CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?

[Bill Chapman]

“3 foot long”. LOL.

'2ft' LOL

[Matthew Finch]

Clearly curtain rods can be ruled out - unless they magically disappear / someone 'smuggled them back out'. Lunch is 'unlikely' (Unless a treble-footlong is a common sandwich over in the States?) It doesn't therefore mean the rifle was certainly in the bag, but it certainly lends a lot more credence to the fact it most likely was.

[Martin Weidmann]

Clearly curtain rods can be ruled out - unless they magically disappear / someone 'smuggled them back out'. Lunch is 'unlikely' (Unless a treble-footlong is a common sandwich over in the States?) It doesn't therefore mean the rifle was certainly in the bag, but it certainly lends a lot more credence to the fact it most likely was.

Considering it unlikely that something happened or did not happen a certain way isn't a particular strong argument to make.

Clearly curtain rods can be ruled out - unless they magically disappear / someone 'smuggled them back out'.

So absence of evidence is evidence of absence to you? Ruling curtain rods out simply because none were found or reported having been found is weak.

Lunch is 'unlikely' (Unless a treble-footlong is a common sandwich over in the States?)

Ridicule isn't very persuasive either. You don't know how long the bag that Oswald carried really was, nor has anybody, to the best of my knowledge, ever proven a  sandwich was the article in the bag.

It doesn't therefore mean the rifle was certainly in the bag,

There you go, finally some common sense conclusion

but it certainly lends a lot more credence to the fact it most likely was.

And now you've lost the plot again....wishful thinking isn't evidence nor does it lend credence to anything.

[Bill Chapman]

So what did he bring into the TSBD? And how come he didn't bring it out with him, on the bus, in the cab etc?

The jacket he wore to work was left behind as well. You know, the heavy jacket, the one with the baggy sleeves. No curtain rods and no further need to hide the full size of his lunch bag. Besides, he had movies to see... but first wanted to go to his safe-house and change his 'Just Do It' tshirt to his 'Just Did It' one

[Ted Shields]

So absence of evidence is evidence of absence to you? Ruling curtain rods out simply because none were found or reported having been found is weak.

So where did the curtain rods go? He told the Frazier he brought in curtain rods, Frazier  told the cops, they looked and found nothing. He had no curtain rods on the bus or in the cab.

And now you've lost the plot again....wishful thinking isn't evidence nor does it lend credence to anything.

How is that losing the plot? He had his rifle at the Paines. He stayed there the night before. It wasn't there in the afternoon when they checked. It was found in the TSBD.

[Martin Weidmann]

So where did the curtain rods go? He told the Frazier he brought in curtain rods, Frazier  told the cops, they looked and found nothing. He had no curtain rods on the bus or in the cab.

How is that losing the plot? He had his rifle at the Paines. He stayed there the night before. It wasn't there in the afternoon when they checked. It was found in the TSBD.

So where did the curtain rods go?

Who knows? It's the wrong question to ask as there is no way to know for sure what was really in the bag Oswald was carrying. My point was merely that, just because no curtain rods were found (or were reported to be found) does not mean curtain rods can be ruled out, as Matthew said.

He told the Frazier he brought in curtain rods,

We don't really know that he (Oswald) told Frazier that. All we know is that Frazier claimed he told him. There is a difference.

Frazier  told the cops, they looked and found nothing.

Really? And you know this, how? Can you provide me with one document (a report or whatever) which confirms that the cops actively looked for curtain rods?

He had no curtain rods on the bus or in the cab.

What makes you think that Oswald would carry those curtain rods (if they existed) on the bus or in the cab? Frazier saw Oswald carry a bag early in the morning. The shooting took place at 12.30 pm. During the hours inbetween Oswald could have easily disposed of whatever was really in the bag. There simply is no way of knowing for sure that he did or not.

How is that losing the plot?

Because it's nothing more that a selfserving assumption for which there is not a shred of evidence. The only two witnesses who saw the bag indicated in various way that the size of the bag was simply too small to conceal a broken down rifle.

He had his rifle at the Paines.

That's part of the assumption. There is no way of knowing for sure there actually ever was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage. The only evidence to confirm the presence of a rifle is what "translator" Ruth Paine told the police (allegedly on behalf of Marina) on 11/22/63. And even if there ever was a rifle in the garage, there is no evidence that it belonged to Oswald. On the other hand, the Carcano rifle found at the TSBD had no fibers on it from a blanket in which it had allegedly been wrapped in for two months.

He stayed there the night before.

True

It wasn't there in the afternoon when they checked.

And perhaps it wasn't there in early October, if there ever was a rifle. Marina said she looked at the package once, about a week after returning from New Orleans,  which would be in late September. After that nobody paid any attention to the package so there is absolutely no way of knowing when the content of the package was removed.

It was found in the TSBD.

That is again part of the selfserving assumption. There is not a shred of evidence that the Carcano rifle found at the TSBD ever was in Ruth Paine's garage

[Richard Smith]

So where did the curtain rods go? He told the Frazier he brought in curtain rods, Frazier  told the cops, they looked and found nothing. He had no curtain rods on the bus or in the cab.

How is that losing the plot? He had his rifle at the Paines. He stayed there the night before. It wasn't there in the afternoon when they checked. It was found in the TSBD.

Martin/Roger doesn't believe it is necessary to answer logical questions like that.  They apply an impossible standard of proof to the evidence to create false doubt that X didn't happen.  Like a sleazy defense attorney who knows his client is stone cold guilty grasping at any straw.   The rest of us know that if X didn't happen then something like Y or Z must have happened instead but there is absolutely no evidence of Y or Z.  Certainly no evidence that would satisfy the impossible standard Martin/Roger applies to proving X.  But that is dismissed out of hand by Martin/Roger as not important because he has no answer.  Nothing to see there.  And on and on it goes down the rabbit hole. No event in human history could ever be proven using Martin/Roger's nutty standard of proof.  It's just a game to avoid checkmate.  Martin/Roger knows Oswald is stone cold guilty.  He is probably more convinced of it than anyone.  Playing the contrarian brings attention.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin/Roger doesn't believe it is necessary to answer logical questions like that.  They apply an impossible standard of proof to the evidence to create false doubt that X didn't happen.  Like a sleazy defense attorney who knows his client is stone cold guilty grasping at any straw.   The rest of us know that if X didn't happen then something like Y or Z must have happened instead but there is absolutely no evidence of Y or Z.  Certainly no evidence that would satisfy the impossible standard Martin/Roger applies to proving X.  But that is dismissed out of hand by Martin/Roger as not important because he has no answer.  Nothing to see there.  And on and on it goes down the rabbit hole. No event in human history could ever be proven using Martin/Roger's nutty standard of proof.  It's just a game to avoid checkmate.  Martin/Roger knows Oswald is stone cold guilty.  He is probably more convinced of it than anyone.  Playing the contrarian brings attention.

Is there any significance to your ramblings?

Btw, who needs evidence when you know somebody is guilty? That is basically what you are saying, isn't it?