Spot The Difference

[Richard Smith]

None of the control numbers were checked against the control book.

Waldman cheked against the recieving record which itself is dubious.

There's nothing subjective about this, it's a fact.

How about laying out the basis of your claim instead of making conclusory statements?  And, of course, even if your claims have any basis in fact they still don't prove anything or rebut the overwhelming cumulative evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  Oswald's palm print is on the rifle found on the 6th floor.  It has the same serial number as the one sent from Klein's to his PO Box.  There are photos of Oswald holding that rifle.  His wife confirmed he owned a rifle and kept it in the Paine's garage.  On Nov. 22 she directs the police to that location and the rifle is no longer there.  Where did Oswald's rifle go if not to the 6th floor?  Why did Oswald lie to the DPD about his ownership of a rifle if he had nothing to do with this crime?  Why didn't he just direct them to his rifle to assist himself? Let me guess.  Everyone lied.  Marina, Ruth Paine (who you have some disgusting grudge against), the DPD, Waldman, FBI, and on and on.  Everyone except Oswald.

[Walt Cakebread]

I'm trying to understand what you are suggesting.  That all those boxes around the 6th floor window were moved there by Oswald or some conspirator and were not already in that position?   And no one saw all those boxes being move by some strangers on the 6th floor?  That is far out UFO stuff.  That's a lot of boxes.

Lee Oswald had nothing to do with the boxes in the window....   The so called "Snipers Nest" was a figment of some idiotic cops imagination( probably Will Fritz)  Lee Oswald was o the first floor of the TSBD at the time JFK was ambushed.

[Tyler Powell]

How about laying out the basis of your claim instead of making conclusory statements?  And, of course, even if your claims have any basis in fact they still don't prove anything or rebut the overwhelming cumulative evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  Oswald's palm print is on the rifle found on the 6th floor.  It has the same serial number as the one sent from Klein's to his PO Box.  There are photos of Oswald holding that rifle.  His wife confirmed he owned a rifle and kept it in the Paine's garage.  On Nov. 22 she directs the police to that location and the rifle is no longer there.  Where did Oswald's rifle go if not to the 6th floor?  Why did Oswald lie to the DPD about his ownership of a rifle if he had nothing to do with this crime?  Why didn't he just direct them to his rifle to assist himself? Let me guess.  Everyone lied.  Marina, Ruth Paine (who you have some disgusting grudge against), the DPD, Waldman, FBI, and on and on.  Everyone except Oswald.

Hi Richard,

I'm new here -- this is my first post, actually -- but I hope you don't mind my discussing this a bit with you? I believe that there was a "conspiracy," broadly, but can't make any specific claims. I want to try to understand things better. And your questions speak to that, my lack of understanding. I find Oswald utterly impenetrable.

The things you mention, assuming they are exactly as stated: Oswald's print found on the rifle; the same serial number as one he'd ordered and had sent to his PO Box; photos of himself holding the rifle (to which, it is my understanding, Oswald directed the detectives); his wife's confirmation of his ownership of the rifle... with all of this evidence available, evidence he himself should have been readily aware of, why should Oswald lie about the mere fact of owning a rifle?

Perhaps, accounting to the circumstances, he acted unreasonably... but he appears to be so collected in the footage I've seen and the transcripts I've read (perhaps strangely so), and I've heard it said that Oswald was intelligent. It makes no sense to me. Why lie about some basic fact you know will be easily caught out?

Presented with the photos of himself holding the rifle, it's again my understanding that Oswald claimed the photos were not legitimate -- that they were faked with his face put onto someone else's body. It's such a strange approach, such a strange claim (and strangely specific), in my opinion. How much easier would it be to admit to having the rifle and having taken the pictures, but claim that he was still innocent of the shooting (that perhaps the rifle was planted, etc.)?

