Ruth Paine - Absolutely part of a conspiracy

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Right.


That's exactly what I said.  Right?


That does not change a single thing I said.

Also, I changed one word in your above statement...

There is nothing to say she was aware it was in the book.

Oh! That's the standard used. RP knew what the important belongings were but just not 1 or 2 items. Is that where you're at or maybe she didn't pass any of the belongings along. She could always default to the neighbor

[Richard Smith]

Buddy

She knows LHO didn't walk to work

She knows Buell has to drive him

The package evidence (which is 100% debunked btw)

takes care of itself

If you are an experienced researcher on this subject

why is your knowledge so limited?

I'm tiring of holding your hand

Do you want me to draw you a picture?

Watch her interview on pg1 and tell me

spy or housewife?

So to be clear, you have no explanation as to why Ruth Paine would not confirm that Oswald owned a rifle and carried a long package to work that morning if she were involved in a frame up of Oswald.  Those are obvious points that she would confirm in that role.  You are just another long winded krank wasting our time venting a lot of incoherent nonsense.  Like a UFO "researcher."  Whenever someone here starts referencing being a "researcher" I know they are a complete fraud.  Read your response above and try to make sense of it.

[Martin Weidmann]

Sorry to burst your bubble Mark but no CTer on this forum falls into that category.  Certainly not Eddie who I was addressing.  No doubt there are many sincere people who believe all manner of nonsense about the JFK case.  Not unlike the UFO and Bigfoot "researchers" who are diligent and occasionally even fairly intelligent. But simply being diligent doesn't mean they have any credibility.  People venting compulsion disorders can put in an enormous amount of effort on absurd theories.  None of that, however, should be confused with being a legitimate "researcher."  More often than not they are sitting in their mother's basement spending all their time on forums like this one.  Once in a blue moon some minor tidbit is uncovered, but that is the rare exception.  Mostly it is just circling back to the same, long debunked nonsense.

Why don't you simply say; anybody who does not agree with me isn't a serious researcher? Because that's what you are really saying with your pathetic rant, right?

Oh.. and before you start against me; I've never claimed to be a researcher. I just ask questions you (and your ilk) can't answer.

[Richard Smith]

Why don't you simply say; anybody who does not agree with me isn't a serious researcher? Because that's what you are really saying with your pathetic rant, right?

Oh.. and before you start against me; I've never claimed to be a researcher. I just ask questions you (and your ilk) can't answer.

There are people who still entertain theories that have been disproven beyond any doubt.  People who believe the earth is flat, for example.  There are many diligent people who believe and are trying to prove the existence of Bigfoot and ghosts.  These people can't be taken seriously due to the facts and evidence to the contrary.  I have no vested interest in Oswald's guilt or innocence.  The evidence dictates that conclusion.  Not my agreement or disagreement with others.  What I see here is long debunked nonsense recycled over and over again.  Or the likes of yourself and John I. simply trying to apply an impossible, subjective standard of proof to the evidence to imply false doubt.  After 50 plus years, there may be some details left to be learned but nothing that will change the bottom line conclusions that have been established by the facts.    Some of these "researchers" may be sincere, intelligent, and well intentioned but they can't be taken seriously given the known facts and evidence in this case.  The vast majority, however, are just outright kranks.

[Martin Weidmann]

There are people who still entertain theories that have been disproven beyond any doubt.  People who believe the earth is flat, for example.  There are many diligent people who believe and are trying to prove the existence of Bigfoot and ghosts.  These people can't be taken seriously due to the facts and evidence to the contrary.  I have no vested interest in Oswald's guilt or innocence.  The evidence dictates that conclusion.  Not my agreement or disagreement with others.  What I see here is long debunked nonsense recycled over and over again.  Or the likes of yourself and John I. simply trying to apply an impossible, subjective standard of proof to the evidence to imply false doubt.  After 50 plus years, there may be some details left to be learned but nothing that will change the bottom line conclusions that have been established by the facts. Or the likes of yourself and John I. simply trying to apply an impossible, subjective standard of proof to the evidence to imply false doubt.   Some of these "researchers" may be sincere, intelligent, and well intentioned but they can't be taken seriously given the known facts and evidence in this case.  The vast majority, however, are just outright kranks.

