Ruthie Paine's Confusing Calendar

[Richard Smith]

He picked his mind (to no avail) wondering what the rifle in the rolled up blanket held together with string contained instead of simply asking Marina.


Would you clarify, please?    The bottom line in the rifle in the blanket controversy is:....  There's simply not one iota of solid physical evidence that the rifle was in that blanket in the Paine's garage.   

Not one iota?  Oswald's own wife confirmed that she saw it there.  LOL.  Not only that.  But when she heard the news of the assassination, she entered the garage to check if the blanket was still there.  Not only that.  When the police arrived on Nov. 22, Marina directed them to the blanket expecting them to find the rifle.  She was "surprised" when they didn't find it there. Was Marina in on the fantasy plot to frame Oswald even before the police arrived on Nov. 22?  You probably believe that but is laughable.

[Walt Cakebread]

Not one iota?  Oswald's own wife confirmed that she saw it there.  LOL.  Not only that.  But when she heard the news of the assassination, she entered the garage to check if the blanket was still there.  Not only that.  When the police arrived on Nov. 22, Marina directed them to the blanket expecting them to find the rifle.  She was "surprised" when they didn't find it there. Was Marina in on the fantasy plot to frame Oswald even before the police arrived on Nov. 22?  You probably believe that but is laughable.

Is anything that you've cited... PHYSICAL evidence??   

[Richard Smith]

Is anything that you've cited... PHYSICAL evidence??   

Huh?  You said there was "not one iota" of evidence but now backtracking?  What "physical" evidence would there be that someone had kept a rifle in a blanket.  You reject the fiber evidence.  Oswald's own wife saw it with her own eyes.  Was it a mirage?  Your story is that she lied because the authorities coerced her.  But we know that she confirmed that a rifle was in the garage literally from the moment that she learned of the assassination.  Before anyone could have coerced her to confirm that fact.  She directed the police to the garage when they first asked about a rifle.

[Walt Cakebread]

I don't think you can make any kind of assumption about what rifle (if any) was in Ruth Paine's garage and when, based on events that happened several months earlier and here's why;

Even if Oswald ordered the rifle and he did so for himself (instead of possibly being manipulated to do it) and even if the rifle he is holding in the BY photos is the MC rifle, all that tells you, at best, that he had a rifle in March/April 1963. Although it might seem logical to assume that the rifle in Ruth Paine's garage, in late September, would be the same rifle, it really isn't logical at all.

Oswald is alleged to have used his rifle to shoot at General Walker in April. He is then supposed to somehow have taken that rifle, a weapon that has now been used in an attempted murder, with him to New Orleans, risking possible exposure of himself with the rifle. He then is supposed to have kept the rifle with him during his entire stay in New Orleans only to turn it over to Ruth Paine, a person he barely knew, giving up total control over that rifle for several weeks and potentially causing a problem between himself and the woman with whom his wife and daughter would be staying.

It seems far more logical to me that he would have disposed of the rifle after shooting at General Walker (if that's what he did) and before his trip to New Orleans.

then isn't it very likely that the rifle that Marina Oswald said she saw in the blanket inside Ruth Paine's garage is the very same rifle that Lee Oswald ordered from Klein's seven months earlier?

Or would a more reasonable and more sensible conclusion be that the rifle Marina saw in the blanket in late September or early October* was a rifle that belonged to somebody else other than Lee Harvey Oswald?

I think it's fairly easy to figure out the most-likely-to-be-correct answer to that one.

The problem with this is that whatever you think you can figure out is nothing more than conjecture based on assumptions. It is not evidence. You can consider something to be very likely as much as you like, but that doesn't mean that it is true. The basic error you are making is that you base your assumptions on your opinion that Oswald is guilty, which is the world upside down.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that there ever was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage, at any time, except for Marina telling us that she once saw one, about a week after her trip from New Orleans. Everything else Marina said about that rifle, that it belonged to Oswald and still was there on 11/21/63 are mere assumptions. I find it incredibly unbelievable that Marina never confronted Oswald about that rifle being there, especially because she knew that Ruth Paine didn't like guns one bit and a rifle being stored in her garage could well cause major problems between Marina and Ruth.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that there ever was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage, at any time, except for Marina telling us that she once saw one, about a week after her trip from New Orleans.

When the FBI examined the carcano they didn't find a single blanket fiber on the rifle.   If the rifle had been transported from New Orleans in that blanket and then left on the floor of the garage there certainly would have been blanket fibers adhering to the rifle.   BUT....   There must have been "something" that resembled a rifle in that rolled up blanket.....  ( Mike Piane said that he thought  the blanket contained "camping gear".)   

[Martin Weidmann]

Is anything that you've cited... PHYSICAL evidence??   

Of course it isn't. He never presents evidence of any kind. All he does is ramble on and rant.

"Richard" is easily understood and explained. He knows full well that he can not defend the official narrative because of the problematic and weak nature of the evidence. So he doesn't even try to defend it and instead does the next best thing; trying to ridicule anybody who questions the official narrative by posting one pathetic rant after another, making false claims that he can and will never back up with evidence and constantly repeating the same old debunked BS over and over again.

[Walt Cakebread]

Huh?  You said there was "not one iota" of evidence but now backtracking?  What "physical" evidence would there be that someone had kept a rifle in a blanket.  You reject the fiber evidence.  Oswald's own wife saw it with her own eyes.  Was it a mirage?  Your story is that she lied because the authorities coerced her.  But we know that she confirmed that a rifle was in the garage literally from the moment that she learned of the assassination.  Before anyone could have coerced her to confirm that fact.  She directed the police to the garage when they first asked about a rifle.

 You said there was "not one iota" of evidence but now backtracking?

One of us is a damned liar.....  Here's what I wrote....

There's simply not one iota of solid physical evidence that the rifle was in that blanket in the Paine's garage.   

[Martin Weidmann]

You said there was "not one iota" of evidence but now backtracking?

One of us is a damned liar.....  Here's what I wrote....

There's simply not one iota of solid physical evidence that the rifle was in that blanket in the Paine's garage.   

That's exactly the way "Richard" operates. He ignores the parts he doesn't like (in this case the word "physical") and complete misrepresents what you have said. It is a waste of time to talk to this guy, which is exactly why I have started to ignore him.