No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD

[Jack Trojan]

Your stubborn unrealistic stance isn't leaving much room for debate anyway and besides, we're still talking about coincidences....

Nothing to do with being stubborn. I have scrutinized the evidence (most of which can be described as the historical record) and come to logical conclusions. There's no reason why I should  change my mind. Occasionally, I present "insights" to demonstrate the absurdity of conspiracy theories which almost always rely on ignoring blatantly obvious realities. This subject is one of those.

First you tried to tell me how you thought I should respond to your BS and now you want to dictate what we can write in this thread. What are you? A bit of a control freak, perhaps?

Dictate? No. Hijacking a Subject is not a legitimate response to a previous comment.

Your "changing the subject" is unjustified. You just do it because you cannot focus on the matter at hand or have exhausted your list of absurd speculations.

This segue to an unrelated topic indicates any "untidy" mind: The same flawed thinking that refuses to see that if you dismiss evidence then it must lead to an alternative explanation of an aspect of the crime. You pretend to be still parsing the evidence (after years) and are not yet ready to come to a conclusion. This leads sensible thinkers to realize that you (and like-minded others) are taking refuge in contrarianism.

Are you trying to replace logical fallacy with "common sense"? You are not a logistician and you don't know how critical thinking works. Try to construct your arguments in the form of logical inferences leading up to a conclusion. Don't start with the conclusion and make "common sense" assumptions to make it fit your hypothesis. That's ass-backwards, logistically speaking.

You LNers need to recognize that 1 strike and you're out! But you always call balls and walk the batter, which is a direct reflection of your bias.

[Martin Weidmann]

More nonsense with no specific rebuttal to the matters raised; just vague criticism with unfounded assertions.

Regarding your indecision as to who assassinated President John F. Kennedy and murdered Officer J.D.Tippit: You remind me of the long serving New Jersey State Police detective (circa 1950) who would not focus on solving current crimes. His excuse; when asked to get to work? No, no; I'm still working on the Lindbergh baby kidnapping!!!

Incidentally, I don't qualify as a contrarian. I present conclusions based on the historical record of the case and then invite others to provide evidence to prove my conclusions are incorrect.

A contrarian is someone who takes an opposing view, especially for the sake of being difficult, contentious or in opposition to the generally held view. This could also be used as an adjective.

Presenting a Subject that aligns with what's in the history books (qualifies as a generally held view by historians) is not contrarian-ism. Explaining the facts of an event (Randle's necessity to have coffee with a neighbor of Paine's for Oswald's to get a TSBD job) is not contrarian-ism. You saying that it is: That's nothing more than "assertion-ism".

Incidentally, I don't qualify as a contrarian. I present conclusions based on the historical record of the case and then invite others to provide evidence to prove my conclusions are incorrect.

Yes I know... It's the classic "I am right unless you prove me wrong" crap we already know from you. You are not right by default, regardless of just how much you think you are. But it's true, that doesn't make you a contrarian, it makes you an extremely unreasonable and narrow minded individual.

A contrarian is someone who takes an opposing view, especially for the sake of being difficult, contentious or in opposition to the generally held view. This could also be used as an adjective.

And you are not someone who takes an opposing view, despite three other people telling you your conclusion is flawed? Of course you are, and that makes you a classic contrarian. You will even argue about the fact that you are not argueing about something....

Presenting a Subject that aligns with what's in the history books (qualifies as a generally held view by historians) is not contrarian-ism.

True.. it is blindly accepting what's in the history books without understanding that not everything in the history books is actually correct.

For instance; For some 600 years the history books said that the Donation of Constantine was authentic, until it turned out to be a fake after all.

Explaining the facts of an event (Randle's necessity to have coffee with a neighbor of Paine's for Oswald's to get a TSBD job) is not contrarian-ism.

True, that's not contrarian-ism, it's just plain stupid when, like in this case, the conclusions you attached to it are flawed and outright wrong.

Just how many people need to tell you your conclusions are flawed before you are willing to accept that they are? A million perhaps?

[Ross Lidell]

Incidentally, I don't qualify as a contrarian. I present conclusions based on the historical record of the case and then invite others to provide evidence to prove my conclusions are incorrect.

Yes I know... It's the classic "I am right unless you prove me wrong" crap we already know from you. You are not right by default, regardless of just how much you think you are. But you're right, that doesn't make you a contrarian, it makes you an extremely unreasonable and narrow minded individual.

A contrarian is someone who takes an opposing view, especially for the sake of being difficult, contentious or in opposition to the generally held view. This could also be used as an adjective.

And you are not someone who takes an opposing view, despite three other people telling you your conclusion is flawed? Of course you are, and that makes you a classic contrarian.