And ordering the rifle, using an alias, but then having it sent to a PO Box in his own name -- rather than buy the rifle (let alone a better one, a more reliable one) for cash? Why create such an undeniable connection between yourself and a weapon, leaving paper and photographic evidence about where there need be none, use that weapon in the commission of a crime (rather than pick up any other), only to deny not only the crime but even the ownership of the weapon itself?

None of Oswald's purported actions with respect to this rifle make a lick of sense to me.

[John Iacoletti]

How about laying out the basis of your claim instead of making conclusory statements?  And, of course, even if your claims have any basis in fact they still don't prove anything or rebut the overwhelming cumulative evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  Oswald's palm print is on the rifle found on the 6th floor.  It has the same serial number as the one sent from Klein's to his PO Box.  There are photos of Oswald holding that rifle.  His wife confirmed he owned a rifle and kept it in the Paine's garage.  On Nov. 22 she directs the police to that location and the rifle is no longer there.  Where did Oswald's rifle go if not to the 6th floor?

A better question would be, "why does 'Richard' spew the same BS claims over and over again as if repetition will somehow turn them into facts?"

[John Iacoletti]

The FBI could not have possibly known this even if a Mr Hidell was or was not authorized.

I don't know how they could have stated this so definitively unless the complete form was actually available at one time and then went "missing".

CE 2585, page 4:

CLAIM:  The Post Office Box in Dallas to which Oswald had the rifle mailed was kept under both his name and that of 'A. Hidell." Page 111.

INVESTIGATION:  Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an 'A. Hidell,' would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963.

[Richard Smith]

Hi Richard,

I'm new here -- this is my first post, actually -- but I hope you don't mind my discussing this a bit with you? I believe that there was a "conspiracy," broadly, but can't make any specific claims. I want to try to understand things better. And your questions speak to that, my lack of understanding. I find Oswald utterly impenetrable.

The things you mention, assuming they are exactly as stated: Oswald's print found on the rifle; the same serial number as one he'd ordered and had sent to his PO Box; photos of himself holding the rifle (to which, it is my understanding, Oswald directed the detectives); his wife's confirmation of his ownership of the rifle... with all of this evidence available, evidence he himself should have been readily aware of, why should Oswald lie about the mere fact of owning a rifle?

Perhaps, accounting to the circumstances, he acted unreasonably... but he appears to be so collected in the footage I've seen and the transcripts I've read (perhaps strangely so), and I've heard it said that Oswald was intelligent. It makes no sense to me. Why lie about some basic fact you know will be easily caught out?

Presented with the photos of himself holding the rifle, it's again my understanding that Oswald claimed the photos were not legitimate -- that they were faked with his face put onto someone else's body. It's such a strange approach, such a strange claim (and strangely specific), in my opinion. How much easier would it be to admit to having the rifle and having taken the pictures, but claim that he was still innocent of the shooting (that perhaps the rifle was planted, etc.)?

And ordering the rifle, using an alias, but then having it sent to a PO Box in his own name -- rather than buy the rifle (let alone a better one, a more reliable one) for cash? Why create such an undeniable connection between yourself and a weapon, leaving paper and photographic evidence about where there need be none, use that weapon in the commission of a crime (rather than pick up any other), only to deny not only the crime but even the ownership of the weapon itself?

None of Oswald's purported actions with respect to this rifle make a lick of sense to me.

Tyler-
The evidence of Oswald's guilt is overwhelming.  It comes from a variety of different sources including the DPD, FBI, his own wife, random citizens that he encountered, and private businesses like Klein's who sold him the rifle.  Much of that evidence was compiled within hours of the crime. Ironically, some CTers argue that because the evidence against Oswald is so overwhelming that we can only conclude that he must be innocent.  Of course the jails are full of criminals who, in retrospect, have done stupid things that lead to their arrest.  We can ask "what were they thinking" but that does not mitigate the evidence against them or cast doubt on their guilt. 

