No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD

[Martin Weidmann]

Well, if Michael T. Griffith [not Griffiths] starts posting here, you can argue with him about it.

Irrelevant, immaterial idiotic post: Griffith was mentioned as an example of a prominent believer in the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of murdering John F. Kennedy.

What is your evidence that "most of the conspiracy books posit Lee Harvey Oswald as being placed in the TSBD as an employee by conspirators"?

It's well known that conspiracy books posit Lee Harvey Oswald as an innocent patsy. You are simply repeating your technique of demanding "this or that" ad infinitum--for no good reason.


See above.  You think the only way that JFK could have been killed in Dallas is by LHO from the TSBD.

That's what happened. You have zero evidence for any alternative.

There is evidence, none of it very good.  For example, James Files, E. Howard Hunt, Loran Hall, William Seymour, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Ralph Yates, etc, etc, etc.

"... none of it very good".  : Quite rightly. Peoples names are not evidence.

Just like there is not very good evidence against Oswald.  You keep special-pleading your own claims as winning by default.

There is good evidence: You just dispute it all routinely.

For your education...

Non sequitur: A conclusion that does not follow logically. Alternately there are conclusions that do follow logically. Such as:

Mrs Randle does not go across the street to Mrs Robert's house: It follows that she does not hear the conversation about pregnant Marina Oswald's husband Lee not having a job.

It follows that Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine never hear about the possibility of a job being available at the TSBD.

It follows that Ruth Paine never telephones the TSBD and speaks to the manager Mr Roy Truly.

It follows that Lee Oswald never hears about the possibility of a job being available at the TSBD.

It follows that Lee Oswald never goes to the TSBD to be interviewed by Mr Truly.

It follows that Lee Oswald is never employed at the TSBD.

It follows that Lee Oswald is working somewhere else on 22 November 1963.

It follows that:

a.) Lee Harvey Oswald never gets to fire rifle shots at President Kennedy and kill him.

b.) Conspirators  never get to put into action a plot to assassinate President Kennedy on 22 November 1963--in which an innocent Harvey Oswald is framed.

Now what was that about "non sequiturs"

Now what was that about "non sequiturs"

All your examples are non sequiturs.

They are possible conclusions, but not exclusive ones.... Ruth Paine could have found out about a job at the TSBD another way. That alone destroys your entire argument.

Thanks for the "education"... it was hilarious!

[Ross Lidell]

And if Bonnie Ray had not vacated the sixth floor minutes before the shots.

And if Arnold Rowland had told the cop about the guy with the rifle.

And if the ammunition for the rife had been lost in transit.

And if there was no dime to assemble the rifle.

And if Jarman and Norman had decided to go to the sixth floor, or Lovelady and Arce as planned.

And if Ruth Paine had caught Oswald packaging the rifle in the garage.

And if Frazier had been sick and not able to work that morning.

And if the bag had broken open and spilled the contents.

And if a butterfly.....

Did you read the Subject title, Colin?

Re: No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD

If Mrs Randle does not attend the coffee klatch at Mrs Roberts house, Oswald would not be in a position to do any of that. Nothing, that occurs in the TSBD on 22 November 1963 would be related (in any way) to a plot (conspirators) or plan (Lee Harvey Oswald) to assassinate President Kennedy.

I'm surprised that no-one has suggested that Mrs Randle was part of the plot to assassinate President Kennedy.

[Ross Lidell]

Now what was that about "non sequiturs"

All your examples are non sequiturs.

They are possible conclusions, but not exclusive ones.... Ruth Paine could have found out about a job at the TSBD another way. That alone destroys your entire argument.

Thanks for the "education"... it was hilarious!

You are attempting to make the sequence (not examples) become non sequiturs by adding an event that did not happen. Weird! You're a mischievous contrarian.

You have zero evidence that Ruth Paine would have found out about a job at the TSBD another way.

There's something unmanly about a fellow who will not accept facts: instead making embarrassing statements to maintain the debate. Childish!!!

[Colin Crow]

Did you read the Subject title, Colin?

Re: No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD

If that (Mrs Randle does not attend the coffee klatch) had happened:

Nothing, that occurs in the TSBD on 22 November 1963 would be related (in any way) to a plot (conspirators) or plan (Lee Harvey Oswald) to assassinate President Kennedy.

I'm surprised that no-one has suggested that Mrs Randle was part of the plot to assassinate President Kennedy.

Apologies Ross, I thought your posting was relating to the events that could have gone differently and ultimately prevented the assassination.

Your own quote from the original post.....

" No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy. If Mrs Randle decides to stay home or go somewhere else instead of across the street to Mrs Roberts house for coffee: Lee Oswald never learns about the job at the TSBD. He never gets a job there and is never in a position to assassinate President Kennedy at 12:30 PM (CST), 22 November 1963."

I now understand premise to be that the learning of a possible job opportunity at the TSBD from Randle negates the possibility of any conspiracy involving Oswald in any capacity. As the precise parade route was not known at the time he commenced at the TSBD I believe all that can be deduced from the accepted sequence of events is that any conspiracy, if one occurred, did not actively place him at the TSBD prior to the Presidential visit. I do not see that it precludes a conspiracy per se.

[Martin Weidmann]

You are attempting to make the sequence (not examples) become non sequiturs by adding an event that did not happen. Weird! You're a mischievous contrarian.

You have zero evidence that Ruth Paine would have found out about a job at the TSBD another way.

There's something unmanly about a fellow who will not accept facts: instead making embarrassing statements to maintain the debate. Childish!!!

Wow, an ad hominem reply containing one of the most stupid comments you've ever made.... what a treat!