Presenting a Subject that aligns with what's in the history books (qualifies as a generally held view by historians) is not contrarian-ism.

True.. it is blindly accepting what's in the history books without understanding that not everything in the history books is actually correct.

For instance; For some 600 years the history books said that the Donation of Constantine was authentic, until it turned out to be a fake after all.

Explaining the facts of an event (Randle's necessity to have coffee with a neighbor of Paine's for Oswald's to get a TSBD job) is not contrarian-ism.

True, that's not contrarian-ism, it's just plain stupid when, like in this case, the conclusions you attached to it are flawed and outright wrong.

Just how many people need to tell you your conclusions are flawed before you are willing to accept that they are? A million perhaps?

To address your silliest assertion.

And you are not someone who takes an opposing view, despite three other people telling you your conclusion is flawed? Of course you are, and that makes you a classic contrarian.

That is the:

Bandwagon Fallacy

Just because a significant population of people believe a proposition is true, doesn't automatically make it true. Popularity alone is not enough to validate an argument, though it's often used as a standalone justification of validity. Arguments in this style don't take into account whether or not the population validating the argument is actually qualified to do so, or if contrary evidence exists.

Your three (3) are simply those who disagree with the fact expressed in this Subject title:

No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD

The three (3) who will not or can not provide any evidence that disputes the accuracy of the statement!

True, that's not contrarian-ism, it's just plain stupid when, like in this case, the conclusions you attached to it are flawed and outright wrong.

Explain how the conclusion [No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD] is flawed. No "thumb-suckers", just proof. Saying that Oswald "could" have learned about a TSBD job some other way is not proof. You need a witness who claimed to have told Lee Oswald (after Paine/Marina told...) about a job at the TSBD. Additionally, that Lee Oswald said in reply--words to the effect: "Thanks, I already know about it". Got that have you?

For your education: If something actually happened it is the truth; it doesn't matter if thousands disagree. It's still the truth.

[Martin Weidmann]

To address your silliest assertion.

And you are not someone who takes an opposing view, despite three other people telling you your conclusion is flawed? Of course you are, and that makes you a classic contrarian.

That is the:

Bandwagon Fallacy

Just because a significant population of people believe a proposition is true, doesn't automatically make it true. Popularity alone is not enough to validate an argument, though it's often used as a standalone justification of validity. Arguments in this style don't take into account whether or not the population validating the argument is actually qualified to do so, or if contrary evidence exists.

Your three (3) are simply those who disagree with the fact expressed in this Subject title:

No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD

The three (3) who will not or can not provide any evidence that disputes the accuracy of the statement!

True, that's not contrarian-ism, it's just plain stupid when, like in this case, the conclusions you attached to it are flawed and outright wrong.

Explain how the conclusion [No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD] is flawed. No "thumb-suckers", just proof. Saying that Oswald "could" have learned about a TSBD job some other way is not proof. You need a witness who claimed to have told Lee Oswald (after Paine/Marina told...) about a job at the TSBD. Additionally, that Lee Oswald said in reply--words to the effect: "Thanks, I already know about it". Got that have you?

For your education: If something actually happened it is the truth; it doesn't matter if thousands disagree. It's still the truth.

Still confused about the meaning of the word "possibility", I see....  And you're changing the goalposts as well.... always a sign of weakness! The same is asking for an explanation and then turning it into a demand for proof for an event that, could have taken place, but never did.

You, now, seem to have backed away from your initial conclusion that Oswald wouldn't have gotten the TSBD job if Paine and Randle didn't have coffee together (which could be true, but doesn't have to be) and that this in turn, according to you, meant :  No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy.

A wise decision to drop that because that was the main conclusion that was flawed.

For your education: If something actually happened it is the truth; it doesn't matter if thousands disagree. It's still the truth.

First of all, you are to stupid to educate me about anything. Secondly, I don't disagree with that. But you are not the one who gets to decide what the truth is and that's where you go wrong every time.

[Ross Lidell]

Still confused about the meaning of the word "possibility", I see....  And you're changing the goalposts as well.... always a sign of weakness!

You, now, seem to have backed away from your initial conclusion that Oswald wouldn't have gotten the TSBD job if Paine and Randle didn't have coffee together and that this in turn, according to you, meant :  No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy.

A wise decision to drop that because that was the main conclusion that was flawed.

For your education: If something actually happened it is the truth; it doesn't matter if thousands disagree. It's still the truth.

First of all, you are to stupid to educate me about anything. Secondly, I don't disagree with that. But you are not the one who gets to decide what the truth is and that's where you go wrong every time.

