Discussion:
So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor
(too old to reply)
BOZ
2019-03-22 03:02:20 UTC
Permalink
So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-22 23:02:32 UTC
Permalink
On 3/21/2019 11:02 PM, BOZ wrote:
> So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
>

The Parks Department?
BOZ
2019-03-23 19:54:10 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 8:02:33 PM UTC-3, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/21/2019 11:02 PM, BOZ wrote:
> > So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
> >
>
> The Parks Department?

Any relation to Rosa?
BOZ
2019-03-24 03:23:50 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 10:13:11 PM UTC-3, donald willis wrote:
> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 8:02:22 PM UTC-7, BOZ wrote:
> > So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
>
> The rifle was found on the fifth floor, though I admit that the photo
> evidence is ambiguous....

Who shot JFK? Harold Norman?
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-24 19:07:11 UTC
Permalink
On 3/22/2019 9:11 PM, donald willis wrote:
> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 8:02:22 PM UTC-7, BOZ wrote:
>> So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
>
> The rifle was found on the fifth floor, though I admit that the photo
> evidence is ambiguous....
>

NO
Ramon F Herrera
2019-03-26 00:55:50 UTC
Permalink
On 3/21/2019 10:02 PM, BOZ wrote:
> So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
>

If you visit the SolidWorks forum, you will read the question that
people keep on asking:

"Ramon: How on earth is having an extremely accurate 3D model with all
kinds of vintage objects and assorted contraptions inside going to help
solve the case?"

I say: "Be patient, Grasshopper". It is known as the MMS or "Mare
Mounting Strategy".

Just to give you an idea about the unprecedented precision that your
model will boast, check out the official, USPS-issue lock for the 2
mailboxes:

https://goo.gl/bCtQBm

With the SolidWorks software it is possible to have the lock, complete
with spring-loaded cylinders inside and several keys, which can turn.
Only one of them will have the "teeth" in the precise configuration to
be able to open the mailboxes.

An exercise for the clicking (clicks == dollars) visitors will be to:

- Open the Coca-Cola and Dr. Pepper machine. Just for fun, I may hide
a Mannlichter-Carcano (even more devious: a Winchester) inside. The
technique that allows models to achieve movement such as hinged doors is
known as "rigging".

https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/coca-cola-vending-machine-f2d31eb0ddac4d21944df7dcc4af6d28

https://goo.gl/i7Pevn [*]

- Borrowing the exercise imposed on Buell Frazier and sister in
Washington, see if it is possible to insert a disassembled M/C trough
the letter slots. Would a key be needed?

IOW: As if we don't have enough mysteries in this case, I am bringing a
new generation. Mine are actually DOABLE by anybody who visits your
model of the Plaza.

Next: I will tell you gals/guys about my days growing up in a farm. Our
stallion had a very effective technique to mount a mare who was not in heat.

I took note of that technique and brought it in my suitcases when I
emigrated to this, the greatest, most welcoming, most generous country
in history, despite the YouTube videoclips filled with racism that you
keep on sending me in private.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

#FreeTheCranium
#FreeTheBlueprints
#FreeRamon'sPosts


[*] Notice the photos that say "Ebert-Restoral". Thanks go to Brian
Ebert, who has fun restoring soda vending machines (the kind made of
metal and plastic). He just bought one, is restoring it as we speak and
his smart phone camera is at my (your) disposal. Muchas gracias, Brian!!!
Ramon F Herrera
2019-03-26 00:57:38 UTC
Permalink
On 3/21/2019 10:02 PM, BOZ wrote:
> So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
>

If you visit the SolidWorks forum, you will read the question that
people keep on asking:

"Ramon: How on earth is having an extremely accurate 3D model with all
kinds of vintage objects and assorted contraptions inside going to help
solve the case?"

I say: "Be patient, Grasshopper". It is known as the MMS or "Mare Mounting
Strategy".

Just to give you an idea about the unprecedented precision that your model
will boast, check out the official, USPS-issue lock for the 2 mailboxes:

https://goo.gl/bCtQBm

With the SolidWorks software it is possible to have the lock, complete
with spring-loaded cylinders inside and several keys, which can turn. Only
one of them will have the "teeth" in the precise configuration to be able
to open the mailboxes.

An exercise for the clicking (clicks == dollars) visitors will be to:

- Open the Coca-Cola and Dr. Pepper machine. Just for fun, I may hide a
Mannlichter-Carcano (even more devious: a Winchester) inside. The
technique that allows models to achieve movement such as hinged doors
is known as "rigging".

https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/coca-cola-vending-machine-f2d31eb0ddac4d21944df7dcc4af6d28

https://goo.gl/i7Pevn [*]

- Borrowing the exercise imposed on Buell Frazier and sister in
Washington, see if it is possible to insert a disassembled M/C trough
the letter slots. Would a key be needed?

IOW: As if we don't have enough mysteries in this case, I am bringing a
new generation. Mine are actually DOABLE by anybody who visits your model
of the Plaza.

Next: I will tell you gals/guys about my days growing up in a farm. Our
stallion had a very effective technique to mount a mare who was not in
heat.

I took note of that technique and brought it in my suitcases when I
emigrated to this, the greatest, most welcoming, most generous country in
history, despite the YouTube videoclips filled with hatred of human beings
that you keep on sending me in private.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

#FreeTheCranium
#FreeTheBlueprints
#FreeRamon'sPosts


[*] Notice the photos that say "Ebert-Restoral". Thanks go to Brian Ebert,
who has fun restoring soda vending machines (the kind made of metal and
plastic). He just bought one, is restoring it as we speak and his smart
phone camera is at my (your) disposal. Muchas gracias, Brian!!!
Ramon F Herrera
2019-03-29 16:33:38 UTC
Permalink
On 3/25/2019 7:57 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On 3/21/2019 10:02 PM, BOZ wrote:
>> So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
>>
>
> If you visit the SolidWorks forum, you will read the question that
> people keep on asking:
>
> "Ramon: How on earth is having an extremely accurate 3D model with all
> kinds of vintage objects and assorted contraptions inside going to help
> solve the case?"
>
> I say: "Be patient, Grasshopper". It is known as the MMS or "Mare
> Mounting Strategy".
>
> Just to give you an idea about the unprecedented precision that your
> model will boast, check out the official, USPS-issue lock for the 2
> mailboxes:
>
> https://goo.gl/bCtQBm
>
> With the SolidWorks software it is possible to have the lock, complete
> with spring-loaded cylinders inside and several keys, which can turn.
> Only one of them will have the "teeth" in the precise configuration to
> be able to open the mailboxes.
>
> An exercise for the clicking (clicks == dollars) visitors will be to:
>
> ??- Open the Coca-Cola and Dr. Pepper machine. Just for fun, I may hide
> a ???? Mannlichter-Carcano (even more devious: a Winchester) inside. The
> ???? technique that allows models to achieve movement such as hinged
> doors ???? is known as "rigging".
>
> https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/coca-cola-vending-machine-f2d31eb0ddac4d21944df7dcc4af6d28
>
>
> https://goo.gl/i7Pevn [*]
>
> ??- Borrowing the exercise imposed on Buell Frazier and sister in
> Washington, see if it is possible to insert a disassembled M/C trough
> the letter slots. Would a key be needed?
>
> IOW: As if we don't have enough mysteries in this case, I am bringing a
> new generation. Mine are actually DOABLE, VERIFIABLE by anybody who visits your
> model of the Plaza.
>

Anybody with an Internet connection and a browser will be able to verify
and authenticate: distances, angles, sniper locations (nests, storm drains
and otherwise), ammo calibers, etc. The People may choose doing themselves
(the Marsh, Deagle, BT George, arrogant types) or ask their friendly
universities to do it for them (the humble types such as moi).

How about asking Myers or authors of any of the studies seen here:

https://vimeo.com/user69083377

For access to their files?

Good luck. In 56 years nobody had been able to get that kind of privileged
access (*). Our most esteemed Emerling says that we are too dumb (and his
latest: our top universities lie). See thread entitled "Are we sure the
David Emerling is a Liberal?"

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

#FreeTheCranium
#FreeTheBlueprints
#FreeRamon'sPosts

(*) Until 8/21/2018, a historic date, that is.
r***@gmail.com
2019-03-27 03:53:33 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 8:52:56 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
>
> Once that is answered I would like to know why Marina and Ruth Paine
> weren't ordered to say they saw him leave for work that morning carrying a
> large bag?
>
> If the claim is they were coached to frame Oswald then that would be one
> area it seems to me that they would be coached to say. That is, it
> connects LHO directly to the rifle.
>
> So why weren't they ordered/coached/instructed to say these things?