I don't believe that Oswald had a reasonable expectation that he would get away with assassinating the president.  As evidenced by his leaving most of his money with Marina that morning.  At best, he entertained some fantasy that perhaps he could elude capture and maybe make it to Mexico and then to Cuba where he would be granted asylum and treated as some type of revolutionary figure.  But Oswald was smart enough to realize the odds were against him.  CTers sometimes ask why if Oswald knew he couldn't get away he would even try or not confess when arrested.  The mind of an unbalanced person, however, does not lend itself to the application of logic.  And most criminals make the effort to escape no matter how long the odds.  They have nothing to lose.  Oswald was an angry malcontent with contempt for authority.   He had no desire to make the job of the DPD and FBI easy.  And the only card that he held after his arrest was his confession and details of the crime.  He wasn't going to give that up in the first 48 hours after his arrest.  My guess is that Oswald would have eventually confessed in exchange for not being given the death penalty.  But Ruby had other plans.

When all is said and done this is a fairly simple case.  All the important evidence points to Oswald's guilt.  Almost equally compelling is the sheer implausibility of any alternative narrative that would square with all the evidence and facts of the case.  After nearly 60 years, and the efforts of countless CTers to connect all the dots there is no such plausible alternative narrative to Oswald's guilt that squares with all the known facts.  Oswald did it all by his lonesome even if he perhaps didn't always make the decisions that make sense.  Keep in mind also that Oswald did not order his rifle intending to leave it at any crime scene to be discovered.  He ordered his rifle with the intent to shoot General Walker and hide the rifle.  Which is what he did.  Thus, the circumstance presented at the JFK assassination were not factors in his decision making when he ordered the rifle.  So questions about why he used a known alias or had the rifle delivered to his PO Box are not relevant to Oswald's decision making in the JFK assassination context because he had no idea that he would have to leave the rifle at a crime scene.  He had no other choice on 11.22.63.   And death or arrest was part of the equation that Oswald accepted in deciding to carry out this act.

[Bill Chapman]

Hi Richard,

I'm new here -- this is my first post, actually -- but I hope you don't mind my discussing this a bit with you? I believe that there was a "conspiracy," broadly, but can't make any specific claims. I want to try to understand things better. And your questions speak to that, my lack of understanding. I find Oswald utterly impenetrable.

The things you mention, assuming they are exactly as stated: Oswald's print found on the rifle; the same serial number as one he'd ordered and had sent to his PO Box; photos of himself holding the rifle (to which, it is my understanding, Oswald directed the detectives); his wife's confirmation of his ownership of the rifle... with all of this evidence available, evidence he himself should have been readily aware of, why should Oswald lie about the mere fact of owning a rifle?

Perhaps, accounting to the circumstances, he acted unreasonably... but he appears to be so collected in the footage I've seen and the transcripts I've read (perhaps strangely so), and I've heard it said that Oswald was intelligent. It makes no sense to me. Why lie about some basic fact you know will be easily caught out?

Presented with the photos of himself holding the rifle, it's again my understanding that Oswald claimed the photos were not legitimate -- that they were faked with his face put onto someone else's body. It's such a strange approach, such a strange claim (and strangely specific), in my opinion. How much easier would it be to admit to having the rifle and having taken the pictures, but claim that he was still innocent of the shooting (that perhaps the rifle was planted, etc.)?

And ordering the rifle, using an alias, but then having it sent to a PO Box in his own name -- rather than buy the rifle (let alone a better one, a more reliable one) for cash? Why create such an undeniable connection between yourself and a weapon, leaving paper and photographic evidence about where there need be none, use that weapon in the commission of a crime (rather than pick up any other), only to deny not only the crime but even the ownership of the weapon itself?

None of Oswald's purported actions with respect to this rifle make a lick of sense to me.

Oswald said he was innocent so it must be true.

[John Iacoletti]

Tyler-
The evidence of Oswald's guilt is overwhelming.

It doesn't take much to overwhelm "Richard".  In fact, it doesn't even have to be actual evidence.  Speculation and conjecture will do just fine.