Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[Martin Weidmann]

You're not laughing: You're angry.

We already know there was a rifle at Neely Street, at some point in time, because Oswald was photographed with it. So, Marina seeing a rifle "in the corner" that she did not want to touch tells us nothing about the ownership of the rifle. All it tells us is that a rifle was there, but we already knew that.

Marina Oswald saw a rifle in the Neely Street apartment (late March 1963) and photographed Lee Oswald holding a rifle in the backyard of that rented premises (late March 1963). Marina is on-camera (1964) speaking of "his rifle" but you don't accept that Lee Oswald "owned" a rifle? Why would Marina describe it as "his" rifle if it was not Lee Oswald's rifle?

You play a childish game refusing to nominate who might be the owner of the rifle that Oswald held in the photo even though you insist it is not his. You don't have "a shred of evidence" that the rifle is owned by someone other than Lee Oswald. Then you have the gall to call me a 3 year old. Priceless!!!

Funny... all those insults actually apply to you.

You don't have "a shred of evidence" that the rifle is owned by someone other than Lee Oswald.

Hey stupid, I am not the one claiming it belonged to someone else. It's you who is claiming that the rifle belonged to Oswald. You need to prove that and your are failing miserably.

And yes, I am laughing.... You are actually making my day with the superficial crap you come up with. It's a welcome diversion in these dire times.

You should try stand up comedy. You seem to be very good at it.

[Gary Craig]

[Walt Cakebread]

Marina in her affidavit said that the rifle that she saw in the blanket with a rifle in it looked different that the Rifle she had seen when they lived on Neely street..    If she saw that the blanket contained a rifle, do you believe that Mike Paine( who said that he handled the blanket wrapped item)  could not have known that there was a rifle in that blanket?   I believe that Mike Paine did in fact know that there was a rifle in the blanket but he lied about that.   So the question becomes WHY would Mike Paine lie and deny any knowledge of that rifle?

In my opinion...Mike Paine knew about that rifle and it's highly probable that it was Mike Paine who very carefully removed that rifle from the blanket leaving the blanket with the appearance that the rifle was still there in the blanket. 

[Jerry Freeman]

Citation please for Marina Oswald's statement re Lee Oswald / Airport / Practice shooting.

You ignore the possibility that Lee Oswald might have told a lie to Marina. Alternately, you cannot seem to understand that human beings are not perfect in their actions and verbal communications.

You are completely hopeless as I mentioned earlier.

 Unjustified ad hominem attack that reeks of desperation.

Mr. RANKIN. What period of time was there between when he got the rifle and you learned of it, and the time that you first learned about the pistol?
Mrs. OSWALD. I can't say.
Mr. RANKIN. When you testified about his practicing with the rifle, are you describing a period when you were still at Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know where he practiced with the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know where. I don't know the name of the place where this took place. But I think it was somewhere out of town. It seems to me a place called Lopfield.
Mr. RANKIN. Would that be at the airport---Love Field?
Mrs. OSWALD. Love Field.
Mr. RANKIN. So you think he was practicing out in the open and not at a rifle range?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm

You ignore the possibility that Lee Oswald might have told a lie to Marina. Alternately, you cannot seem to understand that human beings are not perfect in their actions and verbal communications.

What in hell do you mean by that? You obviously don't/haven't read the Hearings and Exhibits for yourself.
You obviously don't understand that Marina was desperate.
The Warren Commission counsels even knew that she was lying.
I am tired of looking up things for you every time you whine cite this-- cite that
 

[Martin Weidmann]

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htmWhat in hell do you mean by that? You obviously don't/haven't read the Hearings and Exhibits for yourself.
You obviously don't understand that Marina was desperate.
The Warren Commission counsels even knew that she was lying.
I am tired of looking up things for you every time you whine cite this-- cite that

Ross might be a nice guy in real life but here he is behaving as a contentious prick who is not interested in an honest discussion or the truth.

Like many other LNs, he has made up his mind without feeling the need, or being able to, provide any evidence to support his conjecture and speculation. He doesn't even understand that it is conjecture and speculation. To him, his assumptions, equal the "truth" as he sees it and when you give him another explanation for the same set of facts, he wants you to provide conclusive evidence in triplicate which he will never accept, understand or agree with anyway.

In his feeble mind, Oswald owned the rifle he was photographed with because he was photographed with the rifle, no matter how silly that stance makes him appear to be. And don't give him credible arguments to counter his opinion, because when you do you are the contrarian. It's really kinda sad.... 

[Walt Cakebread]

Ross might be a nice guy in real life but here he is behaving as a contentious prick who is not interested in an honest discussion or the truth.

Like many other LNs, he has made up his mind without feeling the need, or being able to, provide any evidence to support his conjecture and speculation. He doesn't even understand that it is conjecture and speculation. To him, his assumptions, equal the "truth" as he sees it and when you give him another explanation for the same set of facts, he wants you to provide conclusive evidence in triplicate which he will never accept, understand or agree with anyway.

In his feeble mind, Oswald owned the rifle he was photographed with because he was photographed with the rifle, no matter how silly that stance makes him appear to be. And don't give him credible arguments to counter his opinion, because when you do you are the contrarian. It's really kinda sad....

he is behaving as a contentious prick who is not interested in an honest discussion or the truth.

This is a common trait with the LNer's .......Not interested in the truth, or in an honest discussion and evaluation of the evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

Ross's argument seems to go something like this:

Marina said he had a rifle, therefore the rifle in the photograph must be the same rifle, and he must have owned it.  Unless you can prove otherwise.

And furthermore the rifle in the photograph must be CE139, unless you can prove otherwise.

Because "reasonable assumption".

[Ross Lidell]

You don't have "a shred of evidence" that the rifle is owned by someone other than Lee Oswald.

Hey stupid, I am not the one claiming it belonged to someone else. It's you who is claiming that the rifle belonged to Oswald. You need to prove that and your are failing miserably.

And yes, I am laughing.... You are actually making my day with the superficial crap you come up with. It's a welcome diversion in these dire times.

You should try stand up comedy. You seem to be very good at it.

Hey stupid, I am not the one claiming it belonged to someone else. It's you who is claiming that the rifle belonged to Oswald. You need to prove that and your are failing miserably.

More insults, no facts. Why? Because you've got nuthin (sic) of any substance. You provide no speculative narrative because you are afraid of scrutiny of your peculiar, illogical ideas.

Let's figure this out logically.

I'm stating that Lee Oswald owned the rifle he held in the Neely Street Dallas "backyard photograph" taken by his wife Marina Oswald. This is based on an analysis of the historical record.

You say that you're "not the one claiming it belonged to someone else": It being the rifle in the backyard photograph.

OKAY. 2 possibilities:

1.) Someone other than you is claiming it (the rifle Oswald held in the picture) belonged to someone else.

(In this scenario: You refuse to nominate who the person is or you don't know who the person is)

2.) You are claiming the rifle in the photograph does not belong to Lee Oswald but are not claiming it belongs to someone else. [The words "the one" were possibly accidentally included as you fired-off a swift, angry response to my polite, reasoned comment.]

(Perplexingly, you seem to consider that it's not necessary to provide an explanation for these mutually exclusive beliefs)

You insist that I have to prove something but you don't have to prove anything. Hmmmm.

This is a typical trollish, nutcase mindset.