Did Captain Fritz show Mr Oswald a Mauser?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

If Marina was coerced into testifying against Oswald then why wasn't she ordered to say he hated JFK?

If she was coerced then why didn't they coerce her to say she saw him wrap the rifle and take it with him to work Friday?

If she is coerced into framing him for the assassination these are the obvious statements they would force her to make. They would provide motive and a direct connection from him to the rifle found in the TSBD.

But they didn't because she said none of the above. Why?

Conspiracists cannot answer these questions. They don't even want to try. For even to try forces them to reconsider their claims. And this is something they don't want to do.

If one is skeptical of the evidence against Oswald, if one says he wants to challenge that evidence then one should apply that skeptical standard to the conspiracy claims. And that includes, it seems obvious, questions like the above.

It's difficult to prove a negative but not impossible (I can prove I didn't shoot Oswald). But one way to try and prove a negative - that Oswald wasn't framed - is to look into questions like this. These are serious legitimate and logical questions a true skeptic would ask.

If, again, one was a true skeptic.

[Martin Weidmann]

If Marina was coerced into testifying against Oswald then why wasn't she ordered to say he hated JFK?

If she was coerced then why didn't they coerce her to say she saw him wrap the rifle and take it with him to work Friday?

If she is coerced into framing him for the assassination these are the obvious statements they would force her to make. They would provide motive and a direct connection from him to the rifle found in the TSBD.

But they didn't because she said none of the above. Why?

Conspiracists cannot answer these questions. They don't even want to try. For even to try forces them to reconsider their claims. And this is something they don't want to do.

If one is skeptical of the evidence against Oswald, if one says he wants to challenge that evidence then one should apply that skeptical standard to the conspiracy claims. And that includes, it seems obvious, questions like the above.

It's difficult to prove a negative but not impossible (I can prove I didn't shoot Oswald). But one way to try and prove a negative - that Oswald wasn't framed - is to look into questions like this. These are serious legitimate and logical questions a true skeptic would ask.

If, again, one was a true skeptic.

If, again, one was a true skeptic looking for speculation.

There, I fixed it for you

But one way to try and prove a negative - that Oswald wasn't framed - is to look into questions like this.

No it isn't, because the question requires speculation and even when the question is not answered it still does not justify the conclusion you desperately want to attach to it, i.e. that Oswald wasn't framed!

You're playing games and you know it. But we can easily turn this around. You can't answer (or refuse to do so) Alan's question about the DPD document. By your own "logic" that means Oswald was framed, right?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

"Oswald told Frazier that the bag he brought to work that day contained curtain rods he obtained from Mrs. Paine. Many conspiracy theorists contend that Oswald did have curtain rods. The question then becomes: could the bag have contained curtain rods and not the rifle, regardless of length?

There were indeed curtain rods in the garage of the Paine residence, but both Mr. and Mrs. Paine testified their curtain rods were still in their garage on the day of the assassination after Oswald had taken his "curtain rods" to work. Oswald did not ask Mrs. Paine if he could use her curtain rods. Oswald did not discuss redecorating his room with his wife. He did not get the needed permission from his landlady, Mrs. Arthur Johnson, or her husband, to hang curtain rods and both testified there was no need for curtain rods in his room as there were curtain rods already up."

Source/link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm

Oswald's room needed no rods. He had no apartment that needed rods. He had not looked for an apartment that needed rods. There is no evidence from any eyewitnesses that saw him with rods after he left the building. He denied to the police, according to their account, that he brought rods to work.

Or you can believe all of this were lies meant to frame him. In which case, it doesn't matter how much evidence is presented; you will dismiss it all as lies.

Oswald's room below (no rods are needed):

[Martin Weidmann]

"Oswald told Frazier that the bag he brought to work that day contained curtain rods he obtained from Mrs. Paine. Many conspiracy theorists contend that Oswald did have curtain rods. The question then becomes: could the bag have contained curtain rods and not the rifle, regardless of length?

There were indeed curtain rods in the garage of the Paine residence, but both Mr. and Mrs. Paine testified their curtain rods were still in their garage on the day of the assassination after Oswald had taken his "curtain rods" to work. Oswald did not ask Mrs. Paine if he could use her curtain rods. Oswald did not discuss redecorating his room with his wife. He did not get the needed permission from his landlady, Mrs. Arthur Johnson, or her husband, to hang curtain rods and both testified there was no need for curtain rods in his room as there were curtain rods already up."

