Am I the only CT here who can meet the LN's more than half way? If not ...

[Walt Cakebread]

BFD.

Neither did Brennan or anyone else who saw at least part of a rifle in the SN window.

Because of the acute angle from the ground up to the sixth floor only a small portion of a rifle would be visible UNLESS the rifle actually protruded out of a window as Howard Brennan described in his affidavit...." I could see all of the barrel of the gun"  and when he testified before LBJ's Cover Up Committee...." I could see all of the rife clear back to his hands "..." I could see about 85 % of the rifle"

[John Iacoletti]

It did not need fixing.

How does anything in your above post change what was in my post?


Marina Oswald, affidavit, 11/22/63...

"I opened the blanket and saw a rifle in it."

It doesn't change what was in your post.  The contents of your post are just as irrelevant as they ever are.

[John Iacoletti]

You've conveniently ignored my reply to Colin. Note that I said that if I respected any CTer, it would be him. Feeling left out, John?

Why should I respond to your reply to someone else?  Besides, of what value is your respect?

[John Iacoletti]

The unwillingness of nuts like Martin and John I. to accept that Marina saw a rifle in the blanket despite her clear testimony on that point is a classic example of their dishonest and contrarian approach to this case.

You cherry-pick whatever it is you want to believe without considering all the evidence.  Ruth Paine was there translating for Marina when the police were there and she said that Marina saw a part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.  Just because Marina assumed something, that doesn't make it actually true.  There are loads of examples of Marina claiming things that aren't true.  Just because Marina thought there was a rifle in that blanket in late September / early October, that doesn't mean that there actually was a rifle in that blanket, and it certainly doesn't mean that there was a Mannlicher Carcano with serial number C2766 in that blanket.

[Richard's usual insults and strawman arguments deleted as irrelevant]

[John Iacoletti]

So it's not relevant that Marina confirms Oswald owned a rifle (something he denied to the police), stored that rifle in the Paine's garage (the place Oswald makes an unexpected visit on the night before the assassination), that rifle is gone on 11.22.63 when the police check the blanket and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the one found on the 6th floor?

Not this twisted logic again.  Yeah, and no other lunch bag was ever found. 

[John Iacoletti]

BFD.

Neither did Brennan or anyone else who saw at least part of a rifle in the SN window.

And yet you still think it was the same rifle.

[Bill Brown]

Marina Oswald, affidavit, 11/22/63...

"I opened the blanket and saw a rifle in it."

The unwillingness of nuts like Martin and John I. to accept that Marina saw a rifle in the blanket despite her clear testimony on that point is a classic example of their dishonest and contrarian approach to this case.

Richard, I agree with you 100%.

[Bill Brown]

You cherry-pick whatever it is you want to believe without considering all the evidence.  Ruth Paine was there translating for Marina when the police were there and she said that Marina saw a part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.  Just because Marina assumed something, that doesn't make it actually true.  There are loads of examples of Marina claiming things that aren't true.  Just because Marina thought there was a rifle in that blanket in late September / early October, that doesn't mean that there actually was a rifle in that blanket, and it certainly doesn't mean that there was a Mannlicher Carcano with serial number C2766 in that blanket.

[Richard's usual insults and strawman arguments deleted as irrelevant]

No matter what, you can't make this go away...

Marina Oswald, affidavit, 11/22/63...

"I opened the blanket and saw a rifle in it."