That job was assigned to Frazier and Linnie Mae. Too much corroboration
looks like a setup, and Ruth had already planted Oswald at the TSBD, so
you don't want too much depending on her credibility. Also, she most
likely is the one who took the rifle out of the garage that morning and
delivered it to somebody when she left early for her "doctor's
appointment." I "infer," as Bugliosi is allowed to do by you people, even
when he just makes up shit, that Ruth was part of the conspiracy in real
time, and that Marina was not. When one murders a president in this
manner, one likes to have the stories match the actual events as much as
is possible. Unnecessary lying only invites trouble. So, any lies fed to
Marina would have come after the events, and would be kept to the minimum
necessary, so as not to invite contradictions in the evidence. It's not
like writing a novel. You know what you NEED from Marina, so that's what
you get from her. You don't have her lie about things unnecessarily.
Frazier and Linnie Mae had Oswald's package covered. There's no need for
more liars there. Too many people have to keep their lies straight. Keep
it as simple as possible.
Steve M. Galbraith
2019-03-28 02:20:00 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:53:34 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 8:52:56 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > > So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
> >
> > Once that is answered I would like to know why Marina and Ruth Paine
> > weren't ordered to say they saw him leave for work that morning carrying a
> > large bag?
> >
> > If the claim is they were coached to frame Oswald then that would be one
> > area it seems to me that they would be coached to say. That is, it
> > connects LHO directly to the rifle.
> >
> > So why weren't they ordered/coached/instructed to say these things?
>
> That job was assigned to Frazier and Linnie Mae. Too much corroboration
> looks like a setup, and Ruth had already planted Oswald at the TSBD, so
> you don't want too much depending on her credibility. Also, she most
> likely is the one who took the rifle out of the garage that morning and
> delivered it to somebody when she left early for her "doctor's
> appointment." I "infer," as Bugliosi is allowed to do by you people, even
> when he just makes up shit, that Ruth was part of the conspiracy in real
> time, and that Marina was not. When one murders a president in this
> manner, one likes to have the stories match the actual events as much as
> is possible. Unnecessary lying only invites trouble. So, any lies fed to
> Marina would have come after the events, and would be kept to the minimum
> necessary, so as not to invite contradictions in the evidence. It's not
> like writing a novel. You know what you NEED from Marina, so that's what
> you get from her. You don't have her lie about things unnecessarily.
> Frazier and Linnie Mae had Oswald's package covered. There's no need for
> more liars there. Too many people have to keep their lies straight. Keep
> it as simple as possible.

Having Marina and/or Ruth Paine say they saw him carry a rifle that
morning would be "too much" information? What does that mean? "Too much"
information for what?

Your evidence that "the job was assigned to Frazier and Linnie Mae" is? Do
you have a document indicating this, a statement by either of them or
their superiors, to do this? Anything remotely suggesting they were
ordered to do this?

And of course, both later described the package as being too small to
carry that rifle. If they were ordered to do this - and you have no
evidence for it - why did they say these things that undermine their
"jobs"? It seems completely illogical.

Your evidence that Marina was the one who gave the rifle is? A witness, a
statement, something?

This is a nice story but it's just complete fiction unless you have some
evidence - something - to support it.

When lone assassin believers ask "How was Oswald's rifle planted? Who did
it?" we're not asking for a make believe story. We're asking for evidence
on who did this. And how. Not something made up.
Steve M. Galbraith
2019-03-28 02:20:48 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:53:34 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 8:52:56 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > > So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
> >
> > Once that is answered I would like to know why Marina and Ruth Paine
> > weren't ordered to say they saw him leave for work that morning carrying a
> > large bag?
> >
> > If the claim is they were coached to frame Oswald then that would be one
> > area it seems to me that they would be coached to say. That is, it
> > connects LHO directly to the rifle.
> >
> > So why weren't they ordered/coached/instructed to say these things?
>
> That job was assigned to Frazier and Linnie Mae. Too much corroboration
> looks like a setup, and Ruth had already planted Oswald at the TSBD, so
> you don't want too much depending on her credibility. Also, she most
> likely is the one who took the rifle out of the garage that morning and
> delivered it to somebody when she left early for her "doctor's
> appointment." I "infer," as Bugliosi is allowed to do by you people, even
> when he just makes up shit, that Ruth was part of the conspiracy in real
> time, and that Marina was not. When one murders a president in this
> manner, one likes to have the stories match the actual events as much as
> is possible. Unnecessary lying only invites trouble. So, any lies fed to
> Marina would have come after the events, and would be kept to the minimum
> necessary, so as not to invite contradictions in the evidence. It's not
> like writing a novel. You know what you NEED from Marina, so that's what
> you get from her. You don't have her lie about things unnecessarily.
> Frazier and Linnie Mae had Oswald's package covered. There's no need for
> more liars there. Too many people have to keep their lies straight. Keep
> it as simple as possible.

How did Ruth "plant" Oswald at the TSBD? Didn't he apply for the job?
Didn't Truly hire him? Didn't Linnie Mae inform her of the possible
opening?

Your explanations for how this was done is: "Person A" did this and
"Person B" did that and another person or persons directed it. You have no
evidence that this was done.

What you're doing is sort of conspiracy reverse engineering: you begin
with the conspiracy view, i.e., that Oswald was framed, and then reverse
things to explain how these different individuals were involved and how it
was done. It's not even confirmation bias; it's post hoc conspiracy
reasoning.

It's probably the main problem that conspiracy advocates have. You are so
fervent in your belief that a conspiracy occurred, and that Oswald was
framed, that the evidence for it is simply made up. "Smith did this and
Jones did that" and "This was done here and that was done there."
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-29 03:15:14 UTC
Permalink
On 3/27/2019 10:20 PM, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:53:34 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 8:52:56 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
>>>> So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
>>>
>>> Once that is answered I would like to know why Marina and Ruth Paine
>>> weren't ordered to say they saw him leave for work that morning carrying a
>>> large bag?
>>>
>>> If the claim is they were coached to frame Oswald then that would be one
>>> area it seems to me that they would be coached to say. That is, it
>>> connects LHO directly to the rifle.
>>>
>>> So why weren't they ordered/coached/instructed to say these things?
>>
>> That job was assigned to Frazier and Linnie Mae. Too much corroboration
>> looks like a setup, and Ruth had already planted Oswald at the TSBD, so
>> you don't want too much depending on her credibility. Also, she most
>> likely is the one who took the rifle out of the garage that morning and
>> delivered it to somebody when she left early for her "doctor's
>> appointment." I "infer," as Bugliosi is allowed to do by you people, even
>> when he just makes up shit, that Ruth was part of the conspiracy in real
>> time, and that Marina was not. When one murders a president in this
>> manner, one likes to have the stories match the actual events as much as
>> is possible. Unnecessary lying only invites trouble. So, any lies fed to
>> Marina would have come after the events, and would be kept to the minimum
>> necessary, so as not to invite contradictions in the evidence. It's not
>> like writing a novel. You know what you NEED from Marina, so that's what
>> you get from her. You don't have her lie about things unnecessarily.
>> Frazier and Linnie Mae had Oswald's package covered. There's no need for
>> more liars there. Too many people have to keep their lies straight. Keep
>> it as simple as possible.
>
> How did Ruth "plant" Oswald at the TSBD? Didn't he apply for the job?

They think Ruth Paine called the TSBD and suggested that they hire
Oswald because she worked for the CIA.

> Didn't Truly hire him? Didn't Linnie Mae inform her of the possible
> opening?
>

How would she know? Wasn't this prompted by the need to use the regular
workers to lay new flooring?

> Your explanations for how this was done is: "Person A" did this and
> "Person B" did that and another person or persons directed it. You have no
> evidence that this was done.
>
> What you're doing is sort of conspiracy reverse engineering: you begin
> with the conspiracy view, i.e., that Oswald was framed, and then reverse
> things to explain how these different individuals were involved and how it
> was done. It's not even confirmation bias; it's post hoc conspiracy
> reasoning.
>
> It's probably the main problem that conspiracy advocates have. You are so
> fervent in your belief that a conspiracy occurred, and that Oswald was
> framed, that the evidence for it is simply made up. "Smith did this and
> Jones did that" and "This was done here and that was done there."
>
>
>
>
r***@gmail.com
2019-03-29 03:21:14 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 10:20:49 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:53:34 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 8:52:56 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > > > So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
> > >
> > > Once that is answered I would like to know why Marina and Ruth Paine
> > > weren't ordered to say they saw him leave for work that morning carrying a
> > > large bag?
> > >
> > > If the claim is they were coached to frame Oswald then that would be one
> > > area it seems to me that they would be coached to say. That is, it
> > > connects LHO directly to the rifle.
> > >
> > > So why weren't they ordered/coached/instructed to say these things?
> >
> > That job was assigned to Frazier and Linnie Mae. Too much corroboration
> > looks like a setup, and Ruth had already planted Oswald at the TSBD, so
> > you don't want too much depending on her credibility. Also, she most
> > likely is the one who took the rifle out of the garage that morning and
> > delivered it to somebody when she left early for her "doctor's
> > appointment." I "infer," as Bugliosi is allowed to do by you people, even
> > when he just makes up shit, that Ruth was part of the conspiracy in real
> > time, and that Marina was not. When one murders a president in this
> > manner, one likes to have the stories match the actual events as much as
> > is possible. Unnecessary lying only invites trouble. So, any lies fed to
> > Marina would have come after the events, and would be kept to the minimum
> > necessary, so as not to invite contradictions in the evidence. It's not
> > like writing a novel. You know what you NEED from Marina, so that's what
> > you get from her. You don't have her lie about things unnecessarily.
> > Frazier and Linnie Mae had Oswald's package covered. There's no need for
> > more liars there. Too many people have to keep their lies straight. Keep
> > it as simple as possible.
>
> How did Ruth "plant" Oswald at the TSBD? Didn't he apply for the job?
> Didn't Truly hire him? Didn't Linnie Mae inform her of the possible
> opening?
>
> Your explanations for how this was done is: "Person A" did this and
> "Person B" did that and another person or persons directed it. You have no
> evidence that this was done.
>
> What you're doing is sort of conspiracy reverse engineering: you begin
> with the conspiracy view, i.e., that Oswald was framed, and then reverse
> things to explain how these different individuals were involved and how it
> was done. It's not even confirmation bias; it's post hoc conspiracy
> reasoning.
>
> It's probably the main problem that conspiracy advocates have. You are so
> fervent in your belief that a conspiracy occurred, and that Oswald was
> framed, that the evidence for it is simply made up. "Smith did this and
> Jones did that" and "This was done here and that was done there."

