If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[John Mytton]

Or are you just going by what his interrogators claimed he said?

Not this again. Yawn!

For a start, Oswald had every reason to admit to every action on my list because there were eyewitnesses or solid evidence at every stage.
 
1. Oswald had to have left because he was caught a little over an hour later across town in a theater.
2. Oswald was on the bus because he had the appropriate Bus transfer and he may have seen Bledsoe.
3. Whaley identified Oswald in his cab.
4. Oswald got to the rooming house around one, meaning he couldn't have ran.
5. Oswald was arrested with his revolver.
6. Oswald was seen by many eyewitnesses punching a cop.

There were many varying law enforcement agencies who participated and you can't possibly be suggesting that they all got together to get their stories straight? Besides CT's use the interrogations much more than LNers.

Oswald said that he didn't own the rifle.
Oswald said that he bought the revolver in Fort Worth.
Oswald said that he wasn't in the backyard photos.
Oswald said he didn't kill Kennedy.
Oswald said he didn't kill Tippit.
Oswald left out Neely street.
Oswald said he spoke with Shelley about leaving.
Oswald said that his rifle bag contained his lunch.
Need I go on??

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Not this again. Yawn!

For a start, Oswald had every reason to admit to every action on my list because there were eyewitnesses or solid evidence at every stage.
 
1. Oswald had to have left because he was caught a little over an hour later across town in a theater.
2. Oswald was on the bus because he had the appropriate Bus transfer and he may have seen Bledsoe.
3. Whaley identified Oswald in his cab.
4. Oswald got to the rooming house around one, meaning he couldn't have ran.
5. Oswald was arrested with his revolver.
6. Oswald was seen by many eyewitnesses punching a cop.

There were many varying law enforcement agencies who participated and you can't possibly be suggesting that they all got together to get their stories straight? Besides CT's use the interrogations much more than LNers.

Oswald said that he didn't own the rifle.
Oswald said that he bought the revolver in Fort Worth.
Oswald said that he wasn't in the backyard photos.
Oswald said he didn't kill Kennedy.
Oswald said he didn't kill Tippit.
Oswald left out Neely street.
Oswald said he spoke with Shelley about leaving.
Oswald said that his rifle bag contained his lunch.
Need I go on??

JohnM

So, the answer is: yes, you are merely going by what the interrogators claimed he said.   

[John Mytton]

It's always about you, isn't it?  . OK, just kidding. Mostly.

How sad, just after I accepted your evidence about the Hill/Davenport matter.

Lighten up, it looks like Mitch just made a joke because you said "I will have to be authenticated."

BTW, If you accepted Mitch's evidence then why did you post this little gem AFTER?

Does anybody really think this mess is a chain of custody?

Of course not. But it did explain the discrepancy between Hill's WC testimony and the receipt Davenport obtained from the evidence room.
You know, the discrepancy John Mytton wanted to ignore.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Lighten up, it looks like Mitch just made a joke because you said "I will have to be authenticated."

BTW, If you accepted Mitch's evidence then why did you post this little gem AFTER?

JohnM

If you don't understand why, you are more ignorant than I actually thought you are.

[David Von Pein]

It's just too bad that Oswald's ownership of the rifle found at the TSBD is only assumed and most certainly not proven.

It would be very difficult to have a stronger batch of evidence with which to prove Lee Harvey Oswald's ownership of Rifle No. C2766 than the batch that exists in this case. E.G.:

.... There's the various documents that were retained (on microfilm) by Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. (But apparently conspiracy theorists have decided it would be wise to disregard all of those "microfilm" records because they are only photographs of the original pieces of paper; and therefore everybody is supposed to swallow the notion that all of those microfilmed records that were retained by Klein's in Chicago are fake and fraudulent documents that were created by a band of conspirators for the sole purpose of attempting to frame an innocent patsy named Lee Oswald for the murder of the American President. Yeah, right.)

.... There's Lee Oswald's own handwriting on three of the documents connected with the rifle purchase, including the Postal Money Order. (And, BTW, that money order which was declared by both the Warren Commission's and the HSCA's handwriting experts to have the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald on it, was not just a microfilmed copy of the Postal Money Order. It was the original money order. Which is something that CTers tend to just ignore completely in their desire to claim that all of the rifle evidence is fraudulent. Lots more "Money Order" discussion HERE.)

