martin Weidmann »

 

Mobile View