I said I was guessing.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-04-01 02:16:13 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:53:34 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 8:52:56 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > > So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
> >
> > Once that is answered I would like to know why Marina and Ruth Paine
> > weren't ordered to say they saw him leave for work that morning carrying a
> > large bag?
> >
> > If the claim is they were coached to frame Oswald then that would be one
> > area it seems to me that they would be coached to say. That is, it
> > connects LHO directly to the rifle.
> >
> > So why weren't they ordered/coached/instructed to say these things?
>
> That job was assigned to Frazier and Linnie Mae. Too much corroboration
> looks like a setup...

HILARIOUS. Seriously.

Your argument reduces to:

"If there's sufficient evidence to establish Oswald was the shooter, then
he's innocent, because he was set up. But on the other hand, if there is
insufficient evidence to establish Oswald was the shooter, then he's
likewise innocent because there's insufficient evidence."

As always, conspiracy theorists will always come up with an excuse to
absolve Oswald.



> , and Ruth had already planted Oswald at the TSBD, so
> you don't want too much depending on her credibility.

It was Wes Frazier's sister who mentioned Wes had gotten a job there
recently, and maybe they were still hiring. Was she part of the conspiracy
too?




> Also, she most
> likely is the one who took the rifle out of the garage that morning and
> delivered it to somebody when she left early for her "doctor's
> appointment."

I would suggest the guy who was seen taking a long package to the
Depository that morning, but you know, too much evidence means he's
innocent. Better to go with something there's no evidence for. Like Ruth
Paine... or maybe the rifle grew legs and walked to the Depository. Or
grew arms and fingers and a thumb, and hitched a ride to the Depository.
It can't be the guy all the evidence indicates is guilty.

I would suggest the guy who left a print behind on a paper sack in the
sniper's nest window, but again, too much evidence means he's innocent.

I would suggest the guy who left a rifle behind with his prints on it, but
too much evidence means he's innocent.

I would suggest the guy who lied in custody and denied owning a rifle, but
too much evidence means he's innocent.

You're really funny. You may have convinced yourself that argument makes
sense, but I doubt you'll convince many others.


> I "infer," as Bugliosi is allowed to do by you people, even
> when he just makes up shit, that Ruth was part of the conspiracy in real
> time, and that Marina was not. When one murders a president in this
> manner, one likes to have the stories match the actual events as much as
> is possible. Unnecessary lying only invites trouble. So, any lies fed to
> Marina would have come after the events, and would be kept to the minimum
> necessary, so as not to invite contradictions in the evidence. It's not
> like writing a novel. You know what you NEED from Marina, so that's what
> you get from her. You don't have her lie about things unnecessarily.
> Frazier and Linnie Mae had Oswald's package covered. There's no need for
> more liars there. Too many people have to keep their lies straight. Keep
> it as simple as possible.

Because too much evidence against the accused means he's innocent, right?

Hilarious.

Hank
r***@gmail.com
2019-04-02 02:12:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 10:16:14 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:53:34 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 8:52:56 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > > > So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
> > >
> > > Once that is answered I would like to know why Marina and Ruth Paine
> > > weren't ordered to say they saw him leave for work that morning carrying a
> > > large bag?
> > >
> > > If the claim is they were coached to frame Oswald then that would be one
> > > area it seems to me that they would be coached to say. That is, it
> > > connects LHO directly to the rifle.
> > >
> > > So why weren't they ordered/coached/instructed to say these things?
> >
> > That job was assigned to Frazier and Linnie Mae. Too much corroboration
> > looks like a setup...
>
> HILARIOUS. Seriously.
>
> Your argument reduces to:
>
> "If there's sufficient evidence to establish Oswald was the shooter, then
> he's innocent, because he was set up. But on the other hand, if there is
> insufficient evidence to establish Oswald was the shooter, then he's
> likewise innocent because there's insufficient evidence."
>
> As always, conspiracy theorists will always come up with an excuse to
> absolve Oswald.
>
>
>
> > , and Ruth had already planted Oswald at the TSBD, so
> > you don't want too much depending on her credibility.
>
> It was Wes Frazier's sister who mentioned Wes had gotten a job there
> recently, and maybe they were still hiring. Was she part of the conspiracy
> too?
>
>
>
>
> > Also, she most
> > likely is the one who took the rifle out of the garage that morning and
> > delivered it to somebody when she left early for her "doctor's
> > appointment."
>
> I would suggest the guy who was seen taking a long package to the
> Depository that morning, but you know, too much evidence means he's
> innocent. Better to go with something there's no evidence for. Like Ruth
> Paine... or maybe the rifle grew legs and walked to the Depository. Or
> grew arms and fingers and a thumb, and hitched a ride to the Depository.
> It can't be the guy all the evidence indicates is guilty.
>
> I would suggest the guy who left a print behind on a paper sack in the
> sniper's nest window, but again, too much evidence means he's innocent.
>
> I would suggest the guy who left a rifle behind with his prints on it, but
> too much evidence means he's innocent.
>
> I would suggest the guy who lied in custody and denied owning a rifle, but
> too much evidence means he's innocent.
>
> You're really funny. You may have convinced yourself that argument makes
> sense, but I doubt you'll convince many others.
>
>
> > I "infer," as Bugliosi is allowed to do by you people, even
> > when he just makes up shit, that Ruth was part of the conspiracy in real
> > time, and that Marina was not. When one murders a president in this
> > manner, one likes to have the stories match the actual events as much as
> > is possible. Unnecessary lying only invites trouble. So, any lies fed to
> > Marina would have come after the events, and would be kept to the minimum
> > necessary, so as not to invite contradictions in the evidence. It's not
> > like writing a novel. You know what you NEED from Marina, so that's what
> > you get from her. You don't have her lie about things unnecessarily.
> > Frazier and Linnie Mae had Oswald's package covered. There's no need for
> > more liars there. Too many people have to keep their lies straight. Keep
> > it as simple as possible.
>
> Because too much evidence against the accused means he's innocent, right?
>
> Hilarious.
>
> Hank