I have no vested interest in Oswald's guilt or innocence. The evidence dictates that conclusion.  Not my agreement or disagreement with others.

Since it is your opinion that the evidence is solid and that it "dictates that conclusion" it is indeed your agreement or disagreement with others that is making you say that people who disagree with you are not serious reseachers.

Or the likes of yourself and John I. simply trying to apply an impossible, subjective standard of proof to the evidence to imply false doubt.

False doubt?... Asking questions about discrepancies in the evidence that you (and your ilk) can not answer creates doubt. There is nothing false about that.

And the mere fact that you are constantly complaining that John and I apply "an impossible, subjective standard of proof to the evidence" is perhaps the best indication to me that you do in fact have a vested interest in Oswald's guilt and that you are not sure the evidence will hold up under scrutiny. It's similar to a prosecutor asking the jury not to look too close at the evidence. Why else would you imply that John and I have some sort of agenda, when we are clearly only asking questions?

Some of these "researchers" may be sincere, intelligent, and well intentioned but they can't be taken seriously given the known facts and evidence in this case.  The vast majority, however, are just outright kranks.

Exactly what I said; your basic position is that you are convinced by the evidence and anybody who does not share your view is not to be taken seriously. You've got a unjustifiable high opinion of yourself, haven't you?

[Eddie Haymaker]

There are people who still entertain theories that have been disproven beyond any doubt.  People who believe the earth is flat, for example.  There are many diligent people who believe and are trying to prove the existence of Bigfoot and ghosts.  These people can't be taken seriously due to the facts and evidence to the contrary.  I have no vested interest in Oswald's guilt or innocence.  The evidence dictates that conclusion.  Not my agreement or disagreement with others.  What I see here is long debunked nonsense recycled over and over again.  Or the likes of yourself and John I. simply trying to apply an impossible, subjective standard of proof to the evidence to imply false doubt.  After 50 plus years, there may be some details left to be learned but nothing that will change the bottom line conclusions that have been established by the facts.    Some of these "researchers" may be sincere, intelligent, and well intentioned but they can't be taken seriously given the known facts and evidence in this case.  The vast majority, however, are just outright kranks.

given the known facts and evidence in this case?

or lack of

If the authorities wanted to have a full and thorough investigation
into this crime they could have (a real autopsy track the wounds etc)
Evidence should never have gone to the FBI
There would be no goddamn CT's If they had done a job worthy of the murder of a president

the autopsy should have been done in Texas
The Lincoln should have been secured as evidence by the DPD
followed by a full scientific study (which alone IMO could seal this case)

these are not just cases where mistakes were made
laws were broken here. Several really good ones
you complain about CT's?
If you listen to the infamous KLIF broadcast you clearly hear them say
a shot through the right temple from a grassy knoll
Thats in under 90 minutes of the shooting LIVE from parkland hospital
the seeds of conspiracy were not born by kook's
Most of the responsibility can firmly be placed on the shoulders
of the Government's clumsy investigation and the thinly disguised WR cover up
IMO The Zapruder film is a very big part as well

flat earth and bigfoot?

It must be you guys who believe in ghosts
The WR and the MBT? Pure fantasies

The majority of Americans believe there was a conspiracy
So mock us all you like
you are the minority today
you are the krank's

In 50 years people will LOL at the mention of the WR
Some already do

[Richard Smith]

I have no vested interest in Oswald's guilt or innocence. The evidence dictates that conclusion.  Not my agreement or disagreement with others.

Since it is your opinion that the evidence is solid and that it "dictates that conclusion" it is indeed your agreement or disagreement with others that is making you say that people who disagree with you are not serious reseachers.

