Ruthie Paine's Confusing Calendar

[Richard Smith]

You launched a false analogy and got instantly slammed, LOL.

Then try to blame it on Walt, embarrassing rasing!

So why was the scope missing?

Q:  Did you ride the bus today?

A: Yes, I rode it to work and sat in the front seat.

Otto interpretation:  This respondent is not confirming that they rode a bus because they did not use the word "bus."  They only made reference to "it" and a "seat". It is possible to ride other things like a bicycle or car because those have a "seat."  Thus there is doubt as to whether they rode a bus.  HA HA HA.  Comedy gold.


Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you? 

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.

[John Mytton]

Here's a valid analogy:

Q: And then you found that the truck was in the garage, did you?

A: Yes, I saw the chrome part of it, the chrome bumper.

Comparatively Marina saw much more than a chrome bumper, a better comparison is the following, what's behind the covering is unmistakably a car and even if the following graphic only exposed the bumper, nobody would confuse the hidden object as a "piece of metal/plastic".



JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Comparatively Marina saw much more than a chrome bumper,

How do you know what Marina saw?

[Martin Weidmann]

Comparatively Marina saw much more than a chrome bumper, a better comparison is the following, what's behind the covering is unmistakably a car and even if the following graphic only exposed the bumper, nobody would confuse the hidden object as a "piece of metal/plastic".



JohnM

Are you really this desperate?

[Richard Smith]

Comparatively Marina saw much more than a chrome bumper, a better comparison is the following, what's behind the covering is unmistakably a car and even if the following graphic only exposed the bumper, nobody would confuse the hidden object as a "piece of metal/plastic".



JohnM

If there was any doubt (and there is not), Marina goes on to say:  "I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle."  A rifle!  It's laughable that anyone suggests that there is any doubt that Marina saw a "rifle" in the blanket.  She is asked dozens of times about a "rifle".  Never once does she cast any doubt on the fact that saw a rifle and that is object that she is referring to in her testimony.  Contrarians latch onto one instance where she refers to the rifle as "it" and describes seeing a "wooden stock" to suggest that there is doubt when she confirms multiple times that Oswald owned a rifle and kept it in the Paine's garage.  A classic example of how the contrarian mind latches on to any straw and disregards the totality of evidence and circumstances.

[Martin Weidmann]

If there was any doubt (and there is not), Marina goes on to say:  "I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle."  A rifle!  It's laughable that anyone suggests that there is any doubt that Marina saw a "rifle" in the blanket.  She is asked dozens of times about a "rifle".  Never once does she cast any doubt on the fact that saw a rifle and that is object that she is referring to in her testimony.  Contrarians latch onto one instance where she refers to the rifle as "it" and describes seeing a "wooden stock" to suggest that there is doubt when she confirms multiple times that Oswald owned a rifle and kept it in the Paine's garage.  A classic example of how the contrarian mind latches on to any straw and disregards the totality of evidence and circumstances.

Talk about desperation. Relying on Marina to do what? Prove there was a rifle wrapped in a blanket in late September 1963? Wow.

But don't stop there. What "totality of evidence" are you rambling on about? Take the next step and prove it was Oswald's rifle, it was CE2799 and it was still in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.

[Richard Smith]

Talk about desperation. Relying on Marina to do what? Prove there was a rifle wrapped in a blanket in late September 1963? Wow.

But don't stop there. What "totality of evidence" are you rambling on about? Take the next step and prove it was Oswald's rifle, it was CE2799 and it was still in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.

It's "desperation" to rely on Oswald's own wife!  The best person in the entire world other than LHO to actually know the contents of the blanket.  Riddle us this contrarian.  Why did Marina direct the police to that blanket just hours after the crime when they asked her if her husband owned a rifle?  Why did she repeatedly confirm to the WC (under oath) that her husband owned a rifle and kept it in the blanket in Paine's garage?  Remember you are not a CTer - right?  So why does she do these things?  Let me guess,  You don't know or care.  You know all the evidence that links Oswald to a specific rifle.  I'm not going to exercise your compulsion to go over that again and again and again.  It was all set out nearly six decades ago by the WC.

[Martin Weidmann]

It's "desperation" to rely on Oswald's own wife!  The best person in the entire world other than LHO to actually know the contents of the blanket.  Riddle us this contrarian.  Why did Marina direct the police to that blanket just hours after the crime when they asked her if her husband owned a rifle?  Why did she repeatedly confirm to the WC (under oath) that her husband owned a rifle and kept it in the blanket in Paine's garage?  Remember you are not a CTer - right?  So why does she do these things?  Let me guess,  You don't know or care.  You know all the evidence that links Oswald to a specific rifle.  I'm not going to exercise your compulsion to go over that again and again and again.  It was all set out nearly six decades ago by the WC.

Once again you are jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence.

The best person in the entire world other than LHO to actually know the contents of the blanket.  Riddle us this contrarian.  Why did Marina direct the police to that blanket just hours after the crime when they asked her if her husband owned a rifle?

Marina herself answered that. She knew Oswald had a rifle in Russia and she believed this was that rifle.

Why did she repeatedly confirm to the WC (under oath) that her husband owned a rifle and kept it in the blanket in Paine's garage?

I don't know what motivates people to do something or not. What motivates your hero, Trump, to keep telling the big lie?

What I do know is that it is highly likely Marina must have been in self preservation mode. Prior to her testimony, she was held in "protective custody", she was interviewed by law enforcement officers a great many times, she admitted to lying to them. When they flew in an immigration officer from New York who told her she could stay in the country, if she cooperated, she must likely have seen a way out. Her husband was dead and already convicted in the media and by the time of her testimony she probably believed he actually did it. She has, of course, changed her mind since then.

You know all the evidence that links Oswald to a specific rifle.

Indeed and it is highly questionable.

I'm not going to exercise your compulsion to go over that again and again and again.

That was never my compulsion, but for you it most certainly is a first. Well done, it can not have been easy to break with that idiotic routine of yours. 

But, still not a shred of proof that the rifle Marina saw (I'll humor you!) was in fact CE2799, that it actually belonged to Oswald or that it was still there on 11/21/63 for Oswald to collect. Got it.