You, now, seem to have backed away from your initial conclusion that Oswald wouldn't have gotten the TSBD job if Paine and Randle didn't have coffee together and that this in turn, according to you, meant :  No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy.

No, I have not backed away (or even seemed to) from the statement in the title of my Subject:
Re: No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD

You're saying that... with no justification.

Oh by the way; you appear to have intentionally left out my challenge to you:

Explain how the conclusion [No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD] is flawed. No "thumb-suckers", just proof. Saying that Oswald "could" have learned about a TSBD job some other way is not proof. You need a witness who claimed to have told Lee Oswald (after Paine/Marina told...) about a job at the TSBD. Additionally, that Lee Oswald said in reply--words to the effect: "Thanks, I already know about it" Got that have you?

To credibly dispute the statement in the Subject title, you need more than a "could have".

Speculative guesswork like "could haves" are meaningless. Anything "could" happen. I could win the lottery next week, but wont. People will not take you (or me) seriously, if we claim "something" for which there is no evidence. That's why I'm not taking your assertions seriously. I will if you:

Name a witness who claimed to have told Lee Oswald (after Paine/Marina told...) about a job at the TSBD. Additionally, that Lee Oswald said in reply--words to the effect: "Thanks, I already know about it".

Go ahead.

[Martin Weidmann]

You, now, seem to have backed away from your initial conclusion that Oswald wouldn't have gotten the TSBD job if Paine and Randle didn't have coffee together and that this in turn, according to you, meant :  No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy.

No, I have not backed away (or even seemed to) from the statement in the title of my Subject:
Re: No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD

You're saying that... with no justification.

I don't give a damn about the title of the thread. Anybody who reads the opening post knows exactly what your flawed "No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy"  conclusion was. And that was only the first one of several flawed conclusions that followed.

Oh by the way; you appear to have intentionally left out my challenge to you:

Explain how the conclusion [No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD] is flawed. No "thumb-suckers", just proof. Saying that Oswald "could" have learned about a TSBD job some other way is not proof. You need a witness who claimed to have told Lee Oswald (after Paine/Marina told...) about a job at the TSBD. Additionally, that Lee Oswald said in reply--words to the effect: "Thanks, I already know about it" Got that have you?

That's not a challenge. It's not even a fair question. Instead it's you, once again, playing games and trying to let your flawed opinion prevail by not only shifting the burden of proof but also raising the bar in a completely absurd, unreasonable manner. Asking for an explanation is one thing, but subsequently adding on a demand for proof and then even qualifying in advance what kind of proof (i.e. a witness statement) would only be acceptable to you exposes your bad faith.   

Nobody in their right mind needs proof to understand and accept that Oswald could have heard about the TSBD job from somebody else. The fact that he didn't doesn't mean it could not have happened. Asking for proof and even witness statements for an event that obviously could have happened but likely didn't is pure asinine.

If I were like you, I could easily ask you for conclusive proof that Oswald could not have heard about the TSBD job from somebody else, because that's what you need to believe to maintain your own flawed conclusion. Well, just out of curiosity, do you have such conclusive proof? Or is it one rule for you and another for everybody else?

To credibly dispute the statement in the Subject title, you need more than a "could have".

Speculative guesswork like "could haves" are meaningless. Anything "could" happen. I could win the lottery next week, but wont. People will not take you (or me) seriously, if we claim "something" for which there is no evidence. That's why I'm not taking your assertions seriously. I will if you:

Name a witness who claimed to have told Lee Oswald (after Paine/Marina told...) about a job at the TSBD. Additionally, that Lee Oswald said in reply--words to the effect: "Thanks, I already know about it".

Go ahead.

And once again you expose how disingenuous you truly are because you are implicitely saying that you won't take my assertions seriously no matter what. What you ask for is completely idioctic and you know full well (at least you would know, if you had a functional brain) that there isn't even a slight possibility that anybody could know that, even if it did happen. Nobody was with Oswald 24/7 and thus there is no way anybody could comply with that "request".

However, just in case you want to go there, just because nobody can provide that "evidence" doesn't mean it didn't or couldn't have happened. It only means that nobody knows about it and it also doesn't mean that you are right. Your conclusions are just as flawed as before and the argue otherwise would be just another demonstration of your bad faith.

People will not take you (or me) seriously, if we claim "something" for which there is no evidence.

Remember this?

Incidentally: If Oswald does not get a job at the TSBD, President Kennedy leaves Dallas alive. Don't give me that "a backup plan was in the works" nonsense. We can only deal with the historical record. Accordingly, "No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD" means that President Kennedy would have lived to complete his first term and probably would have been elected to a second term as President of the United States.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. There is no evidence that Kennedy would have left Dallas alive if Oswald had not gotten his job at the TSBD. Yet you claimed exactly that, so now prove it! And don't give me just your opinion. You need provide actual proof that your claim is true.