I never said Oswald was innocent. You have reading comprehension issues.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-04-14 22:15:57 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 10:12:05 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 10:16:14 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:53:34 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 8:52:56 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > > > > So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
> > > >
> > > > Once that is answered I would like to know why Marina and Ruth Paine
> > > > weren't ordered to say they saw him leave for work that morning carrying a
> > > > large bag?
> > > >
> > > > If the claim is they were coached to frame Oswald then that would be one
> > > > area it seems to me that they would be coached to say. That is, it
> > > > connects LHO directly to the rifle.
> > > >
> > > > So why weren't they ordered/coached/instructed to say these things?
> > >
> > > That job was assigned to Frazier and Linnie Mae. Too much corroboration
> > > looks like a setup...
> >
> > HILARIOUS. Seriously.
> >
> > Your argument reduces to:
> >
> > "If there's sufficient evidence to establish Oswald was the shooter, then
> > he's innocent, because he was set up. But on the other hand, if there is
> > insufficient evidence to establish Oswald was the shooter, then he's
> > likewise innocent because there's insufficient evidence."
> >
> > As always, conspiracy theorists will always come up with an excuse to
> > absolve Oswald.
> >
> >
> >
> > > , and Ruth had already planted Oswald at the TSBD, so
> > > you don't want too much depending on her credibility.
> >
> > It was Wes Frazier's sister who mentioned Wes had gotten a job there
> > recently, and maybe they were still hiring. Was she part of the conspiracy
> > too?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Also, she most
> > > likely is the one who took the rifle out of the garage that morning and
> > > delivered it to somebody when she left early for her "doctor's
> > > appointment."
> >
> > I would suggest the guy who was seen taking a long package to the
> > Depository that morning, but you know, too much evidence means he's
> > innocent. Better to go with something there's no evidence for. Like Ruth
> > Paine... or maybe the rifle grew legs and walked to the Depository. Or
> > grew arms and fingers and a thumb, and hitched a ride to the Depository.
> > It can't be the guy all the evidence indicates is guilty.
> >
> > I would suggest the guy who left a print behind on a paper sack in the
> > sniper's nest window, but again, too much evidence means he's innocent.
> >
> > I would suggest the guy who left a rifle behind with his prints on it, but
> > too much evidence means he's innocent.
> >
> > I would suggest the guy who lied in custody and denied owning a rifle, but
> > too much evidence means he's innocent.
> >
> > You're really funny. You may have convinced yourself that argument makes
> > sense, but I doubt you'll convince many others.
> >
> >
> > > I "infer," as Bugliosi is allowed to do by you people, even
> > > when he just makes up shit, that Ruth was part of the conspiracy in real
> > > time, and that Marina was not. When one murders a president in this
> > > manner, one likes to have the stories match the actual events as much as
> > > is possible. Unnecessary lying only invites trouble. So, any lies fed to
> > > Marina would have come after the events, and would be kept to the minimum
> > > necessary, so as not to invite contradictions in the evidence. It's not
> > > like writing a novel. You know what you NEED from Marina, so that's what
> > > you get from her. You don't have her lie about things unnecessarily.
> > > Frazier and Linnie Mae had Oswald's package covered. There's no need for
> > > more liars there. Too many people have to keep their lies straight. Keep
> > > it as simple as possible.
> >
> > Because too much evidence against the accused means he's innocent, right?
> >
> > Hilarious.
> >
> > Hank
>
> I never said Oswald was innocent. You have reading comprehension issues.

More hilarity ensues. You were arguing above Oswald was setup by Linnie
Mae Randle and her brother Buell Wesley Frazier.

You also claimed that Ruth Paine was part of the conspiracy and set up
Oswald in his job at the Depository.

Nothing in what you stated in this thread could be interpreted as arguing
for Oswald's guilt as a shooter.

Rather than claiming I have reading comprehension issues, perhaps the real
problem might be you have writing clarity issues.

I see your claim at this point as nothing more than a weak attempt to
deflect from my points.

So, with all that in mind, do take a second shot at the points I did make
above concerning your arguments.

Thanks a bunch. I'd really like to know where I went wrong in rebutting
your claims.

Hank
r***@gmail.com
2019-04-15 19:57:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 6:15:58 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 10:12:05 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 10:16:14 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:53:34 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 8:52:56 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > > > > > So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
> > > > >
> > > > > Once that is answered I would like to know why Marina and Ruth Paine
> > > > > weren't ordered to say they saw him leave for work that morning carrying a
> > > > > large bag?
> > > > >
> > > > > If the claim is they were coached to frame Oswald then that would be one
> > > > > area it seems to me that they would be coached to say. That is, it
> > > > > connects LHO directly to the rifle.
> > > > >
> > > > > So why weren't they ordered/coached/instructed to say these things?
> > > >
> > > > That job was assigned to Frazier and Linnie Mae. Too much corroboration
> > > > looks like a setup...
> > >
> > > HILARIOUS. Seriously.
> > >
> > > Your argument reduces to:
> > >
> > > "If there's sufficient evidence to establish Oswald was the shooter, then
> > > he's innocent, because he was set up. But on the other hand, if there is
> > > insufficient evidence to establish Oswald was the shooter, then he's
> > > likewise innocent because there's insufficient evidence."
> > >
> > > As always, conspiracy theorists will always come up with an excuse to
> > > absolve Oswald.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > , and Ruth had already planted Oswald at the TSBD, so
> > > > you don't want too much depending on her credibility.
> > >
> > > It was Wes Frazier's sister who mentioned Wes had gotten a job there
> > > recently, and maybe they were still hiring. Was she part of the conspiracy
> > > too?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Also, she most
> > > > likely is the one who took the rifle out of the garage that morning and
> > > > delivered it to somebody when she left early for her "doctor's
> > > > appointment."
> > >
> > > I would suggest the guy who was seen taking a long package to the
> > > Depository that morning, but you know, too much evidence means he's
> > > innocent. Better to go with something there's no evidence for. Like Ruth
> > > Paine... or maybe the rifle grew legs and walked to the Depository. Or
> > > grew arms and fingers and a thumb, and hitched a ride to the Depository.
> > > It can't be the guy all the evidence indicates is guilty.
> > >
> > > I would suggest the guy who left a print behind on a paper sack in the
> > > sniper's nest window, but again, too much evidence means he's innocent.
> > >
> > > I would suggest the guy who left a rifle behind with his prints on it, but
> > > too much evidence means he's innocent.
> > >
> > > I would suggest the guy who lied in custody and denied owning a rifle, but
> > > too much evidence means he's innocent.
> > >
> > > You're really funny. You may have convinced yourself that argument makes
> > > sense, but I doubt you'll convince many others.
> > >
> > >
> > > > I "infer," as Bugliosi is allowed to do by you people, even
> > > > when he just makes up shit, that Ruth was part of the conspiracy in real
> > > > time, and that Marina was not. When one murders a president in this
> > > > manner, one likes to have the stories match the actual events as much as
> > > > is possible. Unnecessary lying only invites trouble. So, any lies fed to
> > > > Marina would have come after the events, and would be kept to the minimum
> > > > necessary, so as not to invite contradictions in the evidence. It's not
> > > > like writing a novel. You know what you NEED from Marina, so that's what
> > > > you get from her. You don't have her lie about things unnecessarily.
> > > > Frazier and Linnie Mae had Oswald's package covered. There's no need for
> > > > more liars there. Too many people have to keep their lies straight. Keep
> > > > it as simple as possible.
> > >
> > > Because too much evidence against the accused means he's innocent, right?
> > >
> > > Hilarious.
> > >
> > > Hank
> >
> > I never said Oswald was innocent. You have reading comprehension issues.
>
> More hilarity ensues. You were arguing above Oswald was setup by Linnie
> Mae Randle and her brother Buell Wesley Frazier.
>
> You also claimed that Ruth Paine was part of the conspiracy and set up
> Oswald in his job at the Depository.
>
> Nothing in what you stated in this thread could be interpreted as arguing
> for Oswald's guilt as a shooter.
>
> Rather than claiming I have reading comprehension issues, perhaps the real
> problem might be you have writing clarity issues.
>
> I see your claim at this point as nothing more than a weak attempt to
> deflect from my points.
>
> So, with all that in mind, do take a second shot at the points I did make
> above concerning your arguments.
>
> Thanks a bunch. I'd really like to know where I went wrong in rebutting
> your claims.
>
> Hank

If you are genuine, and let's just assume that for fun, then you have a
bias in favor of the authorities here, which prevents you from evaluating
the evidence objectively. You accuse me of a pro-Oswald bias, when it is
you who have a pro-authorities bias. I started out assuming that Oswald
did it, but I was not biased in favor of the authorities. I have a general
anti-authority bias. In fact, being a very negative sort of person, I am
pretty much biased against everybody. I don't favor Oswald over the
Official Story. I think he's guilty too, but the assassination was not his
baby.

And the problem with exposition of the matter is that the guilty
authorities have defined the event, in part by fragmenting the evidence.
In order to understand the reality it is necessary to understand a large
amount of this evidence, so that you can re-assemble it. You will never
believe anything I say because your bias prevents you from getting your
head around the evidence. In a comment, I can point out a few truths, but
since they contradict your bias and you don't have your head around the
evidence, then you will just dismiss them for whatever reason is handy. If
you really want to understand, you must devote your unbiased attention to
the problem.

