How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD

[Bill Chapman]

Never mind that she did not confirm Oswald owned a rifle in her DPD affidavit and did not recognize the rifle when it was shown to her, right?

Shall we just overlook that as well, Richard?

Never mind that Marina testified that she doesn't know one rifle from another in the first place. Never mind that an affidavit is not a Q&A. Never mind that Marina confirmed that the rifle in the blanket she knew to be theirs was missing on 11.22.63

[Wesley Johnson]

Ray, he may not even have been put there on purpose.

Who said that a conspiracy already had a solid and completely worked out plan in mind, months, or even weeks, prior to the assassination? Yet, that's what LNs seem to imply. If there was a conspiracy, there may well have been some sort of master plan in place, known to only a few people and able to be put into action at short notice based upon the actual circumstances at the time.

There are those who believe there had already been two previous attempts to execute the plan, in Miami and Chicago, which both failed. Perhaps it was just a case of third time lucky with all the variables falling into place in Dallas.

" If there was a conspiracy, there may well have been some sort of master plan in place"

"master plan"?

Okay, Martin I won't accuse you of being a CTer anymore. If Oswald was not placed in employment at the TSBD by a conspirator, conspirators, government agency, or madmen, then they would have had a huge problem of including LHO in their "master plan". And I don't see why you are claiming the evidence against Oswald is weak.
"Unlike you, I find it completely insignificant how Oswald got his job, but if it makes you happy, I don't think it was arranged by conspirators."

By you saying that it takes a lot for a conspiracy to be involved. President Kennedy is the one that decided to go to Dallas against the advice of Vice President Johnson and Governor Connally. That alone kind of kills the "LBJ did it" theory. Logistically Martin it is just not believable. Let's take a look:
1. The master plan would have had to know about Oswald in the first place.
2. They would have had to know he bought a rifle.
3. They would have had to know he owned a revolver.
4. They would have had to know he was going to work that day. What if he called in sick?
5. They would have had to know where he lived and where his wife lived and that he went to see her there.
6. They would have had to know he was going to Ruth's on Thursday instead of Friday. They would have had to steal Oswald's rifle. 
7. They would have had to know he kept his rifle at Ruth Paine's house in the garage. (I know CTers like to claim the rifle wasn't linked to him but it was Martin).
8. They would have had to sneak someone into the TSBD that day to fire from the 6th floor window. (do you dispute that there were shots fired from that window?) No one at the TSBD reported any strange men in the building that day.
I could add some more. Now let's look at the "why questions" that concern logic and deductive reasoning.
1. Why did Lee go to Ruth Paine's on Thursday?
2. Why did he tell Frazier he had curtain rods in the package he had with him?
3. Why did he tell Capt. Fritz that he had lunch on the first floor? (circumstantial evidence as you call it) indicates he lied.
4. Why did he tell Capt. Fritz he had his lunch in the bag when he told Frazier it was curtain rods?
5. Why was he the only employee that left the TSBD that day. Cters claim he wasn't the only to leave. Maybe so, but they came back, Oswald didn't.
6. Logically speaking why would someone after being close to such a historical event, as the assassination of a president, right in front of were they worked, go home get his revolver and then go to a movie? You can't sell that one.
7. Why did these conspirators kill JD Tippit? They could not have known that Oswald would even leave the building!! No one will ever make me believe that one.
8. Why did the conspirators let Oswald roam around the TSBD where he could be seen which would kill their plan dead? Very funny.
9. Why did said conspirators let Oswald leave in the first place where he fell into police hands for two days of questioning? Now they have to have Ruby ready to go.
10. The conspirators could not have known what wounds would have been on the president's body to have some team ready to go to kidnap the president's body so they could alter it.
11. How did the conspirators know that the autopsy was not going to be done at Parkland by Dr. Rose?
12 How did the conspirators know that the autopsy was not going to be done at Walter Reed instead of at Bethesda? Mrs. Kennedy was the one who wanted that. That means two teams of Dr.'s ready and willing to implicate themselves in the murder of JFK. And why were Humes, Boswell, and Finck left alive???

