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

[Ross Lidell]

The process by which Lee Harvey Oswald obtained the job at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) is well-known: It's part of the historical record of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

The first week in October 1963, Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald went next-door to have coffee with a neighbor, Mrs Roberts. Another neighbor from "across the street", Linnie Mae Randle joined the party.

The subject of Marina Oswald's plight came up in conversation. She was 8+ months pregnant and her husband Lee Oswald was unemployed and needed work. Mrs  Randle explained that her brother, Buell Frasier, had found work at the Texas School Book Depository and that "they might be still hiring". Mrs Paine phoned the TSBD and spoke to the manager Roy Truly. There was a temporary position available as an order-filler.

When Lee Oswald telephoned the Paine residence that evening, he was told about the job opportunity. He went for an interview with Mr Truly, the next day, and got the job at the TSBD.

The circumstances of Lee Harvey Oswald getting a job at a building on the route of President Kennedy's motorcade (5 weeks later) was just happenstance. The idea that plotters in a conspiracy had him "placed" at the TSBD is impossible. 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.

That's why I say: "No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the Texas School Book Depository".
 

[Martin Weidmann]

The process by which Lee Harvey Oswald obtained the job at the Texas School Book Depository is well-known: It's part of the historical record of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Sometime in October 1963, Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald went next-door to have coffee with a neighbor, Mrs Roberts. Another neighbor from "across the street", Linnie Mae Randle joined the party.

The subject of Marina Oswald's plight came up in conversation. She was 8+ months pregnant and her husband Lee Oswald was unemployed and needed work. Mrs  Randle explained that her brother, Buell Frasier, had found work at the Texas School Book Depository and that "they might be still hiring". Mrs Paine phoned the TSBD and spoke to the manager Roy Truly. There was a temporary position available as an order-filler.

When Lee Oswald telephoned the Paine residence that evening, he was told about the job opportunity. He went for an interview with Mr Truly, the next day, and got the job.

The circumstances of Lee Harvey Oswald getting a job at a building on the route of President Kennedy's motorcade (5 weeks later) was just happenstance. The idea that plotters in a conspiracy had him "placed" there is impossible. No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy. If Mrs Randle decides to stay home or go somewhere else instead off 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.

That's why I say: "No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the Texas School Book Depository".
 

The circumstances of Lee Harvey Oswald getting a job at a building on the route of President Kennedy's motorcade (5 weeks later) was just happenstance.

Probably true.

The idea that plotters in a conspiracy had him "placed" there is impossible.

Indeed... nobody knew at that time that Kennedy would come to Dallas and pass by the TSBD

No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy.

That's just jumping to a conclusion way too fast... You assume that Oswald's job at the TSBD was a vital part of a conspiracy simply because it turned out to play a prominent role in the assassination. What if the conspirators (if there were any) just improvised and played the hand they were dealt? Why couldn't they have arranged their plans around the location of the patsy rather than place the patsy somewhere weeks in advance? And besides, who knows what other options were available to them?

This is one of the main problems in your "logic". You relate everything back to the events that actually happened, when that could well have been only one of several scenarios. If there was a conspiracy, it's purpose would have been to remove a President from power. That's not something a couple of guys decide to do over a beer in a local bar. If there was a conspiracy, it would have involved serious players in high places and they wouldn't leave much to chance.

If Mrs Randle decides to stay home or go somewhere else instead off 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.

So, Mrs Randle is to blame for the assassination. Got it.

[Ross Lidell]

The circumstances of Lee Harvey Oswald getting a job at a building on the route of President Kennedy's motorcade (5 weeks later) was just happenstance.

Probably true.

The idea that plotters in a conspiracy had him "placed" there is impossible.

Indeed... nobody knew at that time that Kennedy would come to Dallas and pass by the TSBD

No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy.

That's just jumping to a conclusion way too fast... You assume that Oswald's job at the TSBD was a vital part of a conspiracy simply because it turned out to play a prominent role in the assassination. What if the conspirators (if there were any) just improvised and played the hand they were dealt? Why couldn't they have arranged their plans around the location of the patsy rather than place the patsy somewhere weeks in advance? And besides, who knows what other options were available to them?

This is one of the main problems in your "logic". You relate everything back to the events that actually happened, when that could well have been only one of several scenarios. If there was a conspiracy, it's purpose would have been to remove a President from power. That's not something a couple of guys decide to do over a beer in a local bar. If there was a conspiracy, it would have involved serious players in high places and they wouldn't leave much to chance.

If Mrs Randle decides to stay home or go somewhere else instead off 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.

So, Mrs Randle is to blame for the assassination. Got it.