One example here, that I see at the moment, "Ruth Paine was a Quaker and
did not like rifles." Really? You think that's worth mentioning? Richard
Nixon was a Quaker, and he bombed Cambodia. You are just grasping for
irrelevant arguments. Anything will do because you refuse to examine the
evidence objectively. Here, you think you know the moral soul of Ruth
Paine because she "is a Quaker." How do you even know she is a Quaker?
Because she says so. Are all Quakers virtuous? Nixon bombed Cambodia
because the US was fighting an unconstitutional war in Vietnam and he
really wanted to win the next election. Is this the virtue of the Friends
in action? Murder innocent people in one country to win an unnecessary war
in another country so that you can be a "great" president? Doesn't sound
very Quaker to me. But you mean Ruth was a "good" Quaker, as if you could
possibly know such a thing. You vouch for the character of Ruth Paine,
somebody you presumably do not even know, in order to support your bias.
One cannot reason with such a profound bias.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-04-17 01:24:03 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 3:57:09 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 6:15:58 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 10:12:05 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 10:16:14 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:53:34 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 8:52:56 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > > > > > > So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Once that is answered I would like to know why Marina and Ruth Paine
> > > > > > weren't ordered to say they saw him leave for work that morning carrying a
> > > > > > large bag?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the claim is they were coached to frame Oswald then that would be one
> > > > > > area it seems to me that they would be coached to say. That is, it
> > > > > > connects LHO directly to the rifle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So why weren't they ordered/coached/instructed to say these things?
> > > > >
> > > > > That job was assigned to Frazier and Linnie Mae. Too much corroboration
> > > > > looks like a setup...
> > > >
> > > > HILARIOUS. Seriously.
> > > >
> > > > Your argument reduces to:
> > > >
> > > > "If there's sufficient evidence to establish Oswald was the shooter, then
> > > > he's innocent, because he was set up. But on the other hand, if there is
> > > > insufficient evidence to establish Oswald was the shooter, then he's
> > > > likewise innocent because there's insufficient evidence."
> > > >
> > > > As always, conspiracy theorists will always come up with an excuse to
> > > > absolve Oswald.
> > > >

No response by anonymous CT 'Red Hair'.


> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > , and Ruth had already planted Oswald at the TSBD, so
> > > > > you don't want too much depending on her credibility.
> > > >
> > > > It was Wes Frazier's sister who mentioned Wes had gotten a job there
> > > > recently, and maybe they were still hiring. Was she part of the conspiracy
> > > > too?
> > > >

No response by anonymous CT 'Red Hair'.


> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Also, she most
> > > > > likely is the one who took the rifle out of the garage that morning and
> > > > > delivered it to somebody when she left early for her "doctor's
> > > > > appointment."
> > > >
> > > > I would suggest the guy who was seen taking a long package to the
> > > > Depository that morning, but you know, too much evidence means he's
> > > > innocent. Better to go with something there's no evidence for. Like Ruth
> > > > Paine... or maybe the rifle grew legs and walked to the Depository. Or
> > > > grew arms and fingers and a thumb, and hitched a ride to the Depository.
> > > > It can't be the guy all the evidence indicates is guilty.
> > > >
> > > > I would suggest the guy who left a print behind on a paper sack in the
> > > > sniper's nest window, but again, too much evidence means he's innocent.
> > > >
> > > > I would suggest the guy who left a rifle behind with his prints on it, but
> > > > too much evidence means he's innocent.
> > > >
> > > > I would suggest the guy who lied in custody and denied owning a rifle, but
> > > > too much evidence means he's innocent.
> > > >
> > > > You're really funny. You may have convinced yourself that argument makes
> > > > sense, but I doubt you'll convince many others.
> > > >

No response by anonymous CT 'Red Hair'.


> > > >
> > > > > I "infer," as Bugliosi is allowed to do by you people, even
> > > > > when he just makes up shit, that Ruth was part of the conspiracy in real
> > > > > time, and that Marina was not. When one murders a president in this
> > > > > manner, one likes to have the stories match the actual events as much as
> > > > > is possible. Unnecessary lying only invites trouble. So, any lies fed to
> > > > > Marina would have come after the events, and would be kept to the minimum
> > > > > necessary, so as not to invite contradictions in the evidence. It's not
> > > > > like writing a novel. You know what you NEED from Marina, so that's what
> > > > > you get from her. You don't have her lie about things unnecessarily.
> > > > > Frazier and Linnie Mae had Oswald's package covered. There's no need for
> > > > > more liars there. Too many people have to keep their lies straight. Keep
> > > > > it as simple as possible.
> > > >
> > > > Because too much evidence against the accused means he's innocent, right?
> > > >
> > > > Hilarious.
> > > >
> > > > Hank
> > >
> > > I never said Oswald was innocent. You have reading comprehension issues.
> >
> > More hilarity ensues. You were arguing above Oswald was setup by Linnie
> > Mae Randle and her brother Buell Wesley Frazier.
> >
> > You also claimed that Ruth Paine was part of the conspiracy and set up
> > Oswald in his job at the Depository.
> >
> > Nothing in what you stated in this thread could be interpreted as arguing
> > for Oswald's guilt as a shooter.
> >
> > Rather than claiming I have reading comprehension issues, perhaps the real
> > problem might be you have writing clarity issues.
> >
> > I see your claim at this point as nothing more than a weak attempt to
> > deflect from my points.
> >
> > So, with all that in mind, do take a second shot at the points I did make
> > above concerning your arguments.
> >
> > Thanks a bunch. I'd really like to know where I went wrong in rebutting
> > your claims.
> >
> > Hank
>

No response by anonymous CT 'Red Hair' to any of the points made.

Instead, you simply issue a series of ad hominem attacks against the
poster who is pointing out the flaws in your arguments.

Above, you simply claimed I had reading comprehension issues instead of
rebutting the points I made. Below, you do more of the same instead of
addressing the issues once more.


> If you are genuine, and let's just assume that for fun,

Starting out here by suggesting my motives aren't 'genuine' (whatever that
means) is clearly classic ad hominem. It's a logical fallacy and doesn't
expose anything except your inability to rebut the points made. If you
hade factual rebuttal, you would utilize it. Instead you attempt to poison
the well by questioning my motives.

Hilarious!


> then you have a
> bias in favor of the authorities here, which prevents you from evaluating
> the evidence objectively.

You need to show that, not just assert it. Otherwise, rebut my points
instead of attacking me.

If I have a bias, it's in favor of evidence over speculation, supposition,
innuendo, and accusations leveled in lieu of evidence. I favor hard
evidence like the actual rifle recovered from the building in which
numerous witnesses testified they saw a rifle, as well as the expert
testimony and eyewitness accounts. But I'm not in the practice of data
mining the eyewitness or expert testimony for points of disagreement and
constructing an argument out of those disparate data points. Rather, I am
seeking the claims confirmed by a number of witnesses as well as the hard
evidence. One such is the fact that numerous witnesses, came forward on
the day of the assassination and claimed to have seen a rifle or a
rifleman in a Depository window shortly before, during, or immediately
after the shooting sequence. Another is the fact that the vast majority of
witnesses (approximately 90%) claimed to have heard three shots.

Those eyewitness claims are confirmed by the hard evidence of a rifle
found in that building and the three shells found at the window.

You pretend this is a bias in favor of 'authority'. It's not, it's a bias
in favor of evidence. You don't differentiate between evidence and
authority, you imagine these are the same, and therefore your argument
goes nowhere.


> You accuse me of a pro-Oswald bias, when it is
> you who have a pro-authorities bias.

Your pro-Oswald bias is very clear. You question the motives of everyone
around him and suggest they were guilty of aiding and abetting the
coverup. Your arguments concerning Mrs. Paine as expressed previously and
here are clearly from a pro-Oswald bias, and you present nothing but
speculation concerning her supposed role - for one example - in how
Oswald's rifle got into the building.

> I started out assuming that Oswald
> did it,

Why?


> but I was not biased in favor of the authorities. I have a general
> anti-authority bias. In fact, being a very negative sort of person, I am
> pretty much biased against everybody. I don't favor Oswald over the
> Official Story. I think he's guilty too, but the assassination was not his
> baby.

Your assertions don't rise to the level of evidence. Your claims of being
unbiased aren't evidence either. Neither your bias or mine is germane to
the evidence and the case.

Cite the evidence, make an argument from the evidence, not the supposed
bias of any given poster.


>
> And the problem with exposition of the matter is that the guilty
> authorities

Begging the Question. You have to establish the authorities are guilty of
anything, not just assert they are. This is another logical fallacy by
you.


> have defined the event, in part by fragmenting the evidence.

Whatever do you mean?


> In order to understand the reality it is necessary to understand a large
> amount of this evidence, so that you can re-assemble it.

Why does it need to be taken apart & reassembled, and what convinces you
the original assembly was incorrect? Does your reassembly explain more of
the evidence in a better manner, with fewer gaps, or does it simply
satisfy *you*?




> You will never
> believe anything I say because your bias prevents you from getting your
> head around the evidence.

More ad hominem - attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

Try making a case that goes beyond "You're stupid and can't understand
what I'm saying!"

Argue my points to convince others, not me. Utilize the evidence, not
personal attacks on the poster.



> In a comment, I can point out a few truths,

What's stopping you?


> but
> since they contradict your bias and you don't have your head around the
> evidence,

More ad hominem.


> then you will just dismiss them for whatever reason is handy. If
> you really want to understand, you must devote your unbiased attention to
> the problem.

I want to understand your argument. So far you haven't advanced one, other
than I'm too biased to understand. Again, if my bias is that evident, it
should be easy to expose that bias from the evidence. You haven't even
tried. You've simply asserted my bias.


>
> One example here, that I see at the moment, "Ruth Paine was a Quaker and
> did not like rifles." Really? You think that's worth mentioning?

Yes. There were also three young children in the household, which I also
thought was worth mentioning. Weapons should be locked up and inaccessible
to anyone without the proper training to handle them safely. Do you think
Oswald keeping his weapon in the garage wrapped solely in a blanket was a
responsible thing to do?


