O. H. LEE

[Hank Sienzant]

Not worth the trouble. I 'advanced' nothing.

Sorry, it must have been another Jerry Freeman that made all those other posts above advancing the arguments I responded to, including this one: "... she wasn't a useful witness on Oswald's ownership of a rifle.". My apologies.
 

Marina did tell SA Brookhout that Oswald had the rifle in Russia [for anyone that can read the link]

I saw the link. I clicked the link. I read the link. Her language is not quoted as strongly as you put it. In that link she does say Oswald owned "a rifle" in Russia (not "the rifle"). But in Russia, as Oswald himself told the police in custody, he owned a shotgun, not a rifle. He said you cannot own a rifle in Russia. Was Oswald lying about that or was Marina mistaking a shotgun for a rifle?

Marina went on to say that having been shown "a rifle" (reportedly the one recovered from the Depository), she couldn't identify it as her husband's, but went on to also say it looked like her husband's in terms of the color, but didn't recall the telescopic sight. She also went on to say all rifles (and apparently shotguns) look alike to her. So her obvious mistake about Oswald owning "a rifle" (actually a shotgun) in Russia is transmuted by you into her claiming Oswald owned "the rifle" in Russia (and "the rifle" under discussion is the one Marina admitted Oswald kept within a blanket in the Paine garage. The same rifle that was determined to be missing on the afternoon of the assassination). But that's clearly not what Marina said.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

...per forum rules---  https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.html

There must be no more than one single line of empty space between any written text, including quotes or posted images.

I guess that means everything I said above is wrong. I do it for readability. Or I did. I'll try to avoid it in the future.

Hank

[Jerry Freeman]

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1778.pdf
Quoting from the statement that apparently someone fails to see...

Marina Oswald advised that Lee Harvey Oswald owned a rifle which he used in Russia about two years ago. She observed what she presumed to be the same rifle in a blanket.....

Why argue this point except for just the sake of arguing?
Also, why does someone need to be a handwriting expert to see if certain signatures look alike?
Signatures----
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1599.msg75787.html#msg75787

[Bill Chapman]

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1778.pdf
Quoting from the statement that apparently someone fails to see...Why argue this point except for just the sake of arguing?

You seem to be asserting that the rifle in the blanket was bought in Russia.

[Hank Sienzant]

You seem to be asserting that the rifle in the blanket was bought in Russia.

Yeah, that's the way I read it too. Unless he's trying to suggest Marina is untrustworthy and unreliable, and because she couldn't tell a rifle from a shotgun that means she never saw a weapon in the blanket.

Frankly, when I argue with a conspiracy theorist, it appears to me they are much like a drowning man, willing to grab onto anything to keep their head above water. So we often see some hardly relevant documents cited that sink of their own weight and can't support the argument being advanced or defended. Like the claim that Marina thought it was the same weapon Oswald had in Russia. How's that help get Oswald's rifle out of the blanket in the Paine garage, where Marina - on the afternoon of the assassination when she was first asked about the rifle - said the rifle was kept?

It helps not a whit. But any port in a storm, and anything that floats for a drowning man.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant]

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1778.pdf
Quoting from the statement that apparently someone fails to see...

Marina Oswald advised that Lee Harvey Oswald owned a rifle which he used in Russia about two years ago. She observed what she presumed to be the same rifle in a blanket.

I saw it. I read it carefully. I also saw the word "presumed" in there. Did you miss that?

Marina Oswald advised that Lee Harvey Oswald owned a rifle which he used in Russia about two years ago. She observed what she presumed to be the same rifle in a blanket.

Do you understand why that word weakens your argument to the point of meaninglessness? It's merely an presumption by her that it was the same rifle. You claimed "she told the feds that Lee brought it from Russia"... turns out what she actually said when we read the statement with care (without her or you apparently realizing it) was she couldn't tell the difference between a rifle and a shotgun, and she was merely assuming it was the same weapon. It wasn't. It couldn't be. We know that for a fact.

And the fact she couldn't tell a rifle from a shotgun doesn't remove or weaken her admission on the afternoon of the assassination that Oswald kept his rifle in the blanket (there are no photographs of Oswald with a shotgun, for example. Only with a rifle). There's no order form from Kleins or PO Money Order signed by Oswald where Oswald ordered a shotgun, only a rifle. What Marina saw and what she admitted to seeing on the afternoon of the assassination was Oswald's rifle.  There's no doubt about that.

....Why argue this point except for just the sake of arguing?

So although it was originally claimed that "She [Marina] also wasn't a useful witness on Oswald's ownership of a rifle", when it's established her first statement on that subject was effectively "Yes, My husband owned a rifle, and he stored it here, in the Paine garage, wrapped within a blanket", now it's just arguing for the sake of arguing? I would think it's pointing out errors of fact - which I happen to think is worthwhile.

Also, why does someone need to be a handwriting expert to see if certain signatures look alike?
Signatures----
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1599.msg75787.html#msg75787

You said originally "But it doesn't seem likely that someone could/would sign Oswald's name so perfectly [just as a lark]".

"Perfectly" was the word you used. But you're backing away from that allegation of a perfect signature, and merely saying you think they now "look alike". And it appears you answered my question -- you don't have any handwriting expert to quote, and are merely telling us what your uneducated eye (in terms of handwriting analysis) sees.

Again, I still fail to understand what conspiracy objective is advanced by having someone masquerading as Oswald in various parts of the country and going around signing his name in various registers, especially at times when we know Oswald was elsewhere.

Again, if there's no point to it (and there doesn't appear to be, as you can't even suggest one), then it's more than likely exactly what I suggested rather than part of some master plot or anything nefarious.

Hank

[Jerry Freeman]

Again, I still fail to understand what conspiracy objective is advanced by having someone masquerading as Oswald in various parts of the country and going around signing his name in various registers, especially at times when we know Oswald was elsewhere.

No one advanced any "conspiracy objective". It remains what can be considered a very weird anomaly. If you feel like you are right about something...than feel free. 

[Hank Sienzant]

No one advanced any "conspiracy objective".

YES! Exactly! That's the problem I'm pointing out. You can't suggest how these register signings help frame Oswald or ensure the assassination of JFK happened. So what's the reason the conspirators would do this? There apparently isn't one. So unless you're speculating insane conspirators doing things disconnected from reality, conspirators didn't have anything to do with these signings.

It remains what can be considered a very weird anomaly.

A "very weird anomaly" only if one ignores or rejects the most reasonable explanation. You acknowledged that explanation with the comment "That theory has been advanced before" but offered no reason to dismiss it.

If you feel like you are right about something...than feel free.

That no one could even argue for how these register signings advanced any conspiratorial objective that makes any sense - CTs are not exactly reticent when asked to speculate most times - strengthens the argument that this was done on a whim after the assassination by people considering themselves witty.

PS: Are we not supposed to notice that you ignored approximately 90% of my response and only responded to one of several points I made? On the subject of the rifle, did Marina actually "tell SA Brookhout that Oswald had the rifle in Russia"? I see a lot of reasons to reject that claim, contained within the very document you cited.

Hank

[Bill Chapman]

Yeah, that's the way I read it too
Hank

No flies on us, huh