.... There's a palmprint of Oswald's on the C2766 rifle. (More about that controversy HERE.)

.... There's the backyard photos which depict Oswald holding a rifle. And the rifle seen in those backyard photographs was determined by the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel to be the very same rifle that LHO is holding in the backyard pictures:

"A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs." -- 6 HSCA 66

And that same HSCA Photographic Panel also said the following:

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146

But even with all of the above things piled up against the door which prove beyond all reasonable and sensible doubt that Lee Oswald purchased, possessed, and handled Carcano Rifle No. C2766 in 1963, many conspiracy theorists still insist upon making the absurd claim that Oswald never owned and never even touched that rifle.

That, folks, is called Serious Denial!

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

[Martin Weidmann]

It would be very difficult to have a stronger batch of evidence with which to prove Lee Harvey Oswald's ownership of Rifle No. C2766 than the batch that exists in this case. E.G.:

.... There's the various documents that were retained (on microfilm) by Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. (But apparently conspiracy theorists have decided it would be wise to disregard all of those "microfilm" records because they are only photographs of the original pieces of paper; and therefore everybody is supposed to swallow the notion that all of those microfilmed records that were retained by Klein's in Chicago are fake and fraudulent documents that were created by a band of conspirators for the sole purpose of attempting to frame an innocent patsy named Lee Oswald for the murder of the American President. Yeah, right.)

.... There's Lee Oswald's own handwriting on three of the documents connected with the rifle purchase, including the Postal Money Order. (And, BTW, that money order which was declared by both the Warren Commission's and the HSCA's handwriting experts to have the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald on it, was not just a microfilmed copy of the Postal Money Order. It was the original money order. Which is something that CTers tend to just ignore completely in their desire to claim that all of the rifle evidence is fraudulent. Lots more "Money Order" discussion HERE.)

.... There's a palmprint of Oswald's on the C2766 rifle. (More about that controversy HERE.)

.... There's the backyard photos which depict Oswald holding a rifle. And the rifle seen in those backyard photographs was determined by the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel to be the very same rifle that LHO is holding in the backyard pictures:

"A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs." -- 6 HSCA 66

And that same HSCA Photographic Panel also said the following:

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146

But even with all of the above things piled up against the door which prove beyond all reasonable and sensible doubt that Lee Oswald purchased, possessed, and handled Carcano Rifle No. C2766 in 1963, many conspiracy theorists still insist upon making the absurd claim that Oswald never owned and never even touched that rifle.

That, folks, is called Serious Denial!

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

It would be very difficult to have a stronger batch of evidence with which to prove Lee Harvey Oswald's ownership of Rifle No. C2766 than the batch that exists in this case

Well, David, having an invoice in Oswald's name and/or a proper receipt for the delivery of the rifle to him would improve the case much!

There's the various documents that were retained (on microfilm) by Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.

True, but those are in the name Hidell

(But apparently conspiracy theorists have decided it would be wise to disregard all of those "microfilm" records because they are only photographs of the original pieces of paper; and therefore everybody is supposed to swallow the notion that all of those microfilmed records that were retained by Klein's in Chicago are fake and fraudulent documents that were created by a band of conspirators for the sole purpose of attempting to frame an innocent patsy named Lee Oswald for the murder of the American President. Yeah, right.)

I'm not disregarding those microfilm records, but LNs frequently ignore that the Klein's microfilm was taken by the FBI and not returned for some time. Considering that the FBI must have had a machine to use the microfilm (why else would they take it?) can you tell me what happened to it, where it was and who had it? Then the WC blindly accepted the opinion of an FBI handwriting expert who claimed (despite the fact that document examiners normally only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies) that Oswald wrote the order form after comparing it with other copies of documents that Oswald allegedly wrote in the past.

There's Lee Oswald's own handwriting on three of the documents connected with the rifle purchase, including the Postal Money Order. (And, BTW, that money order which was declared by both the Warren Commission's and the HSCA's handwriting experts to have the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald on it, was not just a microfilmed copy of the Postal Money Order. It was the original money order. Which is something that CTers tend to just ignore completely in their desire to claim that all of the rifle evidence is fraudulent.