Source/link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm

Oswald's room needed no rods. He had no apartment that needed rods. He had not looked for an apartment that needed rods. There is no evidence from any eyewitnesses that saw him with rods after he left the building. He denied to the police, according to their account, that he brought rods to work.

Or you can believe all of this were lies meant to frame him. In which case, it doesn't matter how much evidence is presented; you will dismiss it all as lies.

Oswald's room below (no rods are needed):

I take it this is your way of "answering" Alan's question?

Or you can believe all of this were lies meant to frame him. In which case, it doesn't matter how much evidence is presented; you will dismiss it all as lies.

I don't believe "all of this were lies", just that the narrative you present is only one biased side of the story. The fact that Ruth Paine's curtain rods were still in her garage, does not preclude the possibility that there had been more (for instance in Oswald's possession) and it certainly does not prove that Oswald did not carry curtain rods to the TSBD on Friday morning.

Oswald did not discuss redecorating his room with his wife. He did not get the needed permission from his landlady, Mrs. Arthur Johnson, or her husband, to hang curtain rods and both testified there was no need for curtain rods in his room as there were curtain rods already up."

So what? It's only an assumption that Oswald needed the curtain rods to redecorate his room. There isn't a shred of evidence for it. Last week I picked up some removal boxes from a friend. But that doesn't mean that I was going to move! One can just as easily assume that Oswald went to Irving on Thursday to ask Marina to live with him again in a new appartment. Marina and Ruth Paine actually testified that they both thought this was his reason for the trip. The lack of evidence for the existing of such an appartment, for which Oswald could have brought to curtain rods, does not preclude that such an appartment did exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! 

For all we know, Oswald wanted to sign the rental agreement the next day. We will never know, because it was never investigated. Another alternative that was never considered is that Oswald brought the curtain rods for somebody else, who collected them during Friday morning. I'm not saying any of this is actually true or that it really happened. All I am saying is that when you start making assumptions you can always arrive where you want to end up.

He had no apartment that needed rods. He had not looked for an apartment that needed rods.

You shouldn't present something as fact what you can only assume and for which you have not a shred of evidence.

Now, to get back to Alan's question, which you haven't answered at all. Here's a logical conclusion justified by the evidence as we know it to date; if we accept that Ruth Paine's curtain rods were in her garage on the 23rd, when her testimony was taken, then they can not be the curtain rods who were in the custody of Lt Day until the 24th, which is when SSA Howlett collected them. It follows that the curtain rods Howlett submitted to the DPD identification bureau on the 15th are not Ruth Paine's curtain rods.

[Bill Chapman]

1) JFK 'murder' lol. Tell us just how important one has to be before one's 'murder' gets bumped up to 'assassination' status. Just sayin'.

Pathetic. No matter what you call it, Kennedy was murdered, was he not?

2) Where did I 'admit' that I was not familiar with dealing with the nuances of the law' you fkn liar? I clearly said those not familiar

You admitted it implicitly in your previous post, as you clearly wrote that as being one of "those not familiar". But I can understand why you now want to backpeddle.

3) You dismiss that which does not follow Oswald-Cultism

BS, but I'll play along.... Tell me, how do you explain that I accept the BY photos as authentic and that it is very will possible that Oswald did indeed write the order form from Klein's for the purchase of the rifle?

4) Opinions are usually welcome on discussion platforms

When they are not falsely presented as statements of fact, I agree.

Pathetic. No matter what you call it, Kennedy was murdered, was he not?
Geez, and here I thought he was assassinated, a more apt description for heads of state.
You wouldn't be trying to minimize the importance of what your hero Oswald did, now would you..

You admitted it implicitly in your previous post, as you clearly wrote that as being one of "those not familiar". But I can understand why you now want to backpeddle.
1) Re 'those not familiar': I can understand your need to twist what others mean.
2) I do not include myself with those who are unfamiliar with the basics of watching what one says around cops. I include myself with the guy who authored and presented the video.

BS, but I'll play along.... Tell me, how do you explain that I accept the BY photos as authentic and that it is very will possible that Oswald did indeed write the order form from Klein's for the purchase of the rifle?
So that's it, no Marty53?. Let me go all-CT: You're lying about accepting the BY pictures and the Klein's thing in order to present yourself as fair, but in reality you're just the same old tipsy troll who only comes here to argue.

