If I had planned the conspiracy ...

[Dan O'meara]

It's beyond me how anybody can take anything Richard Smith says seriously, when one of his claims (and I paraphrase) is that "the evidence that Oswald came down the stairs at the TSBD just after the shots is...... that it happened".

 
On another thread I asked Richard and some other Nutter this very simple question:

"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"

As you know, as anyone with a grain of intelligence knows, establishing Oswald's ownership of the MC has nothing to do with whether he took the shots or not. It's an embarrassingly simple question to answer but I knew that neither of them would be able to answer it because all true Nutters have a very extreme, inflexible mentality. The question reveals that Nutters have fooled themselves into believing that Oswald being the shooter is a proven fact. They believe that, because so much evidence points to that conclusion, it makes it a fact. They genuinely don't understand that it's not a fact. In reality it is a belief and the conclusions of the Warren Commission are, at best, a working theory. An invented narrative, the purpose of which is to accommodate certain facts about the case. A story.
Very often on this forum people come along with really 'alternative' narratives - Two Oswalds, Prayerman, Hickey and the AR-15 etc. - and I've noticed over the few years I've been a member of this forum that anyone proposing these narratives always present them as a fact. Not working theories. Not alternative narratives. They share this mentality with Nutters. Other traits they share are a complete refusal to acknowledge any evidence that contradicts any detail their narrative, a refusal to debate an issue reasonably and a lack of humility.
On the flip side, there are some on both sides of the LN/CT divide who are willing to engage reasonably even if they ultimately disagree. This makes me think that the traditional LN/CT divide should be discarded and that the division should be between those willing to genuinely engage in the debate and those who just want to spout their beliefs as if they were facts.

[John Mytton]

On another thread I asked Richard and some other Nutter this very simple question:

"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"

As you know, as anyone with a grain of intelligence knows, establishing Oswald's ownership of the MC has nothing to do with whether he took the shots or not. It's an embarrassingly simple question to answer but I knew that neither of them would be able to answer it because all true Nutters have a very extreme, inflexible mentality. The question reveals that Nutters have fooled themselves into believing that Oswald being the shooter is a proven fact. They believe that, because so much evidence points to that conclusion, it makes it a fact. They genuinely don't understand that it's not a fact. In reality it is a belief and the conclusions of the Warren Commission are, at best, a working theory. An invented narrative, the purpose of which is to accommodate certain facts about the case. A story.
Very often on this forum people come along with really 'alternative' narratives - Two Oswalds, Prayerman, Hickey and the AR-15 etc. - and I've noticed over the few years I've been a member of this forum that anyone proposing these narratives always present them as a fact. Not working theories. Not alternative narratives. They share this mentality with Nutters. Other traits they share are a complete refusal to acknowledge any evidence that contradicts any detail their narrative, a refusal to debate an issue reasonably and a lack of humility.
On the flip side, there are some on both sides of the LN/CT divide who are willing to engage reasonably even if they ultimately disagree. This makes me think that the traditional LN/CT divide should be discarded and that the division should be between those willing to genuinely engage in the debate and those who just want to spout their beliefs as if they were facts.

You're making the odd bizarre assumption that Oswald didn't have a grain of intelligence.

Why would Oswald make a non routine stop at Irving?
Why would for the first time and against all civil protocol not inform Ruth that he was coming to stay?
Why would Oswald sneak his rifle into work?
Why would Oswald hand over his rifle to your fantasy assassin while not realizing the criminal implications?
Why would Oswald get a coke while People were screaming outside?
Why would Oswald immediately leave thereafter?
Why would Oswald simply not wait on his bus?
Why would the notorious spendthrift Oswald get a relatively expensive cab?
Why did Oswald travel past his rooming house?
Why did Oswald have a reason to kill Tippit?
Why did Oswald leave his jacket just after he killed Tippit?
Why did Oswald act suspicious at Brewers shoe store when Police cars drove by?
Why did Oswald punch McDonald?
Why did Oswald resist arrest?
Why didn't Oswald just give his name to the Police?
Why was Oswald even carrying a revolver in the middle of the day to see a movie?
Why did Oswald lie about the contents of his rifle sack?
Why did Oswald lie about even owning a rifle?
Why did Oswald lie about living at Neely Street?
Why did Oswald lie about where he purchased the revolver?