[John Iacoletti]

Irrelevant, immaterial idiotic post: Griffith was mentioned as an example of a prominent believer in the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of murdering John F. Kennedy.

No, you mentioned Griffith as somebody who posits Lee Harvey Oswald as being placed in the TSBD as an employee by conspirators. You can’t even remember what you’re arguing.

"... none of it very good".  : Quite rightly. Peoples names are not evidence.

But somehow you think that “that’s what happened” and “historical record” is evidence.

There is good evidence: You just dispute it all routinely.

You have yet to name any. What’s good about it if it’s so disputable?

Non sequitur: A conclusion that does not follow logically. Alternately there are conclusions that do follow logically. Such as:

Mrs Randle does not go across the street to Mrs Robert's house: It follows that she does not hear the conversation about pregnant Marina Oswald's husband Lee not having a job.

It follows that Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine never hear about the possibility of a job being available at the TSBD.

It follows that Ruth Paine never telephones the TSBD and speaks to the manager Mr Roy Truly.

It follows that Lee Oswald never hears about the possibility of a job being available at the TSBD.

It follows that Lee Oswald never goes to the TSBD to be interviewed by Mr Truly.

It follows that Lee Oswald is never employed at the TSBD.

It follows that Lee Oswald is working somewhere else on 22 November 1963.

Ok, so far.

It follows that:

a.) Lee Harvey Oswald never gets to fire rifle shots at President Kennedy and kill him.

BUZZ. Non-sequitur. If Oswald wanted to fire shots at Kennedy, he couldn’t do it from elsewhere?

b.) Conspirators  never get to put into action a plot to assassinate President Kennedy on 22 November 1963--in which an innocent Harvey Oswald is framed.

BUZZ. Non-sequitur. “Conspirators” could only frame Oswald if he were working in the TSBD?

And you went way beyond that in yet another non-sequitur. You said it follows that Kennedy leaves Dallas alive. So you are really arguing that “conspirators” could only kill Kennedy in Dallas in Dealey Plaza, and only if Oswald was working at the TSBD, and there was no other possible way that “conspirators” could kill Kennedy.

You’re delusional.

Now what was that about "non sequiturs"

You make a lot of them.

[John Iacoletti]

You are attempting to make the sequence (not examples) become non sequiturs by adding an event that did not happen. Weird!

Your conclusion was something that did not happen: “Kennedy leaves Dallas alive”.

You don’t get to make your own hypotheticals and then cry foul when people give different hypotheticals.

[Ross Lidell]

No, you mentioned Griffith as somebody who posits Lee Harvey Oswald as being placed in the TSBD as an employee by conspirators. You can’t even remember what you’re arguing.

But somehow you think that “that’s what happened” and “historical record” is evidence.

You have yet to name any. What’s good about it if it’s so disputable?

Ok, so far.

BUZZ. Non-sequitur. If Oswald wanted to fire shots at Kennedy, he couldn’t do it from elsewhere?

BUZZ. Non-sequitur. “Conspirators” could only frame Oswald if he were working in the TSBD?

And you went way beyond that in yet another non-sequitur. You said it follows that Kennedy leaves Dallas alive. So you are really arguing that “conspirators” could only kill Kennedy in Dallas in Dealey Plaza, and only if Oswald was working at the TSBD, and there was no other possible way that “conspirators” could kill Kennedy.

You’re delusional.

You make a lot of them.

Ok, so far.

Quote

    It follows that:

    a.) Lee Harvey Oswald never gets to fire rifle shots at President Kennedy and kill him.

Any fool would know that I'm referring to the TSBD. It's been mentioned many times in the narrative up to that point so "it does follow". But you didn't understand that. Dopey or devious?

BUZZ. Non-sequitur. If Oswald wanted to fire shots at Kennedy, he couldn’t do it from elsewhere?

I'm obviously referring to the TSBD. Oswald had no access to any other building on the motorcade route. If you think he did name it?

Quote

    b.) Conspirators  never get to put into action a plot to assassinate President Kennedy on 22 November 1963--in which an innocent Harvey Oswald is framed.

BUZZ. Non-sequitur. “Conspirators” could only frame Oswald if he were working in the TSBD?

Again, I'm obviously referring to the TSBD. Oswald had no access to any other building on the motorcade route. If you think he did name it?

Oswald being framed as the sole assassin (working in the TSBD) has been posited for decades by conspiracy theorists. There's zero evidence for a plan to frame Oswald at some other location. If you think there is, name it.

And you went way beyond that in yet another non-sequitur. You said it follows that Kennedy leaves Dallas alive. So you are really arguing that “conspirators” could only kill Kennedy in Dallas in Dealey Plaza, and only if Oswald was working at the TSBD, and there was no other possible way that “conspirators” could kill Kennedy.

You’re delusional.

You're deceptive.

If Oswald does not get a job at the TSBD, President Kennedy DOES leave Dallas alive. Oswald does not shoot him dead from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Alternately, the real 6th floor shooter does not shoot the President dead. No point in the latter because there would be no "lone nut" to blame so the conspiracy would not be discovered.

To be credible, you have to name a location, shooter and time for an alternative "successful" Presidential assassination attempt in Dallas. Go ahead and try... with evidence. Name the "other possible way" that conspirators could kill President Kennedy. Easy stuff like location and time is a good starting point

Quote

    Now what was that about "non sequiturs" You make a lot of them.

They are NOT non sequiturs. They are logical conclusions. What you do is to deliberately pretend to not comprehend that I'm referring to the TSBD--at all times--and then imply a non-sequitur.

Oh by the way John: When was the last time you started a SUBJECT on this forum?