Martin I could go on but I'm sure you see the point. All of these things require men on the ground plotting and manipulating everything. It would have taken a small army to get it done. And all of them would have had to keep their mouths shut. And these conspirators would have had to do this all unseen by anyone in Dallas. It is ridiculous to even ponder.   


 

[Martin Weidmann]

Never mind that Marina testified that she doesn't know one rifle from another in the first place. Never mind that an affidavit is not a Q&A. Never mind that Marina confirmed that the rifle in the blanket she knew to theirs was missing the morning of 11.22.63

Never mind that Marina testified that she doesn't know one rifle from another in the first place.

Which still does not explain why she did not confirm that Oswald owned a rifle, when asked by DPD officers on Friday night? Come to think of it, why ask such a question if Marina had indeed pointed police officers to the blanket. On the other hand, if it was Ruth Paine who pointed the officers to the blanket, the question put to Marina is understandable.

Never mind that an affidavit is not a Q&A.

Doesn't matter. It is a statement under oath and the result of questions asked by officers and/or the notary. But if you want to play that game; never mind that hearing testimony from witnesses who were prepped in advance without any kind of cross-examination isn't much better.

Never mind that Marina confirmed that the rifle in the blanket she knew to theirs was missing the morning of 11.22.63

So what? Did she also confirm that the rifle was still in the blanket a day earlier? If not, her confirmation of the obvious fact that a blanket was empty is meaningless.

[Martin Weidmann]

" If there was a conspiracy, there may well have been some sort of master plan in place"

"master plan"?

Okay, Martin I won't accuse you of being a CTer anymore. If Oswald was not placed in employment at the TSBD by a conspirator, conspirators, government agency, or madmen, then they would have had a huge problem of including LHO in their "master plan". And I don't see why you are claiming the evidence against Oswald is weak.

"Unlike you, I find it completely insignificant how Oswald got his job, but if it makes you happy, I don't think it was arranged by conspirators."

By you saying that it takes a lot for a conspiracy to be involved. President Kennedy is the one that decided to go to Dallas against the advice of Vice President Johnson and Governor Connally. That alone kind of kills the "LBJ did it" theory. Logistically Martin it is just not believable. Let's take a look:
1. The master plan would have had to know about Oswald in the first place.
2. They would have had to know he bought a rifle.
3. They would have had to know he owned a revolver.
4. They would have had to know he was going to work that day. What if he called in sick?
5. They would have had to know where he lived and where his wife lived and that he went to see her there.
6. They would have had to know he was going to Ruth's on Thursday instead of Friday. They would have had to steal Oswald's rifle. 
7. They would have had to know he kept his rifle at Ruth Paine's house in the garage. (I know CTers like to claim the rifle wasn't linked to him but it was Martin).
8. They would have had to sneak someone into the TSBD that day to fire from the 6th floor window. (do you dispute that there were shots fired from that window?) No one at the TSBD reported any strange men in the building that day.
I could add some more. Now let's look at the "why questions" that concern logic and deductive reasoning.
1. Why did Lee go to Ruth Paine's on Thursday?
2. Why did he tell Frazier he had curtain rods in the package he had with him?
3. Why did he tell Capt. Fritz that he had lunch on the first floor? (circumstantial evidence as you call it) indicates he lied.
4. Why did he tell Capt. Fritz he had his lunch in the bag when he told Frazier it was curtain rods?
5. Why was he the only employee that left the TSBD that day. Cters claim he wasn't the only to leave. Maybe so, but they came back, Oswald didn't.
6. Logically speaking why would someone after being close to such a historical event, as the assassination of a president, right in front of were they worked, go home get his revolver and then go to a movie? You can't sell that one.
7. Why did these conspirators kill JD Tippit? They could not have known that Oswald would even leave the building!! No one will ever make me believe that one.
8. Why did the conspirators let Oswald roam around the TSBD where he could be seen which would kill their plan dead? Very funny.
9. Why did said conspirators let Oswald leave in the first place where he fell into police hands for two days of questioning? Now they have to have Ruby ready to go.
10. The conspirators could not have known what wounds would have been on the president's body to have some team ready to go to kidnap the president's body so they could alter it.
11. How did the conspirators know that the autopsy was not going to be done at Parkland by Dr. Rose?
12 How did the conspirators know that the autopsy was not going to be done at Walter Reed instead of at Bethesda? Mrs. Kennedy was the one who wanted that. That means two teams of Dr.'s ready and willing to implicate themselves in the murder of JFK. And why were Humes, Boswell, and Finck left alive???