> Richard
> Nixon was a Quaker, and he bombed Cambodia.

So? This has what to do with my point? You need to make a point and defend
it. Right now, it concerns whether Ruth Paine was involved in a conspiracy
to assassinate JFK.


> You are just grasping for
> irrelevant arguments.

Mrs. Kettle, please allow me to introduce you to Mr. Pot.


> Anything will do because you refuse to examine the
> evidence objectively. Here, you think you know the moral soul of Ruth
> Paine because she "is a Quaker."

I've read her testimony and it appears she goes to great lengths to
explain herself precisely. I see no evidence of her lying. Your attacks on
her as aiding the conspiracy by assisting in getting the rifle into the
Depository have no basis in fact. None.


> How do you even know she is a Quaker?
> Because she says so. Are all Quakers virtuous? Nixon bombed Cambodia
> because the US was fighting an unconstitutional war in Vietnam and he
> really wanted to win the next election.

Your assertions don't rise to the level of evidence. I seem to remember a
congressional resolution giving Johnson the go-ahead. And I seem to recall
Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson had something to do with Vietnam before
Nixon. And you seem to forget Nixon was the only one of the four that
withdrew all our troops from Vietnam.

But this is a wholly inappropriate discussion here of U.S. foreign policy.
It has nothing to do with the points I made. You've shown no evidence of
any wrong-doing by Ruth Paine. You've simply asserted she aided and
abetted a conspiracy to assassinate one President, attempted to defend
that by questioning the motives and character of another President, and
then attempted to switch the burden of proof by asking me to prove she
didn't do it, rather than posting the evidence she did. That's yet another
logical fallacy by you.



> Is this the virtue of the Friends
> in action? Murder innocent people in one country to win an unnecessary war
> in another country so that you can be a "great" president?

Thanks for your opinion on US foreign policy from 50 years ago. This is
not germane to your accusations concerning Ruth Paine.



> Doesn't sound
> very Quaker to me. But you mean Ruth was a "good" Quaker, as if you could
> possibly know such a thing. You vouch for the character of Ruth Paine,
> somebody you presumably do not even know, in order to support your bias.
> One cannot reason with such a profound bias.

It's called the presumption of innocence. In a court of law, here in the
U.S., the burden of proof is on the accuser to establish the guilt of the
accused. Most countries follow a similar methodology. If that's a "bias",
color me guilty.

Most people recognize the value of such a system. But on the JFK
assassination boards, that doesn't appear to be the case. The only person
declared not guilty in a court of law of conspiracy to assassinate JFK -
Clay Shaw - is still presumed guilty by many CTs. The only person all the
evidence points to - Lee Oswald - is still presumed innocent by many CTs.
And nearly every acquaintance of Oswald, as well as the DPD, the FBI, the
CIA, and numerous other agencies are alleged to have some role in framing
Oswald by some CTs. And here you are alleging Ruth Paine had a role in the
conspiracy, and the burden is somehow on me to prove her innocence and
establish her good character.

No. Not even close.

Your arguments would be Hilarious if they weren't so Sad.

What's next? Trial by fire? That should get Ruth Paine to confess, right?