JohnM

[John Mytton]

The chain of custody is what actually occurred with an item of evidence: Officer A picked it up at the scene, retained possession until handing it to Officer B, who retained possession before handing it to Detective C, who delivered it to Officer D who was in charge of the evidence room and who logged it in. If, in the heat of a chaotic event, Officer A writes a report stating that he handed it to Officer X, this is not a "defect in the chain of custody."

Agreed. But, as happend with the jacket; (1) the officer - if that's what he was, because Westbrook wasn't sure - who found the jacket remains unidentified and never writes a report, (2) and Westbrook isn't entirely sure where the jacket was found, (3) the jacket is described as being white in several radio communications, (4) the officer Westbrook gave the jacket to also remains unidentified, (5) the jacket then disappears for more than an hour only to turn up in Westbrook's possesion again, now suddenly being grey and carrying the markings of 7 officers, including Westbrook, who submited it to the evidence room but completely omits any information about the discovery of the jacket in his December 3rd report to Chief Curry, then you clearly do have a defect in the chain of custody.

Colour and shading can be influenced by lighting contrast but essentially is governed in the eye of the beholder.

The following jacket in this recreation appears lighter and darker because of the reasons stated directly above.



In the following image there's no doubting that this is the jacket because it was filmed in the car park on the same day and is the same type as Oswald's zip up jacket, so are we to believe that a random jacket of unknown origin just happened to be found in the same car park that Oswald was seen entering and was the exact same type as Oswald's?
Also look at the shading and being described as white is more than possible, the car in the back ground seems to be whiter.



The initialled jacket.



Earlene Roberts remembers Oswald getting a zipper jacket.

Mr. BALL. Then, what happened after that?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket.

And she remembers the type because he was zipping it up.

Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.

And as stated above, the lighting in a bright court room would be different to the rooming house and is the reason why Earlene thought the jacket was darker.

Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?

And lastly and most importantly why would Oswald be seen by Earlene wearing a jacket yet Oswald was arrested without his jacket?



JohnM

[Dan O'meara]

You're making the odd bizarre assumption that Oswald didn't have a grain of intelligence.

Nowhere in my post is there an assumption about Oswald's intelligence.
The only odd or bizarre thing is if you've read that in to my post.
On the other hand, if it's just a clunky segue into your 'list routine' then no harm done.
As for Oswald's intelligence, his TV appearance revealed an articulate, intelligent individual.

Why would Oswald make a non routine stop at Irving?
Why would for the first time and against all civil protocol not inform Ruth that he was coming to stay?
Why would Oswald sneak his rifle into work?
Why would Oswald hand over his rifle to your fantasy assassin while not realizing the criminal implications?
Why would Oswald get a coke while People were screaming outside?
Why would Oswald immediately leave thereafter?
Why would Oswald simply not wait on his bus?
Why would the notorious spendthrift Oswald get a relatively expensive cab?
Why did Oswald travel past his rooming house?
Why did Oswald have a reason to kill Tippit?
Why did Oswald leave his jacket just after he killed Tippit?
Why did Oswald act suspicious at Brewers shoe store when Police cars drove by?
Why did Oswald punch McDonald?
Why did Oswald resist arrest?
Why didn't Oswald just give his name to the Police?
Why was Oswald even carrying a revolver in the middle of the day to see a movie?
Why did Oswald lie about the contents of his rifle sack?
Why did Oswald lie about even owning a rifle?
Why did Oswald lie about living at Neely Street?
Why did Oswald lie about where he purchased the revolver?

JohnM

Your list might hold sway with others but it falls a bit flat using it on me.
I think Oswald was a patsy for the actual shooting but I also think he was a dangerous, delusional guy who was capable of murder.
He knew that whatever was happening that day he could be arrested for and he kept just enough money back to get him to the border.
I have no problem accepting the rifle belonged to Oswald - there would be no point framing him with a rifle that couldn't be connected to him.
I believe that when he left the TSBD building he was a fugitive on the run and was heading for the border when he was stopped by Tippit.
That is pretty much every question dealt with but there is one that I'm quite surprised you've asked:

Why would Oswald get a coke while People were screaming outside?