Martin I could go on but I'm sure you see the point. All of these things require men on the ground plotting and manipulating everything. It would have taken a small army to get it done. And all of them would have had to keep their mouths shut. And these conspirators would have had to do this all unseen by anyone in Dallas. It is ridiculous to even ponder.   

You seem to be overthinking the whole thing to be able to reach your pre-determined conclusion.

What is it that scares you so much in the possibility of a conspiracy?

In any event, you are asking way too many questions for me to answer in one post. Most have been discussed (and no doubt will be again) on this board and I am sure different people have different answers to them. As for me, I think you are asking all the wrong questions.

If Oswald was not placed in employment at the TSBD by a conspirator, conspirators, government agency, or madmen, then they would have had a huge problem of including LHO in their "master plan".

I don't see why. Alternative arrangement could have been made. Do you think it would have been impossible to get Oswald where they wanted him to be, regardless of where he worked?

And I don't see why you are claiming the evidence against Oswald is weak.

Because it is.... too many witnesses need to be mistaken, too many "honest mistakes" and contradictions need to be overlooked and too many assumptions have to be spot on to make the official narrative work. There isn't a single piece of physical evidence that isn't tainted in one way or another.

By you saying that it takes a lot for a conspiracy to be involved. President Kennedy is the one that decided to go to Dallas against the advice of Vice President Johnson and Governor Connally. That alone kind of kills the "LBJ did it" theory.

Not necessarily. I think you are jumping to a conclusion without thinking it through. If there was a conspiracy, what makes you think the only option was in Dallas?

[Wesley Johnson]

You seem to be overthinking the whole thing to be able to reach your pre-determined conclusion.

What is it that scares you so much in the possibility of a conspiracy?

In any event, you are asking way too many questions for me to answer in one post. Most have been discussed (and no doubt will be again) on this board and I am sure different people have different answers to them. As for me, I think you are asking all the wrong questions.

If Oswald was not placed in employment at the TSBD by a conspirator, conspirators, government agency, or madmen, then they would have had a huge problem of including LHO in their "master plan".

I don't see why. Alternative arrangement could have been made. Do you think it would have been impossible to get Oswald where they wanted him to be, regardless of where he worked?

And I don't see why you are claiming the evidence against Oswald is weak.

Because it is.... too many witnesses need to be mistaken, too many "honest mistakes" and contradictions need to be overlooked and too many assumptions have to be spot on to make the official narrative work. There isn't a single piece of physical evidence that isn't tainted in one way or another.

By you saying that it takes a lot for a conspiracy to be involved. President Kennedy is the one that decided to go to Dallas against the advice of Vice President Johnson and Governor Connally. That alone kind of kills the "LBJ did it" theory.

Not necessarily. I think you are jumping to a conclusion without thinking it through. If there was a conspiracy, what makes you think the only option was in Dallas?

Martin you seem to not want to come to grips that it looks pretty bad for Oswald.
"There isn't a single piece of physical evidence that isn't tainted in one way or another."

Okay, are you saying Oswald did not own a rifle (the rifle was linked to Oswald you say it's tainted how)? I have thought all of this through very carefully. Marina confirmed by her statements that Lee owned a rifle and that she took the photo of him holding it. Do you call her a liar? Give me one instance that supports there were people manipulating Oswald to frame him. Got anything? Can you name any piece of physical evidence to support a conspiracy theory?