This is one of the main problems in your "logic". You relate everything back to the events that actually happened, ...

And the main problem in your "logic" relates back to events that didn't happen. Not directly: You're much too cunning for that. You imply that something else happened by denying 100% of the historical record; but refuse to explain the alternative event. Even a contrarian like you should agree: If you deny a part of the historical record happening, there must exist an alternative event that did happen.

So, Mrs Randle is to blame for the assassination. Got it.

I think "to blame" is too strong an expression. Mrs Randle inadvertently and innocently enabled the possibility of Lee Oswald assassinating President Kennedy.

[Martin Weidmann]

This is one of the main problems in your "logic". You relate everything back to the events that actually happened, ...

And the main problem in your "logic" relates back to events that didn't happen. Not directly: You're much too cunning for that. You imply that something else happened by denying 100% of the historical record; but refuse to explain the alternative event. Even a contrarian like you should agree: If you deny a part of the historical record happening, there must exist an alternative event that did happen.

So, Mrs Randle is to blame for the assassination. Got it.

I think "to blame" is too strong an expression. Mrs Randle inadvertently and innocently enabled the possibility of Lee Oswald assassinating President Kennedy.

And the main problem in your "logic" relates back to events that didn't happen.

It is impossible to relate back to things that never happened. If I relate back to something than it is the many discrepancies in the official narrative.

You imply that something else happened by denying 100% of the historical record

Where do you get the notion that I imply anything or deny the "historical record" whatever you mean by that? In the official narrative there are so many questions left unanswered and so many issues left unresolved that it just begs for critical questions to be asked. If and when I feel I have a strong enough case to support a theory, I will tell you, but I am not going to speculate just to give you an opportunity to attack something that I don't even support myself.

Even a contrarian like you should agree: If you deny a part of the historical record happening, there must exist an alternative event that did happen.

What you still haven't understood is that I merely ask questions. I don't have to deny anything nor do I have to accept something blindly as you seem to do. Besides, in this particular case it's not even a matter of denying the "historical record". It was a response to your premature and speculative conclusion [No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy.] which is not even part of the "historical record"

[Ross Lidell]

And the main problem in your "logic" relates back to events that didn't happen.

It is impossible to relate back to things that never happened. If I relate back to something than it is the many discrepancies in the official narrative.

You imply that something else happened by denying 100% of the historical record

Where do you get the notion that I imply anything or deny the "historical record" whatever you mean by that? In the official narrative there are so many questions left unanswered and so many issues left unresolved that it just begs for critical questions to be asked. If and when I feel I have a strong enough case to support a theory, I will tell you, but I am not going to speculate just to give you an opportunity to attack something that I don't even support myself.

Even a contrarian like you should agree: If you deny a part of the historical record happening, there must exist an alternative event that did happen.

What you still haven't understood is that I merely ask questions. I don't have to deny anything nor do I have to accept something blindly as you seem to do. Besides, in this particular case it's not even a matter of denying the "historical record". It was a response to your premature and speculative conclusion [No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy.] which is not even part of the "historical record"

If and when I feel I have a strong enough case to support a theory, I will tell you, but I am not going to speculate just to give you an opportunity to attack something that I don't even support myself.

I wont hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

[Martin Weidmann]

If and when I feel I have a strong enough case to support a theory, I will tell you, but I am not going to speculate just to give you an opportunity to attack something that I don't even support myself.

I wont hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Great, now that's cleared up, you can go on making claims, preferably supported by evidence, and I will continue asking questions

[Ross Lidell]

Great, now that's cleared up, you can go on making claims, preferably supported by evidence, and I will continue asking questions

Great, now that's cleared up, you can go on making claims, preferably supported by evidence, and I will continue asking questions.

Asking questions... that's all you do. The hallmark of an avowed contrarian.

Have you ever commenced a Subject on this forum?

[Martin Weidmann]

Great, now that's cleared up, you can go on making claims, preferably supported by evidence, and I will continue asking questions.

Asking questions... that's all you do. The hallmark of an avowed contrarian.

Have you ever commenced a Subject on this forum?

Asking questions... that's all you do.

Indeed, that's what people do when they want to learn something or find out if a claim has merit or not.

The hallmark of an avowed contrarian.

That's what people say who make claims they can not support with evidence and can not answer simple questions.

Have you ever commenced a Subject on this forum?

Is there a rule that says I have to? But, yes I actually did several times, but the LNs ignored them.

I have said, more than once, that I feel the WC Report contains conclusions that are not supported by the evidence in the 26 volumes and are very often only assumptions incorrectly presented as "a preponderance of evidence". Does that count?