When they are not falsely presented as statements of fact, I agree
  Again, this is a discussion platform, not a court of law nor even formal debate. And you are not the arbiter of what constitutes 'fact'.

[Alan Ford]

"Oswald told Frazier that the bag he brought to work that day contained curtain rods he obtained from Mrs. Paine. Many conspiracy theorists contend that Oswald did have curtain rods. The question then becomes: could the bag have contained curtain rods and not the rifle, regardless of length?

There were indeed curtain rods in the garage of the Paine residence, but both Mr. and Mrs. Paine testified their curtain rods were still in their garage on the day of the assassination after Oswald had taken his "curtain rods" to work. Oswald did not ask Mrs. Paine if he could use her curtain rods. Oswald did not discuss redecorating his room with his wife. He did not get the needed permission from his landlady, Mrs. Arthur Johnson, or her husband, to hang curtain rods and both testified there was no need for curtain rods in his room as there were curtain rods already up."

Source/link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm

Oswald's room needed no rods. He had no apartment that needed rods. He had not looked for an apartment that needed rods. There is no evidence from any eyewitnesses that saw him with rods after he left the building. He denied to the police, according to their account, that he brought rods to work.

Or you can believe all of this were lies meant to frame him. In which case, it doesn't matter how much evidence is presented; you will dismiss it all as lies.

Speaking of curtain rods and evidence.......

Two curtain rods were submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints 8 days BEFORE two curtain rods were taken from the Paine garage under on-the-record questioning of Ms Paine. The two curtain rods originally submitted for testing were not released from the Crime Scene Search Section lab until AFTER that taking of testimony in Irving.

Can you explain the above facts, Mr Galbraith? Or do you prefer to stay in your McAdams/von Pein Talking Points comfort zone?

 

[Martin Weidmann]

Pathetic. No matter what you call it, Kennedy was murdered, was he not?
Geez, and here I thought he was assassinated, a more apt description for heads of state.
You wouldn't be trying to minimize the importance of what your hero Oswald did, now would you..

Assassination is murder for political reasons. Was Kennedy killed for political reasons and wouldn't that point to a conspiracy?
I thought you believe some lone nut with a rifle killed a guy in a car, which of course is murder, plain and simple.

You wouldn't be trying to minimize the importance of what your hero Oswald did, now would you..

Thank you for demonstrating so clearly how your warped depraved mind works.

You admitted it implicitly in your previous post, as you clearly wrote that as being one of "those not familiar". But I can understand why you now want to backpeddle.
1) Re 'those not familiar': I can understand your need to twist what others mean.
2) I do not include myself with those who are unfamiliar with the basics of watching what one says around cops. I include myself with the guy who authored and presented the video.

Of course you include yourself with those who are unfamiliar with the basics. Your words;

"The video was made for the express intent of enlightening those not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law"

"it was one of the most important and interesting videos I've ever watched and would be of great benefit to everybody."

No further explanation necessary!

BS, but I'll play along.... Tell me, how do you explain that I accept the BY photos as authentic and that it is very will possible that Oswald did indeed write the order form from Klein's for the purchase of the rifle?
So that's it, no Marty53?. Let me go all-CT: You're lying about accepting the BY pictures and the Klein's thing in order to present yourself as fair, but in reality you're just the same old tipsy troll who only comes here to argue.

Thank you for showing one more time how a LN mind really works. When somebody you claim to be a CT (but isn't) actually tells you the truth, you call him a liar and start projecting because you don't know how to handle the truth. It's pathetic!

When they are not falsely presented as statements of fact, I agree
  Again, this is a discussion platform, not a court of law nor even formal debate. And you are not the arbiter of what constitutes 'fact'.

Then try to discuss something for once, little man, instead of taking a page out of Trump's "alternative facts" book!

And you are not the arbiter of what constitutes 'fact'.
 
Sure I am. Every time a troll like you tries to pass opinion as "fact".

[Bill Chapman]

Assassination is murder for political reasons. Was Kennedy killed for political reasons and wouldn't that point to a conspiracy?

You're rather slow on the uptake, Martini. I reckon you've been spending way too much time with your drinking buddies Tom Collins, Jack Daniels, and Jim Beam. And Captain Morgan.

I've already schooled you lot with my essay 'the nobody who shot the somebody had help' In short:
1) O H Lee was in charge of procuring a safe-house
2) Alek Hidell was in charge of procuring armaments
3) Dirty Harvey was in charge of making the nobody a somebody

Well, they'll remember him now.