Why would Oswald, if he was an assassin fleeing the scene, go into the 2nd floor lunchroom to get a bottle of coke?

[Martin Weidmann]

This is a game I want to play, if only to demonstrate what kind of silly questions LN ask.

Why would Oswald make a non routine stop at Irving?

To make up with Marina, because she was angry with him, just like Marina and Ruth Paine testified

Why would for the first time and against all civil protocol not inform Ruth that he was coming to stay?

Who knows? Perhaps he decided to go earlier on the day and simply did not have an oppertunity to call.

Why would Oswald sneak his rifle into work?

Did he? Is there any evidence to show that Oswald brought a rifle at all to work?

Why would Oswald hand over his rifle to your fantasy assassin while not realizing the criminal implications?

Who said he ever did? What makes you even think this?

Why would Oswald get a coke while People were screaming outside?

Perhaps he was thirsty. Who knows?

Why would Oswald immediately leave thereafter?

Did he?

Why would Oswald simply not wait on his bus?

What would be "his bus"?

Why would the notorious spendthrift Oswald get a relatively expensive cab?

Did he? Was it Oswald who took Whaley's cab or some guy wearing two jackets?

Why did Oswald travel past his rooming house?

Did he?

Why did Oswald have a reason to kill Tippit?

He didn't, so why do you assume he did?

Why did Oswald leave his jacket just after he killed Tippit?

Why ask a loaded question when you can't prove that Oswald left his jacket anywhere?

Why did Oswald act suspicious at Brewers shoe store when Police cars drove by?

Did he? Define "suspicious" and show he was there

Why did Oswald punch McDonald?

Who knows? Perhaps McDonald provoked him...

Why did Oswald resist arrest?

Didn't he say he wasn't resisting arrest?

Why didn't Oswald just give his name to the Police?

Didn't he? And even if he didn't, he was under no legal obligation to assist the police in their investigation.

Why was Oswald even carrying a revolver in the middle of the day to see a movie?

In a country where there are more guns than people, there will always be people to carry a revolver. Even when they go fishing or buy a soda at a 7/11.
Insane second amendment freaks will do idiotic things on a daily basis.

Why did Oswald lie about the contents of his rifle sack?

Did he?

Why did Oswald lie about even owning a rifle?

Did he?

Why did Oswald lie about living at Neely Street?

Did he?

Why did Oswald lie about where he purchased the revolver?

Did he? Did anyone ever check in Fort Worth?

[Lance Payette]

On another thread I asked Richard and some other Nutter this very simple question:

"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"

As you know, as anyone with a grain of intelligence knows, establishing Oswald's ownership of the MC has nothing to do with whether he took the shots or not.

You make a rather seismic semantic shift here. First, his ownership of the M-C doesn't "prove" he took the shots. No, it certainly doesn't. Next, its has "nothing to do" with whether he took the shots. WHAT???

If the M-C had been owned by Linnie Mae Randle, it would be far less likely that Oswald took the shots. His ownership of the rifle doesn't prove he took the shots but makes it FAR more likely that he did. Even your imaginary conspirators who planted the rifle recognized this, or they would have planted a more plausible assassination weapon. They planted Oswald's rifle because it would make the conclusion that their desired patsy took the shots far more probable.

[John Mytton]

Nowhere in my post is there an assumption about Oswald's intelligence.
The only odd or bizarre thing is if you've read that in to my post.
On the other hand, if it's just a clunky segue into your 'list routine' then no harm done.
As for Oswald's intelligence, his TV appearance revealed an articulate, intelligent individual.

Your list might hold sway with others but it falls a bit flat using it on me.
I think Oswald was a patsy for the actual shooting but I also think he was a dangerous, delusional guy who was capable of murder.
He knew that whatever was happening that day he could be arrested for and he kept just enough money back to get him to the border.
I have no problem accepting the rifle belonged to Oswald - there would be no point framing him with a rifle that couldn't be connected to him.
I believe that when he left the TSBD building he was a fugitive on the run and was heading for the border when he was stopped by Tippit.
That is pretty much every question dealt with but there is one that I'm quite surprised you've asked:

Why would Oswald get a coke while People were screaming outside?