[Walt Cakebread]

The process by which Lee Harvey Oswald obtained the job at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) is well-known: It's part of the historical record of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

The first week in October 1963, Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald went next-door to have coffee with a neighbor, Mrs Roberts. Another neighbor from "across the street", Linnie Mae Randle joined the party.

The subject of Marina Oswald's plight came up in conversation. She was 8+ months pregnant and her husband Lee Oswald was unemployed and needed work. Mrs  Randle explained that her brother, Buell Frasier, had found work at the Texas School Book Depository and that "they might be still hiring". Mrs Paine phoned the TSBD and spoke to the manager Roy Truly. There was a temporary position available as an order-filler.

When Lee Oswald telephoned the Paine residence that evening, he was told about the job opportunity. He went for an interview with Mr Truly, the next day, and got the job at the TSBD.

The circumstances of Lee Harvey Oswald getting a job at a building on the route of President Kennedy's motorcade (5 weeks later) was just happenstance. The idea that plotters in a conspiracy had him "placed" at the TSBD is impossible. No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy. If Mrs Randle decides to stay home or go somewhere else instead of across the street to Mrs Roberts house for coffee: Lee Oswald never learns about the job at the TSBD. He never gets a job there and is never in a position to assassinate President Kennedy at 12:30 PM (CST), 22 November 1963.

That's why I say: "No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the Texas School Book Depository".
 

Why didn't Ruth Paine tell Lee that the airport had called and wanted him to come in for an employment  interview.....   The job at the airport paid better and was a permanent job ( non seasonal) but Ruth never told Marina or Lee about the airport job.......

[Gary Craig]

The process by which Lee Harvey Oswald obtained the job at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) is well-known: It's part of the historical record of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

The first week in October 1963, Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald went next-door to have coffee with a neighbor, Mrs Roberts. Another neighbor from "across the street", Linnie Mae Randle joined the party.

The subject of Marina Oswald's plight came up in conversation. She was 8+ months pregnant and her husband Lee Oswald was unemployed and needed work. Mrs  Randle explained that her brother, Buell Frasier, had found work at the Texas School Book Depository and that "they might be still hiring". Mrs Paine phoned the TSBD and spoke to the manager Roy Truly. There was a temporary position available as an order-filler.

When Lee Oswald telephoned the Paine residence that evening, he was told about the job opportunity. He went for an interview with Mr Truly, the next day, and got the job at the TSBD.

The circumstances of Lee Harvey Oswald getting a job at a building on the route of President Kennedy's motorcade (5 weeks later) was just happenstance. The idea that plotters in a conspiracy had him "placed" at the TSBD is impossible. No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy. If Mrs Randle decides to stay home or go somewhere else instead of across the street to Mrs Roberts house for coffee: Lee Oswald never learns about the job at the TSBD. He never gets a job there and is never in a position to assassinate President Kennedy at 12:30 PM (CST), 22 November 1963.

That's why I say: "No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the Texas School Book Depository".
 

Replying without reading the entire thread since.

"The idea that plotters in a conspiracy had him "placed" at the TSBD is impossible. No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy. If Mrs Randle decides to stay home or go somewhere else instead of across the street to Mrs Roberts house for coffee: Lee Oswald never learns about the job at the TSBD. He never gets a job there and is never in a position to assassinate President Kennedy at 12:30 PM (CST), 22 November 1963."

It was known that JFK was going to Dallas before Ozzie got the job.
A lot of effort was made, by Connally I believe, to have JFK speak at the Trade Mart, the route to which takes him by the TSBD, rather than another venue.

If Ozzie hadn't got the job at the TSBD there were many locations along the way he could have been employed that would have offered opportunity to patsy him. There was job offer at Love Field, that Ruth Paine took a phone call about, that paid better, that she never told LHO or Marina about for one example.

Also interesting is almost the same time he gets the job at the TSBD the FBI takes him off a watch list.

"JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE
Why He Died And Why It Matters"[/b]
By James W. Douglas
p.177

-snip-

"On October 9, 1963, one week before Lee Harvey Oswald began his job at a site overlooking the president's future parade route,
an FBI official in Washington, D.C., disconnected Oswald from a federal alarm system that was about to identify him as a threat to
national security. The FBI man's name was Marvin Gheesling. He was a supervisor in the Soviet espionage section at FBI headquarters.
His timing was remarkable. As author John Newman remarked in an analysis of this phenomenon, Gheesling "turned off the alarm switch
on Oswald literally an instant before it would have gone off."