Ruthie Paine's Confusing Calendar

[Richard Smith]

Somebody did after he removed it for your fantasy to make any sense at all:

Mr. RANKIN. When you saw the rifle assembled in the room, did it have the scope on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it did not have a scope on it.

BTW, Marina can't confirm her own claim.

In which we learn that Marina is not a firearm's expert and didn't play close attention to specifications of "the rifle."  None of which has anything to do with whether her testimony confirms that Oswald kept a rifle in the blanket in the Paine's garage.  In fact, it is just more confirmation that Oswald owned a rifle since she is discussing it.  The typical deflection.  Again, Marina said the following:

"I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle."

[Richard Smith]

"specification" -- LOL

She's the one source of the claim so there's nothing to confirm.

Your confirmation BS will remain BS regardless of how often you repeat it.

Michael Paine discussed camping equipment so it confirms the blanket contained camping equipment.

No, it's your fantasy meeting brutal reality.

Again, Marina backpedaling:

Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.

In which Otto takes one partial answer from Marina's testimony in a desperate attempt to create false doubt about Oswald's rifle being in the blanket.  And that quote actually supports the conclusion that she saw a rife.  Look at the question:  Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?  The sole subject matter of the question "the rifle."  Now the answer:  Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.   Marina has responded in the affirmative to a question about finding "the rifle" in the blanket.  She confirms that she found the wooden part of "it."  The only "it" in the question is "the rifle."  If there is any doubt about this (and there is not) she goes on to say the "wooden stock."  Of course a rifle has a wooden stock.   This answer raise no ambiguity whatsoever that she is describing anything other than the rifle.  But, of course, this is not only time that she was asked about "the rifle."  She was asked dozens of times about "the rifle."  In each instance she responds to those questions and confirms Oswald's ownership of a rifle and fact that he kept it the Paine's garage.  Never once does she suggest any doubt about this.  And when asked by police if her husband owns a rifle, she directs them to the blanket in the Paine's garage.  Her actions demonstrate beyond any doubt that she saw a "rifle" in the blanket.  There is no other way to explain directing the police to that blanket in response to their question about a "rifle" than Marina knowing that is where Oswald kept a "rifle."

"I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle."

[Martin Weidmann]

In which Otto takes one partial answer from Marina's testimony in a desperate attempt to create false doubt about Oswald's rifle being in the blanket.  And that quote actually supports the conclusion that she saw a rife.  Look at the question:  Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?  The sole subject matter of the question "the rifle."  Now the answer:  Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.   Marina has responded in the affirmative to a question about finding "the rifle" in the blanket.  She confirms that she found the wooden part of "it."  The only "it" in the question is "the rifle."  If there is any doubt about this (and there is not) she goes on to say the "wooden stock."  Of course a rifle has a wooden stock.   This answer raise no ambiguity whatsoever that she is describing anything other than the rifle.  But, of course, this is not only time that she was asked about "the rifle."  She was asked dozens of times about "the rifle."  In each instance she responds to those questions and confirms Oswald's ownership of a rifle and fact that he kept it the Paine's garage.  Never once does she suggest any doubt about this.  And when asked by police if her husband owns a rifle, she directs them to the blanket in the Paine's garage.  Her actions demonstrate beyond any doubt that she saw a "rifle" in the blanket.  There is no other way to explain directing the police to that blanket in response to their question about a "rifle" than Marina knowing that is where Oswald kept a "rifle."

"I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle."

Look at the question:  Mr. RANKIN.And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?  The sole subject matter of the question "the rifle."  Now the answer:  Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.   Marina has responded in the affirmative to a question about finding "the rifle" in the blanket.

Yes Marina responded affirmative, and that was exactly the purpose of that leading question; to morph in her mind the wooden stock she had seen into a rifle. During a trial that question would never have been allowed to be asked.

Are you really this stupid of just pretending to be?

[Richard Smith]

Otto would interpret the following exchange to be ambiguous as to whether the person had eaten an orange ("it") suggesting that maybe they had eaten a "slice" of a pizza or pineapple or apple pie and just didn't bother to mention that to the questioner.  What comedy gold.  He maintains this nonsense even if they then went on to say "I ate an orange for lunch today" because in this single instance they referred to "it" instead of an orange when being questioned about the orange.  HA HA HA. 

Q:  Did you eat an orange for lunch today?
A: Yes, I ate a slice of it.

[Walt Cakebread]

Otto would interpret the following exchange to be ambiguous as to whether the person had eaten an orange ("it") suggesting that maybe they had eaten a "slice" of a pizza or pineapple or apple pie and just didn't bother to mention that to the questioner.  What comedy gold.  He maintains this nonsense even if they then went on to say "I ate an orange for lunch today" because in this single instance they referred to "it" instead of an orange when being questioned about the orange.  HA HA HA. 

Q:  Did you eat an orange for lunch today?
A: Yes, I ate a slice of it.

Q:  Did you eat an orange for lunch today?
A: Yes, I ate a slice of it.

This demonstrates your uncritical reasoning....because the answer should be "No, I didn't eat an orange, but I ate a slice of an orange"

[Richard Smith]

Q:  Did you eat an orange for lunch today?
A: Yes, I ate a slice of it.

This demonstrates your uncritical reasoning....because the answer should be "No, I didn't eat an orange, but I ate a slice of an orange"

HA HA HA.  I didn't think it could get any weirder.  Where does a slice of an orange come from?  A pineapple?  That is what you would like us to believe that Marina said.  She was asked about the rifle.  She affirmatively confirmed that she saw "it".  There is nothing else mentioned in that question except the rifle ('it").  She goes on to say that she saw the "wooden stock."  The rifle has a wooden stock!  If there is any doubt about her answer (and there is not), she was asked a multitude of other times about "the rifle."  In every instance she confirms that she saw the "rifle."  Good grief.

[John Iacoletti]

Nobody disputes that Marina thought it was a rifle wrapped up in the blanket.

The only reason “Richard” is belaboring this is because he knows he cannot demonstrate that what she saw was C2766 or that what she saw was still in that blanket on 11/21.

[Bill Chapman]

Q:  Did you eat an orange for lunch today?
A: Yes, I ate a slice of it.

This demonstrates your uncritical reasoning....because the answer should be "No, I didn't eat an orange, but I ate a slice of an orange"

You just showed us how to make a word salad out of 'just a slice'

Q: Did you eat an orange for lunch today?
A: Just a slice.