Essay: The Mystery of Marina Oswald

[Patrick Jackson]

The most important thing about Marina is language and I think that we must not take for granted her statements that were translated from Russian to English.
We know that she knew English quite OK but we will never know what exactly she stated in Russian during interrogations and testimonies.
I believe that her statements and testimonies (when given in Russian) were not translated correctly and even she knew English, she was too scared and stressed to pay attention if the translators were translating her words correctly.
Later, over the years, she most probably realized this but it was too late to change anything, Oswald was dead and she was receiving government help so she accepted WC conclusions.
DPD, FBI, CIA, WC done everything to frame Oswald so it is very easy to believe that translations were false.

[John Iacoletti]

LOL

You always squeal 'how does that prove murder' every time mention of any bug53 pops up.

Trolling gaslighter.

Is this your way of admitting that you attributed words to me that I never said?  Quote me ever "constantly claiming that LNers say each of Bug53 would convict", or STFU.

[Bill Chapman]

Is this your way of admitting that you attributed words to me that I never said?  Quote me ever "constantly claiming that LNers say each of Bug53 would convict", or STFU.

What exactly do I need to 'admit'? You are the one who automatically, like a broken record, accuses LNers of declaring Oswald guilty based solely on even one single action taken by Oswald.

Do you accuse us of claiming that we point to separate claims (in and of themselves) by Bug as proof of Oswald's guilt, or don't you?

[John Iacoletti]

What exactly do I need to 'admit'? You are the one who automatically, like a broken record, accuses LNers of declaring Oswald guilty based solely on even one single action taken by Oswald.

Gaslighter.  Quote me ever saying that.
 

Do you accuse us of claiming that we point to separate claims (in and of themselves) by Bug as proof of Oswald's guilt, or don't you?

No, I accuse you of claiming that things are evidence of murder that are not evidence of murder.

[Bill Chapman]

Gaslighter.  Quote me ever saying that.
 
No, I accuse you of claiming that things are evidence of murder that are not evidence of murder.

I accuse you of separating each individual moment in time?like Oswald knocking on the door of the bus, for instance?and claiming that LNers hold those single moments up as proof of murder.

To wit:

Iacoletti Reply #350 on: October 31, 2018, 11:51:16 PM ?

"It lends support to Oswald leaving the TSBD within minutes, which for some strange reason the LN brigade considers evidence of murder."

"And also (via McWatters) that Oswald was in a hurry to get on the bus since he knocked on the door to get on mid-block. Which the LN brigade also considers evidence of murder."   

[John Iacoletti]

I accuse you of separating each individual moment in time?like Oswald knocking on the door of the bus, for instance?and claiming that LNers hold those single moments up as proof of murder.

To wit:

Iacoletti Reply #350 on: October 31, 2018, 11:51:16 PM ?

"It lends support to Oswald leaving the TSBD within minutes, which for some strange reason the LN brigade considers evidence of murder."

"And also (via McWatters) that Oswald was in a hurry to get on the bus since he knocked on the door to get on mid-block. Which the LN brigade also considers evidence of murder."

2 questions:

- Do you not understand the difference between proof and evidence?

- Are you saying that you don't consider these things to be evidence for murder?

Quote me ever accusing LNers of declaring Oswald guilty based solely on even one single action taken by Oswald, or STFU.

[Richard Smith]

LOL

You always squeal 'how does that prove murder' every time mention of any bug53 pops up.

Trolling gaslighter.

Dishonest John constantly addresses the evidence in a vacuum implying that it the product of lies or fakery.  Then, without missing a beat, argues it is a "strawman" to claim that he is suggesting there was a conspiracy.  We are left to our imaginations to wonder why so many people, including random citizens, would intentionally lie or fake evidence against Oswald in the absence of a conspiracy.  Dishonest John is trying to have it both ways.  The evidence against Oswald is always suspect but he doesn't want to explain, much provide any actual evidence, as to why these people are lying or faking evidence to make it suspect as he suggests.  It is a lazy, intellectually dishonest approach to the case that adds nothing except to go round and round in circles of lunacy that makes dishonest John feel as though he is relevant.  Just playing the contrarian jester to his intellectual superiors.  Very tiresome but also humorous as he takes himself so seriously.

[John Iacoletti]

Dishonest John constantly addresses the evidence in a vacuum implying that it the product of lies or fakery.  Then, without missing a beat, argues it is a "strawman" to claim that he is suggesting there was a conspiracy.

Lyin' "Richard" accuses me of implying that the evidence is the product of lies or fakery, which is just yet another Lyin' "Richard" strawman.  Lyin' "Richard" makes claims about the evidence that are just flat out false.

  We are left to our imaginations to wonder why so many people, including random citizens, would intentionally lie or fake evidence against Oswald in the absence of a conspiracy.

Well that's no surprise since the claim that "so many people, including random citizens, would intentionally lie or fake evidence against Oswald" is also a product of your imagination.  Which is why you are called "Lyin' Strawman 'Richard'".

If you think being an "intellectual superior" means lying about the evidence and making up strawmen to argue against instead of defending your own position, then you are even more deluded than I thought.