Why would Oswald, if he was an assassin fleeing the scene, go into the 2nd floor lunchroom to get a bottle of coke?

...but there is one that I'm quite surprised you've asked:

Why would Oswald get a coke while People were screaming outside?

Why would Oswald, if he was an assassin fleeing the scene, go into the 2nd floor lunchroom to get a bottle of coke?

Well Dan, this is obvious.

Oswald was in the process of flight from the scene of his crime and while coming down the stairs Oswald heard Truly shouting up the adjacent elevator shaft to release the elevator, so Oswald made a beeline for neutral explainable territory, the 2nd floor lunchroom.
Then after being confronted by Truly and Baker in the lunchroom and then fortunately being left alone a Oswald realized that he would have had to have a reason for why he was seen entering the lunchroom hence his coke purchase.

Mr. BELIN. You might put a "B" on Exhibit 362 by the elevator for "button."
Mr. TRULY. That is right on this surface. There is a little button. I pressed the button and the elevator didn't move.
I called upstairs , "Turn loose the elevator."
Mr. BELIN. When you say call up, in what kind of a voice did you call?
Mr. TRULY. Real loud. I suppose in an excited voice. But loud enough that anyone could have heard me if they had not been over stacking or making a little noise. But I rang the bell and pushed this button.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

This is a game I want to play, if only to demonstrate what kind of silly questions LN ask.

Why would Oswald make a non routine stop at Irving?

To make up with Marina, because she was angry with him, just like Marina and Ruth Paine testified

Why would for the first time and against all civil protocol not inform Ruth that he was coming to stay?

Who knows? Perhaps he decided to go earlier on the day and simply did not have an oppertunity to call.

Why would Oswald sneak his rifle into work?

Did he? Is there any evidence to show that Oswald brought a rifle at all to work?

Why would Oswald hand over his rifle to your fantasy assassin while not realizing the criminal implications?

Who said he ever did? What makes you even think this?

Why would Oswald get a coke while People were screaming outside?

Perhaps he was thirsty. Who knows?

Why would Oswald immediately leave thereafter?

Did he?

Why would Oswald simply not wait on his bus?

What would be "his bus"?

Why would the notorious spendthrift Oswald get a relatively expensive cab?

Did he? Was it Oswald who took Whaley's cab or some guy wearing two jackets?

Why did Oswald travel past his rooming house?

Did he?

Why did Oswald have a reason to kill Tippit?

He didn't, so why do you assume he did?

Why did Oswald leave his jacket just after he killed Tippit?

Why ask a loaded question when you can't prove that Oswald left his jacket anywhere?

Why did Oswald act suspicious at Brewers shoe store when Police cars drove by?

Did he? Define "suspicious" and show he was there

Why did Oswald punch McDonald?

Who knows? Perhaps McDonald provoked him...

Why did Oswald resist arrest?

Didn't he say he wasn't resisting arrest?

Why didn't Oswald just give his name to the Police?

Didn't he? And even if he didn't, he was under no legal obligation to assist the police in their investigation.

Why was Oswald even carrying a revolver in the middle of the day to see a movie?

In a country where there are more guns than people, there will always be people to carry a revolver. Even when they go fishing or buy a soda at a 7/11.
Insane second amendment freaks will do idiotic things on a daily basis.

Why did Oswald lie about the contents of his rifle sack?

Did he?

Why did Oswald lie about even owning a rifle?

Did he?

Why did Oswald lie about living at Neely Street?

Did he?

Why did Oswald lie about where he purchased the revolver?

Did he? Did anyone ever check in Fort Worth?

I've given you the benefit of the doubt several times in the past, but all you are is a pathetic troll and I have no desire to discuss anything with you anymore.
I know it will not stop you to keep on posting, because that's what a troll does, but I won't be replying to your posts anymore.
In fact, I may well take another six months break from this forum because of pathetic idiots like you!

JohnM