Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Martin Weidmann]

A logical inference comes into play when there is sufficient evidence to justify a logical inference. Such is the case here.

Rejecting this logical inference (in the absence of any counter-explanations of your own) is tantamount to saying 'I refuse to accept the claim of a cover-up because you cannot provide the kind of full documentary record that would have been available had there not been a cover-up'. It's a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose style of argument more usually associated with cornered LNers.

It's a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose style of argument more usually associated with cornered LNers.

You may not understand or accept this, but your "logic inference" strategy is commonly used by "I am right unless you can prove me wrong" LNs.

And FWIW, the large number of anomalies in the available evidence, including the one we are discussing here, makes it IMO highy likely that there was indeed a cover up. It remains to be seen, however, what the nature of that cover up was.

[Alan Ford]

It's a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose style of argument more usually associated with cornered LNers.

You may not understand or accept this, but your "logic inference" strategy is commonly used by "I am right unless you can prove me wrong" LNs.

And FWIW, the large number of anomalies in the available evidence, including the one we are discussing here, makes it IMO highy likely that there was indeed a cover up. It remains to be seen, however, what the nature of that cover up was.

We already know what the nature of the cover-up was: to pin the assassination on Mr Oswald and Mr Oswald alone

[Alan Ford]

I believe most readers think that your scenario is nonsense......

OK then, Mr Cakebread, give us your scenario, only this time incorporate the numbers 275 and 276 into it! 

[Mark A. Oblazney]

If ridicule is all you have, you really haven't got much of an argument at all.

Alan is raising a legitmate question. The DPD document shows that on 15 March 1964, Secret Service Agent Howlett submitted two curtain rods to the DPD Identification Department, for fingerprint testing. The document, included in the evidence list of the Warren Report, also shows that Howlett did not collect those rods again until 24 March 1964, which means they were at the DPD between 15 and 24 March 1964. As Ruth Paine's testimony on 23 March 1964 shows that Howlett took two curtain rods from a shelf in Ruth's garage, it is perfectly valid to ask how this can be, when the curtain rods marked 275 and 276 were at the DPD.

Rather than acting like an obstinate and dismissive wanna be clown, would you be able to provide us with an explanation, Mr. Oblazney?

Anyone who believes Oswald was not complicit is suffering from cognitive dissonance.  Period !!!  Oswald killed Kennnedy.  How could a 'silly little marxist' do all of that?

[Dan O'meara]

Anyone who believes Oswald was not complicit is suffering from cognitive dissonance.  Period !!!  Oswald killed Kennnedy.  How could a 'silly little marxist' do all of that?

What's so difficult about pointing a firearm at someone and pulling a trigger?
Why would people believe this couldn't have happened?

Most conspiracy theorists are utterly deluded. They could only aspire to cognitive dissonance.
IMO, the greatest hindrance to resolving this case has always been the self-serving interests of those "Seeking the Truth".

[Martin Weidmann]

Anyone who believes Oswald was not complicit is suffering from cognitive dissonance.  Period !!!  Oswald killed Kennnedy.  How could a 'silly little marxist' do all of that?

I take it you are unable to provide a plausible explanation for the question asked by Alan Ford. Duly noted!


Anyone who believes Oswald was not complicit is suffering from cognitive dissonance.

Anybody who says something as stupid and pathetic as this is suffering from delusions.

Oswald killed Kennnedy.

Well, let's see.

You can not place a broken down MC rifle in the paper bag Oswald carried that morning, without disregarding the testimony of Buell Frazier and Randle, who are the only two people who actually saw the bag.

You can not tie the MC rifle to Oswald, execept for the opinion of a FBI Questioned Documents Expert, who, claimed Oswald's handwriting is on the Klein's order form, the envelope and the money order, despite the fact that all he had were easily manipulated photocopies. But even if Oswald ordered the rifle, in March, that still doesn't mean he owned it, either back then or in November 1963

You can not place Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63 nor can you show that Oswald came down to the second floor by the stairs after the shots were fired. Dorothy Garner, who was on the 4th floor, told the office of Barefoot Sanders that she saw Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles go downstairs and saw Truly and Baker come up. In other words, she should have seen Oswald if he had gone down the stairs, which he clearly didn't.

So, your evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy is what exactly?

Or is this more of the "I can't prove it, but just take my word for it" LN stupidity?

[Martin Weidmann]

What's so difficult about pointing a firearm at someone and pulling a trigger?
Why would people believe this couldn't have happened?

Most conspiracy theorists are utterly deluded. They could only aspire to cognitive dissonance.
IMO, the greatest hindrance to resolving this case has always been the self-serving interests of those "Seeking the Truth".

the greatest hindrance to resolving this case has always been the self-serving interests of those "Seeking the Truth".

The same goes for those who claim they already know the truth, but in most cases are unable to prove it with actual evidence.

[Dan O'meara]

You can not place a broken down MC rifle in the paper bag Oswald carried that morning, without disregarding the testimony of Buell Frazier and Randle, who are the only two people who actually saw the bag.

Just playing Devil's Advocate...

The assassin suddenly breaks his routine and goes to the Paine household on Thursday. He shows up at Frazier's with a suspiciously long package. It's way too long for a lunch bag. Just because Frazier is out by his estimation of its length by a few inches doesn't mean anything as he's not really paying attention to it. Frazier sees Oswald collect the long package from the vehicle and make his way toward the TSBD:

"You can not place a broken down MC rifle in the paper bag Oswald carried that morning"

It's obvious the package contains the rifle and you can't prove it doesn't.

You can not tie the MC rifle to Oswald, execept for the opinion of a FBI Questioned Documents Expert, who, claimed Oswald's handwriting is on the Klein's order form, the envelope and the money order, despite the fact that all he had were easily manipulated photocopies. But even if Oswald ordered the rifle, in March, that still doesn't mean he owned it, either back then or in November 1963

'You've only got an expert from the FBI confirming the rifle is Oswald's'   
This is supposed to be an argument against Oswald owning the rifle?

You can not place Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63

And you can't place him anywhere else.
If, as you say, Oswald isn't on the sixth floor taking the shot, where is he?
You can't say with any certainty.

nor can you show that Oswald came down to the second floor by the stairs after the shots were fired. Dorothy Garner, who was on the 4th floor, told the office of Barefoot Sanders that she saw Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles go downstairs and saw Truly and Baker come up. In other words, she should have seen Oswald if he had gone down the stairs, which he clearly didn't.

All of this is predicated on the second floor lunchroom encounter between Baker, Truly and Oswald.
If, as many believe, this encounter doesn't take place there's no need for Oswald to be running anywhere.
After Baker and Truly pass by on their way to the roof he can just cruise down the stairs and out the front door before the building is locked down.

So, your evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy is what exactly?

Your evidence that he didn't is what?


The point of this exercise is to demonstrate the importance of the 'narrative'.
Any detail can be taken in isolation and interpreted almost any way you please. But all the details must fit into an overall 'narrative' and the LNers have their narrative provided for them. It can't be proven what was in the bag Oswald carried to the TSBD but in the LNer narrative it's obvious.
Any 'counter-narrative' must include the same details and, in my opinion, must be very close to what actually happened that day.