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin you seem to not want to come to grips that it looks pretty bad for Oswald.

"There isn't a single piece of physical evidence that isn't tainted in one way or another."

Okay, are you saying Oswald did not own a rifle (the rifle was linked to Oswald you say it's tainted how)? I have thought all of this through very carefully. Marina confirmed by her statements that Lee owned a rifle and that she took the photo of him holding it. Do you call her a liar? Give me one instance that supports there were people manipulating Oswald to frame him. Got anything? Can you name any piece of physical evidence to support a conspiracy theory?

Martin you seem to not want to come to grips that it looks pretty bad for Oswald.

What looks bad for Oswald? The official narrative? Of course it does, at least on a superficial level. But IMO that's what it was made for. The bigger question should be if the narrative is truthful and conclusive upon closer inspection, and I don't think it is. Way too many loose ends and unanswered questions....

Okay, are you saying Oswald did not own a rifle (the rifle was linked to Oswald you say it's tainted how)?

I don't know if he owned a rifle or not. I find the Klein's paperwork not credible enough to support the conclusion that Oswald owned a rifle, but that does not preclude that he might have had a rifle at some point in time.

Marina confirmed by her statements that Lee owned a rifle and that she took the photo of him holding it. Do you call her a liar?

I don't have to call Marina a liar. She confirmed herself that she had lied to investigators. That should have been a red flag, but somehow it wasn't. They probably needed her testimony too desperately to care.

Marina did confirm that she took the photo(s), but even if we disregard that she did not know how the camera worked and got the numbers of photos she took wrong as well, what does a photo taken of Oswald holding a rifle in late March 1963 prove to you? I was once photographed holding a rifle... Do you think that means I owned that weapon?

Give me one instance that supports there were people manipulating Oswald to frame him. Got anything? Can you name any piece of physical evidence to support a conspiracy theory?

There you go again with the loaded questions. There are some pieces of physical evidence (and the handling of them) that give me cause to wonder, but whether they sufficiently support a conspiracy theory is another matter. 

[Wesley Johnson]

Martin you seem to not want to come to grips that it looks pretty bad for Oswald.

What looks bad for Oswald? The official narrative? Of course it does, at least on a superficial level. But IMO that's what it was made for. The bigger question should be if the narrative truthful and conclusive upon closer inspection, and I don't think it is. Way too many loose ends and unanswered questions....

Okay, are you saying Oswald did not own a rifle (the rifle was linked to Oswald you say it's tainted how)?

I don't know if he owned a rifle or not. I find the Klein's paperwork not credible enough to support the conclusion that Oswald owned a rifle, but that does not preclude that he might have had a rifle at some point in time.

Marina confirmed by her statements that Lee owned a rifle and that she took the photo of him holding it. Do you call her a liar?

I don't have to call Marina a liar. She confirmed herself that she had lied to investigators. That should have been a red flag, but somehow it wasn't. They probably needed her testimony too desperately to care.

Marina did confirm that she took the photo(s), but even if we disregard that she did not know how the camera worked and got the numbers of photos she took wrong as well, what does a photo taken of Oswald holding a rifle in late March 1963 prove to you?

Give me one instance that supports there were people manipulating Oswald to frame him. Got anything? Can you name any piece of physical evidence to support a conspiracy theory?

There you go again with the loaded questions. There are some pieces of physical evidence (and the handling of them) that give me cause to wonder, but whether they sufficiently support a conspiracy theory is another matter.

Okay Martin just keep questioning every little piece of evidence. As for the photo it shows Oswald had a rifle and revolver.

[Martin Weidmann]

Okay Martin just keep questioning every little piece of evidence. As for the photo it shows Oswald had a rifle and revolver.

just keep questioning every little piece of evidence.

Is it your position that evidence, no matter how small, should not be examined and questioned?

As for the photo it shows Oswald had a rifle and revolver.

I was once photographed with a rifle. Do you think that means I owned that rifle?