How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD

[Joe Elliott]

As I predicted, Martin Weidmann has dodge my two questions. So, I will answer them for him.


Question 1:

Name me one real world plot that did work this way. Bypassing opportunities time and time again until they somehow found the perfect patsy, within one month.


No, Martin cannot name another such murder plot. Where someone was first selected to take part in a murder plot. And then they lucked into a job that gave them a good opportunity to commit the murder. Nor can anyone else name one.

Colin presented the Lincoln assassination as such a case, but this is false. Booth was not selected to take part in a plot to murder President Lincoln. And then lucked into a job as an actor in the Ford Theatre. Presenting him with a perfect opportunity to murder the President.

Instead, things happened in this order:

1.   Booth became a famous actor.


2.   Lincoln was elected President.


3.   Booth started acting, some of the time, within Washington D. C. Possibly, he could have chosen to act in other theatres, with other acting groups, but chose an acting company that performed in Washington D. C.


4.   Booth used his past employment at the Ford Theatre to murder President Lincoln.

The only parallel is that Booth was part of a conspiracy, but Booth was the recruiter of others in a plot, first to kidnap Lincoln and later to murder him. He started out as a lone nut.



Neither Martin nor Colin has given an example, in all history, of a conspiracy to commit a murder, recruited the assassin and/or patsy, or multiple assassins and/or patsies and waited from one of them to luck into a job that gives them a good opportunity to murder the President, or to be framed for doing so.





Question 2:

Name me one major CT book that makes this argument. That Oswald was not part of the plot all along but was chosen no earlier than mid-October 1963?


No one has come up with such a book.

Basically, CTers argue that Oswald was part of the conspiracy for several years. In the Marines, sent to the U. S. S. R., ordered to do suspicious things once he returned. But, when problems come up with his, they temporarily suggest that he was, or perhaps was, selected as part of the conspiracy a month before the assassination.

Honest arguments don?t argue things both ways. They have simply present the most likely scenario. And stick to it.

But if no good scenario can be found, they develop arguments that have schizophrenia. There is no solid scenario. Scenario A is first presented. When problems are pointed out to it, they switch to Scenario B. When problems are point out to it, they switch back to Scenario A.

Hence, after over 50 years, CTers have no coherent scenario. Oswald was part of this conspiracy for months or years. Although, to deal with logical problems with this, one could temporarily adopt the position that maybe he wasn?t. But basically, think that he was, or probably was.

[Martin Weidmann]

Nothing has to add up for a closet CTer like Martin.  Like Sgt. Schultz he feigns to know nothing about a conspiracy while taking issue with all the evidence against Oswald. Does he believe the evidence proves Oswald ordered a MC rifle and was sent such a rifle with a specific serial number in March '63?  No.  But here we learn he believes any conspiracy didn't begin before Oct '63.  So all the allegedly faked documents and BY photos relating to the rifle are left unexplained.  Martin is just playing the lazy contrarian always arguing the evidence is deficient to his impossible subjective standard of proof so he never has to support anything.  It just happens that the evidence he takes issue with is always that of Oswald's guilt.   When Marina looks into the blanket and says she saw a "rifle" Martin interprets this to mean she saw some unspecified object made of wood.  LOL.  You can't make that sort of nonsense up.  But remember he is not alleging anything like a conspiracy that requires proof or at least a coherent narrative!  Oswald apparently just has the worst luck of anyone in history to be caught up in this plot like Mr. Magoo while going about his life in blissful ignorance.

But here we learn he believes any conspiracy didn't begin before Oct '63.

There are two possibilities here; either you have great difficulty understanding what I have written or you are just a plain liar who makes up stuff. Either way; I never said it.

BY photos relating to the rifle are left unexplained.

Another lie. I am on record as saying that I believe the BY photos are probably authentic. Since I am no photographic expert and never saw the originals of the photos, that's the best I can conclude. I just don't attach the same significance to the photos as you do.

always arguing the evidence is deficient to his impossible subjective standard of proof so he never has to support anything. It just happens that the evidence he takes issue with is always that of Oswald's guilt. 

I am not here to support anything. I don't have a theory, I don't really care if Oswald did it, did it alone or if there was a conspiracy and the evidence being discussed here just happens to be predominantly material used to support the claim of Oswald's guilt. You just don't like that I find the evidence less persuasive than you do. But truth be told, your constant complaining like a cry-baby that I do not agree with you is getting pretty tiresome.

When Marina looks into the blanket and says she saw a "rifle" Martin interprets this to mean she saw some unspecified object made of wood.  LOL.

Another misrepresentation, or shall I just call them outright lies from now on. I don't interpret anything of the kind.

In her testimony, Marina was told there was a rifle in the blanket. Rankin treated it as a given;

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that 1 was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, 1 saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.


Marina herself saw the wooden part of it. I just take her by her word.

