How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD

[Martin Weidmann]

Keep dancing like a circus monkey and changing the topic.  You have argued that Marina confirmed Oswald's ownership of the rifle only after being convinced of such by Rankin and the press.  That is preposterous but the question presented in the context of your explanation is why she would direct the DPD to the blanket on Nov. 22 - before she comes into contact with Rankin or the press - when asked about Oswald's rifle?  The only explanation for doing so is that she had seen a rifle in that blanket.  That is consistent with her WC testimony.   Absent a time machine, we know your silly explanation is a complete failure because Marina confirms the presence of the rifle in the blanket BEFORE she encounters Rankin or any press to convince her of this fact.   Thus, your explanation is not only implausible but chronologically impossible.

The only explanation for doing so is that she had seen a rifle in that blanket.  That is consistent with her WC testimony.

Even if that is true and she saw indeed a rifle, how do we know it was owned by Oswald?

That is preposterous but the question presented in the context of your explanation is why she would direct the DPD to the blanket on Nov. 22 - before she comes into contact with Rankin or the press - when asked about Oswald's rifle?

I don't believe for a second Marina did that. It was Ruth Paine who was "translating" or do you think the officers spoke Russian?

Thus, your explanation is not only implausible but chronologically impossible.

And still Marina did not confirm that Oswald owned a rifle in her day 1 affidavit. Go figure... in the afternoon she allegedly shows officers where Oswald's rifle is hidden and a few hours later she fails to confirm that he owned a rifle.... Yeah, that makes sense!

[Martin Weidmann]

Read the quote again Martin. Since I have a feel for how you and others operate here I intentionally worded it "as for the photo it shows Oswald had a rifle and revolver"  to see if you would say rifle"Do you think that means I owned that rifle ?"You didn't fail me Martin. Although I believe the rifle was linked to Ozzie quite well.

Of course you believe the rifle was linked to Oswald, you are just not certain enough to claim he owned it, right?

I'm just curious which rifle you are talking about. The one he allegedly bought from Klein's under an alias or the one seen in the photo?

Also, let me ask you again; what exactly do you think it means that Oswald was photographed with a rifle and a revolver in late March 1963?

[Bill Chapman]

Martin, you should have learned by now that when you look at the totality of this mountain of little pieces of evidence that can be picked apart you've got your man, Oswald!

Earth to Captain Tom:
📡📡📡📡📡📡📡📡📡📡

Thanks for confirming Bug's statement that you lot 'split hairs, and then split the split hairs'

[Martin Weidmann]

Earth to Captain Tom:
📡📡📡📡📡📡📡📡📡📡

Thanks for confirming Bug's statement that you lot 'split hairs, and then split the split hairs'

Pretty obvious why Bugs would say that.

Just image what would happen when serious people take a closer look at the "evidence", or (even worse) they start asking questions for which credible explanations are required, right? 

Can't have that, now can we?...... Whatever happened to the good old days when gullible people accepted that Oswald killed Kennedy because he left his wedding ring in a cup?

[Bill Chapman]

Pretty obvious why Bugs would say that.

Just image what would happen when serious people take a closer look at the "evidence", or (even worse) they start asking questions for which credible explanations are required, right? 

Can't have that, now can we?...... Whatever happened to the good old days when gullible people accepted that Oswald killed Kennedy because he left his wedding ring in a cup?

'because he left his wedding ring in a cup'

> Guilty based on just that? You cannot be serious.

I've never claimed that the wedding ring thing would be enough to convict.

[Martin Weidmann]

'because he left his wedding ring in a cup'

> Guilty based on just that? You cannot be serious.

I've never claimed that the wedding ring thing would be enough to convict.

Check with Bugs. It's one of his 53 pieces of "evidence" that he claims point to Oswald's guilt.

[Wesley Johnson]

Of course you believe the rifle was linked to Oswald, you are just not certain enough to claim he owned it, right?

I'm just curious which rifle you are talking about. The one he allegedly bought from Klein's under an alias or the one seen in the photo?

Also, let me ask you again; what exactly do you think it means that Oswald was photographed with a rifle and a revolver in late March 1963?

Come on Martin this is getting droll. I do believe the evidence that linked Oswald to the rifle and all of the other hard, physical, ballistic evidence. I find it very amusing how the CTers operate. When asked for physical, ballistic evidence, all they do is try and show any discrepancies in the real evidence and claim "it proves conspiracy", without ever producing any evidence, no rifle, no bullets, no fragments and no prints or anything at all to show a second gunman. But it does keep me laughing.   

[Martin Weidmann]

Come on Martin this is getting droll. I do believe the evidence that linked Oswald to the rifle and all of the other hard, physical, ballistic evidence. I find it very amusing how the CTers operate. When asked for physical, ballistic evidence, all they do is try and show any discrepancies in the real evidence and claim "it proves conspiracy", without ever producing any evidence, no rifle, no bullets, no fragments and no prints or anything at all to show a second gunman. But it does keep me laughing.

You seem to be complaining more about the way CTs operate then you are answering simple questions. Why is that?

I do believe the evidence that linked Oswald to the rifle and all of the other hard, physical, ballistic evidence.

Of course you do, but such a blanket statement doesn't tell me much and you seem unable or unwilling to explain in more detail what you are talking about. I really would like to know what you consider to be "hard, physical, ballistic evidence". For me, solid (physical and/or ballistic) evidence is conclusive, persuasive and able to hold up to close scrutiny.

I think I have a good idea why you are so reluctant to answer my simple straight forward question, but I'll ask it again anyway;

What exactly do you think it means that Oswald was photographed with a rifle and a revolver in late March 1963?

A straight forward answer will do. I already know how you feel about CTs