Hank
Mark
2019-04-18 01:51:19 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 8:24:04 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 3:57:09 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 6:15:58 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 10:12:05 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 10:16:14 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:53:34 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 8:52:56 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > > > > > > > So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Once that is answered I would like to know why Marina and Ruth Paine
> > > > > > > weren't ordered to say they saw him leave for work that morning carrying a
> > > > > > > large bag?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If the claim is they were coached to frame Oswald then that would be one
> > > > > > > area it seems to me that they would be coached to say. That is, it
> > > > > > > connects LHO directly to the rifle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So why weren't they ordered/coached/instructed to say these things?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That job was assigned to Frazier and Linnie Mae. Too much corroboration
> > > > > > looks like a setup...
> > > > >
> > > > > HILARIOUS. Seriously.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your argument reduces to:
> > > > >
> > > > > "If there's sufficient evidence to establish Oswald was the shooter, then
> > > > > he's innocent, because he was set up. But on the other hand, if there is
> > > > > insufficient evidence to establish Oswald was the shooter, then he's
> > > > > likewise innocent because there's insufficient evidence."
> > > > >
> > > > > As always, conspiracy theorists will always come up with an excuse to
> > > > > absolve Oswald.
> > > > >
>
> No response by anonymous CT 'Red Hair'.
>
>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > , and Ruth had already planted Oswald at the TSBD, so
> > > > > > you don't want too much depending on her credibility.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was Wes Frazier's sister who mentioned Wes had gotten a job there
> > > > > recently, and maybe they were still hiring. Was she part of the conspiracy
> > > > > too?
> > > > >
>
> No response by anonymous CT 'Red Hair'.
>
>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Also, she most
> > > > > > likely is the one who took the rifle out of the garage that morning and
> > > > > > delivered it to somebody when she left early for her "doctor's
> > > > > > appointment."
> > > > >
> > > > > I would suggest the guy who was seen taking a long package to the
> > > > > Depository that morning, but you know, too much evidence means he's
> > > > > innocent. Better to go with something there's no evidence for. Like Ruth
> > > > > Paine... or maybe the rifle grew legs and walked to the Depository. Or
> > > > > grew arms and fingers and a thumb, and hitched a ride to the Depository.
> > > > > It can't be the guy all the evidence indicates is guilty.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would suggest the guy who left a print behind on a paper sack in the
> > > > > sniper's nest window, but again, too much evidence means he's innocent.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would suggest the guy who left a rifle behind with his prints on it, but
> > > > > too much evidence means he's innocent.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would suggest the guy who lied in custody and denied owning a rifle, but
> > > > > too much evidence means he's innocent.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're really funny. You may have convinced yourself that argument makes
> > > > > sense, but I doubt you'll convince many others.
> > > > >
>
> No response by anonymous CT 'Red Hair'.
>
>
> > > > >
> > > > > > I "infer," as Bugliosi is allowed to do by you people, even
> > > > > > when he just makes up shit, that Ruth was part of the conspiracy in real
> > > > > > time, and that Marina was not. When one murders a president in this
> > > > > > manner, one likes to have the stories match the actual events as much as
> > > > > > is possible. Unnecessary lying only invites trouble. So, any lies fed to
> > > > > > Marina would have come after the events, and would be kept to the minimum
> > > > > > necessary, so as not to invite contradictions in the evidence. It's not
> > > > > > like writing a novel. You know what you NEED from Marina, so that's what
> > > > > > you get from her. You don't have her lie about things unnecessarily.
> > > > > > Frazier and Linnie Mae had Oswald's package covered. There's no need for
> > > > > > more liars there. Too many people have to keep their lies straight. Keep
> > > > > > it as simple as possible.
> > > > >
> > > > > Because too much evidence against the accused means he's innocent, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hilarious.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hank
> > > >
> > > > I never said Oswald was innocent. You have reading comprehension issues.
> > >
> > > More hilarity ensues. You were arguing above Oswald was setup by Linnie
> > > Mae Randle and her brother Buell Wesley Frazier.
> > >
> > > You also claimed that Ruth Paine was part of the conspiracy and set up
> > > Oswald in his job at the Depository.
> > >
> > > Nothing in what you stated in this thread could be interpreted as arguing
> > > for Oswald's guilt as a shooter.
> > >
> > > Rather than claiming I have reading comprehension issues, perhaps the real
> > > problem might be you have writing clarity issues.
> > >
> > > I see your claim at this point as nothing more than a weak attempt to
> > > deflect from my points.
> > >
> > > So, with all that in mind, do take a second shot at the points I did make
> > > above concerning your arguments.
> > >
> > > Thanks a bunch. I'd really like to know where I went wrong in rebutting
> > > your claims.
> > >
> > > Hank
> >
>
> No response by anonymous CT 'Red Hair' to any of the points made.
>
> Instead, you simply issue a series of ad hominem attacks against the
> poster who is pointing out the flaws in your arguments.
>
> Above, you simply claimed I had reading comprehension issues instead of
> rebutting the points I made. Below, you do more of the same instead of
> addressing the issues once more.
>
>
> > If you are genuine, and let's just assume that for fun,
>
> Starting out here by suggesting my motives aren't 'genuine' (whatever that
> means) is clearly classic ad hominem. It's a logical fallacy and doesn't
> expose anything except your inability to rebut the points made. If you
> hade factual rebuttal, you would utilize it. Instead you attempt to poison
> the well by questioning my motives.
>
> Hilarious!
>
>
> > then you have a
> > bias in favor of the authorities here, which prevents you from evaluating
> > the evidence objectively.
>
> You need to show that, not just assert it. Otherwise, rebut my points
> instead of attacking me.
>
> If I have a bias, it's in favor of evidence over speculation, supposition,
> innuendo, and accusations leveled in lieu of evidence. I favor hard
> evidence like the actual rifle recovered from the building in which
> numerous witnesses testified they saw a rifle, as well as the expert
> testimony and eyewitness accounts. But I'm not in the practice of data
> mining the eyewitness or expert testimony for points of disagreement and
> constructing an argument out of those disparate data points. Rather, I am
> seeking the claims confirmed by a number of witnesses as well as the hard
> evidence. One such is the fact that numerous witnesses, came forward on
> the day of the assassination and claimed to have seen a rifle or a
> rifleman in a Depository window shortly before, during, or immediately
> after the shooting sequence. Another is the fact that the vast majority of
> witnesses (approximately 90%) claimed to have heard three shots.
>
> Those eyewitness claims are confirmed by the hard evidence of a rifle
> found in that building and the three shells found at the window.
>
> You pretend this is a bias in favor of 'authority'. It's not, it's a bias
> in favor of evidence. You don't differentiate between evidence and
> authority, you imagine these are the same, and therefore your argument
> goes nowhere.
>
>
> > You accuse me of a pro-Oswald bias, when it is
> > you who have a pro-authorities bias.
>
> Your pro-Oswald bias is very clear. You question the motives of everyone
> around him and suggest they were guilty of aiding and abetting the
> coverup. Your arguments concerning Mrs. Paine as expressed previously and
> here are clearly from a pro-Oswald bias, and you present nothing but
> speculation concerning her supposed role - for one example - in how
> Oswald's rifle got into the building.
>
> > I started out assuming that Oswald
> > did it,
>
> Why?
>
>
> > but I was not biased in favor of the authorities. I have a general
> > anti-authority bias. In fact, being a very negative sort of person, I am
> > pretty much biased against everybody. I don't favor Oswald over the
> > Official Story. I think he's guilty too, but the assassination was not his
> > baby.
>
> Your assertions don't rise to the level of evidence. Your claims of being
> unbiased aren't evidence either. Neither your bias or mine is germane to
> the evidence and the case.
>
> Cite the evidence, make an argument from the evidence, not the supposed
> bias of any given poster.
>
>
> >
> > And the problem with exposition of the matter is that the guilty
> > authorities
>
> Begging the Question. You have to establish the authorities are guilty of
> anything, not just assert they are. This is another logical fallacy by
> you.
>
>
> > have defined the event, in part by fragmenting the evidence.
>
> Whatever do you mean?
>
>
> > In order to understand the reality it is necessary to understand a large
> > amount of this evidence, so that you can re-assemble it.
>
> Why does it need to be taken apart & reassembled, and what convinces you
> the original assembly was incorrect? Does your reassembly explain more of
> the evidence in a better manner, with fewer gaps, or does it simply
> satisfy *you*?
>
>
>
>
> > You will never
> > believe anything I say because your bias prevents you from getting your
> > head around the evidence.
>
> More ad hominem - attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
>
> Try making a case that goes beyond "You're stupid and can't understand
> what I'm saying!"
>
> Argue my points to convince others, not me. Utilize the evidence, not
> personal attacks on the poster.
>
>
>
> > In a comment, I can point out a few truths,
>
> What's stopping you?
>
>
> > but
> > since they contradict your bias and you don't have your head around the
> > evidence,
>
> More ad hominem.
>
>
> > then you will just dismiss them for whatever reason is handy. If
> > you really want to understand, you must devote your unbiased attention to
> > the problem.
>
> I want to understand your argument. So far you haven't advanced one, other
> than I'm too biased to understand. Again, if my bias is that evident, it
> should be easy to expose that bias from the evidence. You haven't even
> tried. You've simply asserted my bias.
>
>
> >
> > One example here, that I see at the moment, "Ruth Paine was a Quaker and
> > did not like rifles." Really? You think that's worth mentioning?
>
> Yes. There were also three young children in the household, which I also
> thought was worth mentioning. Weapons should be locked up and inaccessible
> to anyone without the proper training to handle them safely. Do you think
> Oswald keeping his weapon in the garage wrapped solely in a blanket was a
> responsible thing to do?
>
>
> > Richard
> > Nixon was a Quaker, and he bombed Cambodia.
>
> So? This has what to do with my point? You need to make a point and defend
> it. Right now, it concerns whether Ruth Paine was involved in a conspiracy
> to assassinate JFK.
>
>
> > You are just grasping for
> > irrelevant arguments.
>
> Mrs. Kettle, please allow me to introduce you to Mr. Pot.
>
>
> > Anything will do because you refuse to examine the
> > evidence objectively. Here, you think you know the moral soul of Ruth
> > Paine because she "is a Quaker."
>
> I've read her testimony and it appears she goes to great lengths to
> explain herself precisely. I see no evidence of her lying. Your attacks on
> her as aiding the conspiracy by assisting in getting the rifle into the
> Depository have no basis in fact. None.
>
>
> > How do you even know she is a Quaker?
> > Because she says so. Are all Quakers virtuous? Nixon bombed Cambodia
> > because the US was fighting an unconstitutional war in Vietnam and he
> > really wanted to win the next election.
>
> Your assertions don't rise to the level of evidence. I seem to remember a
> congressional resolution giving Johnson the go-ahead. And I seem to recall
> Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson had something to do with Vietnam before
> Nixon. And you seem to forget Nixon was the only one of the four that
> withdrew all our troops from Vietnam.
>
> But this is a wholly inappropriate discussion here of U.S. foreign policy.
> It has nothing to do with the points I made. You've shown no evidence of
> any wrong-doing by Ruth Paine. You've simply asserted she aided and
> abetted a conspiracy to assassinate one President, attempted to defend
> that by questioning the motives and character of another President, and
> then attempted to switch the burden of proof by asking me to prove she
> didn't do it, rather than posting the evidence she did. That's yet another
> logical fallacy by you.
>
>
>
> > Is this the virtue of the Friends
> > in action? Murder innocent people in one country to win an unnecessary war
> > in another country so that you can be a "great" president?
>
> Thanks for your opinion on US foreign policy from 50 years ago. This is
> not germane to your accusations concerning Ruth Paine.
>
>
>
> > Doesn't sound
> > very Quaker to me. But you mean Ruth was a "good" Quaker, as if you could
> > possibly know such a thing. You vouch for the character of Ruth Paine,
> > somebody you presumably do not even know, in order to support your bias.
> > One cannot reason with such a profound bias.
>
> It's called the presumption of innocence. In a court of law, here in the
> U.S., the burden of proof is on the accuser to establish the guilt of the
> accused. Most countries follow a similar methodology. If that's a "bias",
> color me guilty.
>
> Most people recognize the value of such a system. But on the JFK
> assassination boards, that doesn't appear to be the case. The only person
> declared not guilty in a court of law of conspiracy to assassinate JFK -
> Clay Shaw - is still presumed guilty by many CTs. The only person all the
> evidence points to - Lee Oswald - is still presumed innocent by many CTs.
> And nearly every acquaintance of Oswald, as well as the DPD, the FBI, the
> CIA, and numerous other agencies are alleged to have some role in framing
> Oswald by some CTs. And here you are alleging Ruth Paine had a role in the
> conspiracy, and the burden is somehow on me to prove her innocence and
> establish her good character.
>
> No. Not even close.
>
> Your arguments would be Hilarious if they weren't so Sad.
>
> What's next? Trial by fire? That should get Ruth Paine to confess, right?
>
> Hank