But remember he is not alleging anything like a conspiracy that requires proof or at least a coherent narrative!

At least I don't have to lie or misrepresent stuff, as you do constantly.

[John Mytton]

When Marina looks into the blanket and says she saw a "rifle" Martin interprets this to mean she saw some unspecified object made of wood.  LOL.

Another misrepresentation, or shall I just call them outright lies from now on. I don't interpret anything of the kind.

In her testimony, Marina was told there was a rifle in the blanket. Rankin treated it as a given;

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that 1 was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, 1 saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.


Marina herself saw the wooden part of it. I just take her by her word.

A rifle?




A rifle?





JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

As I predicted, Martin Weidmann has dodge my two questions. So, I will answer them for him.

Question 1:

Name me one real world plot that did work this way. Bypassing opportunities time and time again until they somehow found the perfect patsy, within one month.


No, Martin cannot name another such murder plot. Where someone was first selected to take part in a murder plot. And then they lucked into a job that gave them a good opportunity to commit the murder. Nor can anyone else name one.

Colin presented the Lincoln assassination as such a case, but this is false. Booth was not selected to take part in a plot to murder President Lincoln. And then lucked into a job as an actor in the Ford Theatre. Presenting him with a perfect opportunity to murder the President.

Instead, things happened in this order:

1.   Booth became a famous actor.


2.   Lincoln was elected President.


3.   Booth started acting, some of the time, within Washington D. C. Possibly, he could have chosen to act in other theatres, with other acting groups, but chose an acting company that performed in Washington D. C.


4.   Booth used his past employment at the Ford Theatre to murder President Lincoln.

The only parallel is that Booth was part of a conspiracy, but Booth was the recruiter of others in a plot, first to kidnap Lincoln and later to murder him. He started out as a lone nut.

Neither Martin nor Colin has given an example, in all history, of a conspiracy to commit a murder, recruited the assassin and/or patsy, or multiple assassins and/or patsies and waited from one of them to luck into a job that gives them a good opportunity to murder the President, or to be framed for doing so.

Question 2:

Name me one major CT book that makes this argument. That Oswald was not part of the plot all along but was chosen no earlier than mid-October 1963?

No one has come up with such a book.

Basically, CTers argue that Oswald was part of the conspiracy for several years. In the Marines, sent to the U. S. S. R., ordered to do suspicious things once he returned. But, when problems come up with his, they temporarily suggest that he was, or perhaps was, selected as part of the conspiracy a month before the assassination.

Honest arguments don?t argue things both ways. They have simply present the most likely scenario. And stick to it.

But if no good scenario can be found, they develop arguments that have schizophrenia. There is no solid scenario. Scenario A is first presented. When problems are pointed out to it, they switch to Scenario B. When problems are point out to it, they switch back to Scenario A.

Hence, after over 50 years, CTers have no coherent scenario. Oswald was part of this conspiracy for months or years. Although, to deal with logical problems with this, one could temporarily adopt the position that maybe he wasn?t. But basically, think that he was, or probably was.

As expected, you are having a conversation with yourself, repeating the same thing over and over again, and simply ignore what I have written in my reply. You are just playing pathetic games, asking nonsensical strawman questions and expecting a comprehensive reply on your terms, when you can't even define the term "part of a conspiracy".

[Joe Elliott]

As expected, you are having a conversation with yourself, repeating the same thing over and over again, and simply ignore what I have written in my reply. You are just playing pathetic games, asking nonsensical strawman questions and expecting a comprehensive reply on your terms, when you can't even define the term "part of a conspiracy".

Of course, people will repeat themselves when you dodge their questions. So, I will ask again, at the risk of repeating myself, when are you going to answer my questions one and two?



What does ?part of a conspiracy? mean? With Oswald it means that Oswald was selected, unknowing or unknowingly to by the assassin or patsy in the conspiracy to murder President Kennedy.

In the case of any conspiracy it means someone who was selected to take part in it, to help the conspiracy to succeed or to act as a patsy. Such a person would be  ?part of the conspiracy? whether they knew it or not.

[Richard Smith]

In her testimony, Marina was told there was a rifle in the blanket. Rankin treated it as a given;

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that 1 was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, 1 saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.


Marina herself saw the wooden part of it. I just take her by her word.

This is rich.  Martin still implying that Marina saw something other than a rifle by quoting her testimony in which she says that "I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle."  A "rifle"!  Not just an object made of wood like your head.   Marina is "told" there was a rifle in the blanket and that is why she repeatedly affirms it was a rifle instead of saying I just saw a piece of wood?  This is the same blanket that she directs the DPD to on Nov. 22 (long before her WC testimony) when asked if Oswald has a rifle.  Why would Marina direct the DPD to the blanket when asked about - wait for it - A RIFLE if she thought it only contained some unspecified object made of wood?  This kind of lazy disbarred defense attorney tactic is what you get from Martin and John I.