Or the likes of yourself and John I. simply trying to apply an impossible, subjective standard of proof to the evidence to imply false doubt.

False doubt?... Asking questions about discrepancies in the evidence that you (and your ilk) can not answer creates doubt. There is nothing false about that.

And the mere fact that you are constantly complaining that John and I apply "an impossible, subjective standard of proof to the evidence" is perhaps the best indication to me that you do in fact have a vested interest in Oswald's guilt and that you are not sure the evidence will hold up under scrutiny. It's similar to a prosecutor asking the jury not to look too close at the evidence. Why else would you imply that John and I have some sort of agenda, when we are clearly only asking questions?

Some of these "researchers" may be sincere, intelligent, and well intentioned but they can't be taken seriously given the known facts and evidence in this case.  The vast majority, however, are just outright kranks.

Exactly what I said; your basic position is that you are convinced by the evidence and anybody who does not share your view is not to be taken seriously. You've got a unjustifiable high opinion of yourself, haven't you?

LOL.  A great insight into the hazy confines of your confused logic. What possible vested interest could I have in Oswald's guilt?  John Wilkes Booth was guilty of assassinating Lincoln and was involved in a conspiracy.  I have no vested interest in that conclusion.  It is what the evidence dictates.  It is not my "opinion" but a fact supported by the evidence.  The sun rises in the East.  Not because it is my opinion but because the facts dictate that conclusion.  If someone disagreed with this conclusion, it would not change the facts or be the basis of my acceptance of that conclusion.  What you are suggesting is that there are apparently no facts only opinions.  The earth is round and not flat.  You apparently believe that can only be my "opinion" since there are people who disagree and no doubt make a lot of nonsense arguments to the contrary.  It's laughable but goes a long way toward explaining why you can't accept the obvious conclusion from the evidence in this case.

[Martin Weidmann]

LOL.  A great insight into the hazy confines of your confused logic. What possible vested interest could I have in Oswald's guilt?  John Wilkes Booth was guilty of assassinating Lincoln and was involved in a conspiracy.  I have no vested interest in that conclusion.  It is what the evidence dictates.  It is not my "opinion" but a fact supported by the evidence.  The sun rises in the East.  Not because it is my opinion but because the facts dictate that conclusion.  If someone disagreed with this conclusion, it would not change the facts or be the basis of my acceptance of that conclusion.  What you are suggesting is that there are apparently no facts only opinions.  The earth is round and not flat.  You apparently believe that can only be my "opinion" since there are people who disagree and no doubt make a lot of nonsense arguments to the contrary.  It's laughable but goes a long way toward explaining why you can't accept the obvious conclusion from the evidence in this case.

You give some pretty pathetic examples to make your point, but exaggeration is to be expected from you so there's really no suprise there. Anybody who thinks that Oswald's guilt is just as much a fact as the sun coming up in the east or the earth being round needs his head examined.

What possible vested interest could I have in Oswald's guilt?

You tell me. You were the one who brought it up.

What you are suggesting is that there are apparently no facts only opinions.

It's your opinion that determines, for you, what is a fact and what isn't! For instance, it is merely your opinion that Oswald carried the rifle into the TSBD concealed in a paper bag that was found in the sniper's nest but you call it a fact. But it is only a fact to you! Others might think differently and do.

You apparently believe that can only be my "opinion" since there are people who disagree

No, I don't believe that at all. You're trying to twist my words.

It's laughable but goes a long way toward explaining why you can't accept the obvious conclusion from the evidence in this case.

There you go again? What obvious conclusion would that be? The answer is of course the one which you have reached based on things that you, in your opinion, have determined to be "facts". If somebody else does not share your opinion about what is a fact and what isn't the ultimate conclusion becomes less obvious.

I repeat; your basic position is that you are convinced by the evidence and anybody who does not share your view is not to be taken seriously. You've got a unjustifiable high opinion of yourself, haven't you?