A great post. Mark
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-16 16:10:42 UTC
Permalink
On 4/14/2019 6:15 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 10:12:05 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 10:16:14 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:53:34 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 8:52:56 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
>>>>>> So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
>>>>>
>>>>> Once that is answered I would like to know why Marina and Ruth Paine
>>>>> weren't ordered to say they saw him leave for work that morning carrying a
>>>>> large bag?
>>>>>
>>>>> If the claim is they were coached to frame Oswald then that would be one
>>>>> area it seems to me that they would be coached to say. That is, it
>>>>> connects LHO directly to the rifle.
>>>>>
>>>>> So why weren't they ordered/coached/instructed to say these things?
>>>>
>>>> That job was assigned to Frazier and Linnie Mae. Too much corroboration
>>>> looks like a setup...
>>>
>>> HILARIOUS. Seriously.
>>>
>>> Your argument reduces to:
>>>
>>> "If there's sufficient evidence to establish Oswald was the shooter, then
>>> he's innocent, because he was set up. But on the other hand, if there is
>>> insufficient evidence to establish Oswald was the shooter, then he's
>>> likewise innocent because there's insufficient evidence."
>>>
>>> As always, conspiracy theorists will always come up with an excuse to
>>> absolve Oswald.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> , and Ruth had already planted Oswald at the TSBD, so
>>>> you don't want too much depending on her credibility.
>>>
>>> It was Wes Frazier's sister who mentioned Wes had gotten a job there
>>> recently, and maybe they were still hiring. Was she part of the conspiracy
>>> too?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Also, she most
>>>> likely is the one who took the rifle out of the garage that morning and
>>>> delivered it to somebody when she left early for her "doctor's
>>>> appointment."
>>>
>>> I would suggest the guy who was seen taking a long package to the
>>> Depository that morning, but you know, too much evidence means he's
>>> innocent. Better to go with something there's no evidence for. Like Ruth
>>> Paine... or maybe the rifle grew legs and walked to the Depository. Or
>>> grew arms and fingers and a thumb, and hitched a ride to the Depository.
>>> It can't be the guy all the evidence indicates is guilty.
>>>
>>> I would suggest the guy who left a print behind on a paper sack in the
>>> sniper's nest window, but again, too much evidence means he's innocent.
>>>
>>> I would suggest the guy who left a rifle behind with his prints on it, but
>>> too much evidence means he's innocent.
>>>
>>> I would suggest the guy who lied in custody and denied owning a rifle, but
>>> too much evidence means he's innocent.
>>>
>>> You're really funny. You may have convinced yourself that argument makes
>>> sense, but I doubt you'll convince many others.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I "infer," as Bugliosi is allowed to do by you people, even
>>>> when he just makes up shit, that Ruth was part of the conspiracy in real
>>>> time, and that Marina was not. When one murders a president in this
>>>> manner, one likes to have the stories match the actual events as much as
>>>> is possible. Unnecessary lying only invites trouble. So, any lies fed to
>>>> Marina would have come after the events, and would be kept to the minimum
>>>> necessary, so as not to invite contradictions in the evidence. It's not
>>>> like writing a novel. You know what you NEED from Marina, so that's what
>>>> you get from her. You don't have her lie about things unnecessarily.
>>>> Frazier and Linnie Mae had Oswald's package covered. There's no need for
>>>> more liars there. Too many people have to keep their lies straight. Keep
>>>> it as simple as possible.
>>>
>>> Because too much evidence against the accused means he's innocent, right?
>>>
>>> Hilarious.
>>>
>>> Hank
>>
>> I never said Oswald was innocent. You have reading comprehension issues.
>
> More hilarity ensues. You were arguing above Oswald was setup by Linnie
> Mae Randle and her brother Buell Wesley Frazier.
>
> You also claimed that Ruth Paine was part of the conspiracy and set up
> Oswald in his job at the Depository.
>

I thought that theory was about the CIA putting Oswald in the TSBD to be
a shooter.

> Nothing in what you stated in this thread could be interpreted as arguing
> for Oswald's guilt as a shooter.
>
> Rather than claiming I have reading comprehension issues, perhaps the real
> problem might be you have writing clarity issues.
>
> I see your claim at this point as nothing more than a weak attempt to
> deflect from my points.
>
> So, with all that in mind, do take a second shot at the points I did make
> above concerning your arguments.
>
> Thanks a bunch. I'd really like to know where I went wrong in rebutting
> your claims.
>
> Hank
>
>
Steve M. Galbraith
2019-03-28 02:20:08 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:54:29 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
>
> I would reveal who put Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor, but I don't know.
> I'll make a guess, if you like.
>
> Mrs. PAINE - I fixed breakfast for myself and my children, turned on the
> television set to hear President Kennedy speak in Fort Worth, and had
> breakfast there. I left the house about 9 with my little girl and boy,
> because she had a dentist appointment, the little girl. I left the
> television set on, feeling that Marina might not think to turn it on, but
> I knew that she would be interested to see President KennedyI then was
> gone until nearly noon, 11:30 or so...
>
> So, I think Ruthie turned on the TV so that Marina would not hear her
> taking Oswald's rifle out of the garage and that she brought it with her,
> to the "dentist." She probably would not have brought it to the TSBD
> herself, and she probably did make a dentist appointment for the occasion,
> so she probably met somebody who took the rifle to the TSBD. The loading
> dock under the roof and behind the gates would provide good cover, so
> somebody probably drove in there to deliver the rifle. I vote for Billy
> Lovelady as the one who received the rifle and then just took it up on the
> elevator. But, it could have been Shelley, or Truly, or Frazier, or
> Jarman, or Norman, or Bonnie Ray Williams, or Givens, or Dougherty, or
> Arce...am I forgetting anybody? Oh, Piper, or anybody who might be on the
> first floor when the rifle arrives and who knows how to use the elevator.
> But I can't prove it.

Do you have ANY evidence for this story? Anything at all?
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-29 03:14:53 UTC
Permalink
On 3/25/2019 8:51 PM, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
>> So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
>
> Once that is answered I would like to know why Marina and Ruth Paine
> weren't ordered to say they saw him leave for work that morning carrying a
> large bag?
>

Silly. Neither of them saq the bag. Why do you need them tolie when you
have the bag?

> If the claim is they were coached to frame Oswald then that would be one
> area it seems to me that they would be coached to say. That is, it
> connects LHO directly to the rifle.
>

Well, you could also order them to say that Oswald told them he was
going to kill the President.


> So why weren't they ordered/coached/instructed to say these things?
>
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-04-15 03:46:36 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:54:29 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > So is anyone going to reveal who planted Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor?
>
> I would reveal who put Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor, but I don't know.
> I'll make a guess, if you like.
>
> Mrs. PAINE - I fixed breakfast for myself and my children, turned on the
> television set to hear President Kennedy speak in Fort Worth, and had
> breakfast there. I left the house about 9 with my little girl and boy,
> because she had a dentist appointment, the little girl. I left the
> television set on, feeling that Marina might not think to turn it on, but
> I knew that she would be interested to see President KennedyI then was
> gone until nearly noon, 11:30 or so...
>
> So, I think Ruthie turned on the TV so that Marina would not hear her
> taking Oswald's rifle out of the garage and that she brought it with her,
> to the "dentist."

Unfortunately for you, Ruth Paine was a Quaker and did not like rifles.
And she had small children in the house - both hers and Marina's. She
testified she had no knowledge of a rifle being stored in her garage,
wouldn't even buy toy guns for her children, and if she had known there
was a rifle in her garage, she wouldn't have allowed it.

== QUOTE ==
Representative BOGGS - Did you see the rifle that he had in the room in
your home?
Mrs. PAINE - In the garage, no.
Representative BOGGS - In the garage, you never saw one?
Mrs. PAINE - I never saw that rifle at all until the police showed it to me
in the station on the 22d of November.
...
Mr. JENNER - Any other occasion in which a discussion occurred between you
and either of them or in their presence while you were present on the
subject of a firearm prior to November 22?
Mrs. PAINE - On one occasion around the middle of November I said to Marina
that--
Mr. JENNER - Was Lee Harvey Oswald present?
Mrs. PAINE - He was not present.
Mr. JENNER - Just Marina and you?
Mrs. PAINE - Just Marina and I.
Mr. JENNER - Was it in your home?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. I said to her that I did not want to buy toy guns for my
children, and that this view of things was shared with a German friend of
mine who had been a young girl at the time of the last World War in Germany,
and she didn't wish to buy guns for her children to play with, and I said
too few people think about this. She said nothing in reply.
...
Mr. JENNER - Mrs. Paine, if you had become aware prior to November 22 of
the fact, if it be a fact, that there was a rifle in the blanket wrapped
package on the floor of your garage, what do you think now you would have
done?
Mrs. PAINE - I can say certainly I would not have wanted it there.
And that my pacifist feelings would have entered into my consideration of
the subject. I cannot say certainly what I would have done, of course. And,
as I have described myself and my beliefs, I like to consider the situation
that I am in and react according to that situation, rather than to have
doctrine or rigid belief.
I can certainly say this. I would have asked that it be entirely out of
reach of children or out of sight of children.
== UNQUOTE ==

I know, I know. She was part of the conspiracy and was lying her ass off.
Based on nothing more than your desire for a conspiracy.




> She probably would not have brought it to the TSBD
> herself, and she probably did make a dentist appointment for the occasion,
> so she probably met somebody who took the rifle to the TSBD. The loading
> dock under the roof and behind the gates would provide good cover, so
> somebody probably drove in there to deliver the rifle. I vote for Billy
> Lovelady as the one who received the rifle and then just took it up on the
> elevator. But, it could have been Shelley, or Truly, or Frazier, or
> Jarman, or Norman, or Bonnie Ray Williams, or Givens, or Dougherty, or
> Arce...am I forgetting anybody? Oh, Piper, or anybody who might be on the
> first floor when the rifle arrives and who knows how to use the elevator.
> But I can't prove it.

So your scenario for the rifle getting to the Depository involves at least
three people not named Oswald (Mrs Paine, some person to take it from Mrs.
Paine and transport it to the Depository, and a third person, a co-worker
of Oswald's to bring it into the building).

Interesting. There's no evidence for any of that.

And you find this scenario more reasonable than the one the evidence
suggests, that Oswald himself made a special trip to the Paine household
the night before the assassination to acquire access to the rifle, and
then transported it in a paper bag to the depository himself the following
morning, telling Frazier it was curtain rods?

CTs don't realize how funny they are.

Hank
Loading...