[Martin Weidmann]

This is rich.  Martin still implying that Marina saw something other than a rifle by quoting her testimony in which she says that "I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle."  A "rifle"!  Not just an object made of wood like your head.   Marina is "told" there was a rifle in the blanket and that is why she repeatedly affirms it was a rifle instead of saying I just saw a piece of wood?  This is the same blanket that she directs the DPD to on Nov. 22 (long before her WC testimony) when asked if Oswald has a rifle.  Why would Marina direct the DPD to the blanket when asked about - wait for it - A RIFLE if she thought it only contained some unspecified object made of wood?  This kind of lazy disbarred defense attorney tactic is what you get from Martin and John I.

Let's make this as easy to comprehend as possible for you.

This is rich.  Martin still implying that Marina saw something other than a rifle by quoting her testimony in which she says that "I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle."  A "rifle"!  Not just an object made of wood like your head.

No, Martin is not implying anything. Martin is quoting from Marina's testimony in which she explains what she actually saw. It was Rankin who asked her a loaded question to which she responded with the line you selectively have quoted. However - what you being your usual dishonest self fail to mention - she becomes more specific after yet another loaded question from Rankin, by explaning what she actually saw, being the "wooden part of it".

Marina is "told" there was a rifle in the blanket and that is why she repeatedly affirms it was a rifle instead of saying I just saw a piece of wood? 

You can read, can't you? Or... on second thought, perhaps not. It was obvious that by the time of her testimony Marina, based upon what she was told by investigators and the media, was convinced her husband was the gunman and so it must have been a rifle in the blanket. Do you really expect her to correct Rankin every time he brings up the rifle? You really are so gullible, it's beyond pathetic.

This is the same blanket that she directs the DPD to on Nov. 22 (long before her WC testimony) when asked if Oswald has a rifle. Why would Marina direct the DPD to the blanket when asked about - wait for it - A RIFLE if she thought it only contained some unspecified object made of wood? 

Really? So why didn't she confirm in her DPD affidavit that same day that Oswald owned a rifle? She talks about a rifle he owned in Russia and does not recognize the rifle shown to her. In reality it was Ruth (I've been expecting you, officers) Paine who "translated" and told the officers about the blanket.

This kind of lazy disbarred defense attorney tactic is what you get from Martin and John I.

Still beats the crap out of your misrepresentations, strawman arguments and outright lies!

[Richard Smith]

Let's make this as easy to comprehend as possible for you.

This is rich.  Martin still implying that Marina saw something other than a rifle by quoting her testimony in which she says that "I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle."  A "rifle"!  Not just an object made of wood like your head.

No, Martin is not implying anything. Martin is quoting from Marina's testimony in which she explains what she actually saw. It was Rankin who asked her a loaded question to which she responded with the line you selectively have quoted. However - what you being your usual dishonest self fail to mention - she becomes more specific after yet another loaded question from Rankin, by explaning what she actually saw, being the "wooden part of it".

Marina is "told" there was a rifle in the blanket and that is why she repeatedly affirms it was a rifle instead of saying I just saw a piece of wood? 

You can read, can't you? Or... on second thought, perhaps not. It was obvious that by the time of her testimony Marina, based upon what she was told by investigators and the media, was convinced her husband was the gunman and so it must have been a rifle in the blanket. Do you really expect her to correct Rankin every time he brings up the rifle? You really are so gullible, it's beyond pathetic.

This is the same blanket that she directs the DPD to on Nov. 22 (long before her WC testimony) when asked if Oswald has a rifle. Why would Marina direct the DPD to the blanket when asked about - wait for it - A RIFLE if she thought it only contained some unspecified object made of wood? 

Really? So why didn't she confirm in her DPD affidavit that same day that Oswald owned a rifle? She talks about a rifle he owned in Russia and does not recognize the rifle shown to her. In reality it was Ruth (I've been expecting you, officers) Paine who "translated" and told the officers about the blanket.

This kind of lazy disbarred defense attorney tactic is what you get from Martin and John I.

Still beats the crap out of your misrepresentations, strawman arguments and outright lies!

More nonsense and shell game.  Let's try again.  Forget Rankin.  Marina was asked on Nov. 22 (long before Rankin or anyone else could have"told" her that her husband owned a rifle) if her husband owned a rifle and she directed the DPD to the blanket because that is where she knew he kept his rifle.  There is no reasonable explanation for her having done this on Nov. 22 just hours after the assassination unless she had reason to believe herself that is where Oswald kept his rifle.  And why would she come to this conclusion?  Because she had looked into the blanket and "saw a rifle."  To interpret that any other way is the height of the silly, contrarian defense attorney approach you have taken to this case.   What you are suggesting doesn't even make chronological sense.  She confirms the rifle was kept in the blanket on Nov. 22, but your silly explanation is that she was convinced of this months later.