What's good for the goose is good for the gander. There is no evidence that Kennedy would have left Dallas alive if Oswald had not gotten his job at the TSBD. Yet you claimed exactly that, so now prove it! And don't give me just your opinion. You need provide actual proof that your claim is true.
You lack the ability to see the difference.
My statement is credible because it only requires a single "subtraction" from known events.
Just what I thought. One set of rules for you and another for everybody else. Your statement is nothing more than pure speculation for which you do not have a shred of evidence. Calling the statement "credible" doesn't make it so.
But thank you for showing the forum just how unreasonable you really are.
No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD ... means the first link in the chain (Linnie Mae Randle) is broken and therefore the other links (> Mrs Robert's coffee klatch > Paine/Marina Oswald attend > Ruth Paine mentions Lee Oswald's lack of employment > Randle mentions TSBD Job > Ruth Paine calls Mr Truly > Truly says Lee Oswald should come by the TSBD > Ruth/Marina advise Lee Oswald of the TSBD job > Lee Oswald interviewed by Mr Truly > Lee Oswald starts work at the TSBD) never come to exist.
Your statement is NOT credible because it requires "additions" with no evidence to justify them. Not only don't you have a chain you don't even have one link.
Complete BS. You just want to be right when you aren't.
It is indeed true that if Randle had not told Ruth Paine about the TSBD the sequence of events, as we currently know it, would either not exist or would have been different. Nobody is arguing with the facts as they happened, at least not up until the point where Oswald gets the job at the TSBD, but that's where the facts in your sequence stop!
Your entire argument rests on the assumption that this was the only way Oswald possibly could have gotten the TSBD job and that's simply not true. You can not argue, at least not in good faith, that Oswald wouldn't or couldn't have gotten the TSBD job if Ruth Paine had not made that phone call to Truly, because - and this is where you keep going wrong - there is no way to know with any kind of certainty that Oswald couldn't have found the TSBD job by other means. If it was happenstance that Oswald got the job one way, it could just as easily be happenstance for him to get the same job in another way.
But the sequence up until Oswald getting the job after talking to Truly isn't really the issue. It's everything that comes after that in your sequence - which you now conveniently leave out - that is pure speculation on your part. It is in no way credible to claim (without a shred of evidence) that Kennedy would have left Dallas alive and won a second term if Oswald hadn't worked at the TSBD.
You are too wrapped up in the speculative "could have" protocol. "Could have" consists of thousands of possibilities (millions?) none of which you can prove have a chance in hell of actually happening.
I'm getting a bit tired of having to say this, but those self-evident "could have" arguments destroy your entire claim. That's why you don't like them and dismiss them outright. Your sneaky "you can not prove that those 'could have' possibilities have a chance in hell of actually happening" exposes the weakness of your position. Asking for proof that something could have happened is as dishonest as it gets and it will not help you. Your basic argument is that Kennedy was killed (either by Oswald or conspirators) as a direct result of Oswald getting a job at the TSBD and that's simply pure speculation.
Remove Randle from the Robert's "coffee klatch" and the consequence is:
-- NO Oswald as the assassin from the 6th floor of the TSBD (acting alone).
-- NO Hit-man as the assassin from 6th floor of the TSBD (hired by conspirators to frame the patsy Oswald). Oswald is not there TO frame.
*** Consequently it's reasonable to CONCLUDE: President Kennedy gives his speech at the Trade Mart and leaves Dallas alive.
More BS... No, it is not reasonable to conclude that. You can not even say with any kind of certainty that Randle not telling Ruth Paine about the TSBD would have resulted in Oswald not getting a job there. Every other employee at the TSBD got their job without Randle and Paine being involved and the same could have applied to Oswald. Denying such a simple fact is just asinine.
You are stuck in the sequence of events as you think they happened and seem to believe that Oswald could only have gotten the TSBD job thanks to Ruth Paine and that Kennedy could only have been shot from the TSBD, when in reality, Oswald not having a job at the TSBD would probably, if not likely, have resulted in a different sequence of events and an assassination attempt elsewhere in Dallas.
[I'm not obliged to speculate about other jobs for Oswald (on the motorcade route) or the possible plans of groups who might want to assassinate JFK in Dallas or anywhere else in Texas. I could not and would not; because it would only be "guessing" with no evidence to justify such imaginations.]
Where the hell do you come up with these crappy arguments? You are in fact coming up with pure 100% guess work yourself. You've just confirmed that it is no more than your conclusion (IMO based on flawed reasoning) that Kennedy would have left Dallas alive if Oswald had not worked at the TSBD. That is pure guessing! You can call it a "reasonable conclusion" (which it isn't) but that doesn't make it so. It's still guessing, pure and simple.
Without apparently understanding it, you are speculating that Oswald was the killer or that another killer did in fact shoot from the TSBD when none of that is established by conclusive evidence. The entire "evidence" you rely on (your so-called "historical record") is based upon one assumption after another.
*** Alternately, for you to be correct, JFK would still have been assassinated in Dallas. Instead of one (1) random event (subtracted); you have to "add" many events (conspiracy factors) with no proof they would ever happen. They only exist in your imagination. You cannot CONCLUDE anything because you don't have ANY evidence--only opinions.
Oh please give me a break. You've only convinced me that you are completely insane.
You basic argument is and always has been;
"I am right unless you prove me wrong, but you can never prove me wrong because I am too stubborn to accept anything that doesn't agree with my opinion".It is obnoxious arrogance and stupidity beyond belief. John Cleese was right; for a person to understand just how stupid he or she is requires that person to have a certain level of intelligence to make that determination. Since a really stupid person does not have that basic intelligence, he or she will never understand just how stupid he or she really is.
In the same vein; how does one convince a fool that he is a fool? The answer is; Tell him he is sane and hope he will argue against it!
I've tried to come down to your level to explain some basic things to you, but I now have to admit I have failed. I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt. I now give up as I simply can not come down any further. You are just an exhausting, dishonest, waste of time, contrarian who will argue for argument's sake about just about any detail and who will say just about anything, no matter how wacky, to "win the argument" by exhaustion. You really need to get help!