I'm not claiming the rifle evidence is fraudulent. I am merely saying that even if Oswald did indeed write the order form and the money order, that still only proves that he was involved in the rifle being ordered. It does not show ownership.

There's a palmprint of Oswald's on the C2766 rifle.

Wrong. There is a palmprint purported to be Oswald's on an evidence card which did not surface until after Oswald was dead. But, again, even if the palmprint was on the rifle, that would merely show that Oswald held the rifle and not that he owned it.

There's the backyard photos which depict Oswald holding a rifle. And the rifle seen in those backyard photographs was determined by the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel to be the very same rifle that LHO is holding in the backyard pictures:

"A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs."

And how exactly does holding a rifle in a photograph prove ownership?

But even with all of the above things piled up against the door which prove beyond all reasonable and sensible doubt that Lee Oswald purchased, possessed, and handled Carcano Rifle No. C2766 in 1963, many conspiracy theorists still insist upon making the absurd claim that Oswald never owned and never even touched that rifle.

I've never claimed that Oswald never touched that rifle. How could I, when I don't know what actually happened? I have merely questioned how the evidence you provide shows "beyond reasonable doubt" that Oswald owned the rifle and, more importantly, that he still had it (stored in Ruth Paine's garage) on 11/21/63? From everything I'v seen so far, it is indeed nothing more than an assumption. One of many that are being made in this case!

[Richard Smith]

On another thread I asked Richard and some other Nutter this very simple question:

"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"

As you know, as anyone with a grain of intelligence knows, establishing Oswald's ownership of the MC has nothing to do with whether he took the shots or not. It's an embarrassingly simple question to answer but I knew that neither of them would be able to answer it because all true Nutters have a very extreme, inflexible mentality. The question reveals that Nutters have fooled themselves into believing that Oswald being the shooter is a proven fact. They believe that, because so much evidence points to that conclusion, it makes it a fact. They genuinely don't understand that it's not a fact. In reality it is a belief and the conclusions of the Warren Commission are, at best, a working theory. An invented narrative, the purpose of which is to accommodate certain facts about the case. A story.
Very often on this forum people come along with really 'alternative' narratives - Two Oswalds, Prayerman, Hickey and the AR-15 etc. - and I've noticed over the few years I've been a member of this forum that anyone proposing these narratives always present them as a fact. Not working theories. Not alternative narratives. They share this mentality with Nutters. Other traits they share are a complete refusal to acknowledge any evidence that contradicts any detail their narrative, a refusal to debate an issue reasonably and a lack of humility.
On the flip side, there are some on both sides of the LN/CT divide who are willing to engage reasonably even if they ultimately disagree. This makes me think that the traditional LN/CT divide should be discarded and that the division should be between those willing to genuinely engage in the debate and those who just want to spout their beliefs as if they were facts.

What a profoundly bizarre analysis that begins with "establishing Oswald's ownership of the MC has nothing to do with whether he took the shots or not".  This is followed by perhaps the single dumbest quote in the history of CTer hall of shame:  "Nutters have fooled themselves into believing that Oswald being the shooter is a proven fact. They believe that, because so much evidence points to that conclusion, it makes it a fact." 

Imagine citing the fact that the evidence points to Oswald as a criticism for concluding that Oswald committed the crime!  That's a new level of delusion.   Again, ownership of the weapon left at the crime scene is highly incriminating.  It's hard to even contemplate a more significant piece of evidence.  Does that alone prove that Oswald pulled the trigger?  It's highly incriminating absent some explanation.  So what happens at that point?  The police investigate the person who owned the weapon.  What do they discover?  First, that he has no alibi for the moment of the crime.  Second, that he has no explanation for the presence of his rifle being at the crime scene.  Instead, he lies about the rifle and denies ownership.  Something easily debunked by his own wife, serial numbers, and even photos of Oswald holding it.  Third, that he fled the crime scene (his place of employment), got another weapon, and killed a police officer.   Honestly, it's hard to understand how there could be much more evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to this crime.  You should be deeply ashamed to peddle this nonsense while lecturing others about engaging in the "debate."