Hank, unless you feel there was a second person up in the snipers nest, the description of a second shooter or a second person has been used (albeit incorrectly) interchangeably. If this conversation develops any further let's contain the description to "second person". Agree
JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales
- Thread starter Robert Harris
- Start date
- Status
This thread has many subjects, my initial comment did deal with multiple people in the snipers nest. So, don't lay it on me about changing subjects.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Problem is you're talking in circles, I'm not sure if it's a language thing, but it's confusing.
Bottom line: There was only one person on the 6th Floor, Lee Oswald.
In fact the film footage from the motorcade shows that while the window was open, he hadn't set up to shoot until JFK's vehicle had reached the corner. He wasn't loitering, and while we don't know everything that he did, we do know he had to stack some boxes to rest his rifle upon.
The rifle would have been stashed somewhere safe so that none of his fellow employees could find it, and he would have had to unwrap it, and get into position. This would have been the contributing factor for the first shot missing the target.
We know it was Oswald because:
1. He was in the building.
2. It was his rifle, his fingerprints are STILL on it.
3.He was the only employee to flee the crime scene.
4. He murdered Officer Tippet, and attempted to kill a second DPD officer during his apprehension at the movie theater.
You can play the Introduction to Philosophy game of "Nobody can really know what happened" all you want, other CTers do it all the time, but the EVIDENCE points to Oswald as the lone shooter. 54 years of silly games have yet to change this fact.
Oswalds prints were lifted using powder from a Rolling Reader box directly under the snipers nest window. 3 of those boxes were used to form the snipers nest and were 40 or 50 feet away from the stack they came from. Oswald's prints lifted with powder had to be fresh (ie. left within day) as prints will not last long on cardboard before it absorbs perspiration.
Is that proof enough? If it isn't, nothing ever would be.
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
And we're all aware of that. You're providing nothing new. Please review the thread to catch up. Given she's the only witness to say she saw two people in the window and numerous others said they saw only one, how do you reconcile the varying statements?
And why did you post Walthers statement at all, since it was off the topic of a second shooter? Change the subject much?
Given that Gaudet made statements that can't be verified, why are you posting his unverified claims as if they are meaningful, especially since this was all studied by the HSCA and they determined his last contact with the CIA was in 1961 - two years before the assassination? And that he wasn't a "CIA Agent" but simply a domestic contact?
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
Only by you. Others were quite clear about what they are talking about. You brought up a second person in the sniper's nest in response to a post about a second shooter. That's clear.
Let's contain it to the original usage of "second shooter".
Got any evidence of one?
Or do you want to bring up Carolyn Walther as a change of subject once more?
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
Nothing is good enough for conspiracy theorists. If it doesn't fit the ABO [Anyone But Oswald] mold, it gets rejected out of hand.
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
Yes, we understand.
So no second shooter in the Depository? Great. We're making real headway here. Now that you've eliminated the Depository as a source of a second shooter, perhaps you can go through the other buildings & locations in Dealey Plaza and tell us if there was a rifle pointing out from any of them?
That would be returning to the original topic - of a second shooter.
And I asked before, and you failed to respond -- how do you know what the correct clothing was supposed to be?
Can you cite for what Oswald was wearing at the time of the assassination?
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
And nobody here was talking about multiple people in the sniper's nest. The point you responded to was about 'a second shooter'. And hence, you changed the subject to talk about something else - a statement by Walthers you won't affirm as credible since you don't know her personally:
Quoting you: "I never said she was correct or that I even believed her... I do not think about the credibility of the witness, I am no position to put a value judgement on someone that never interfaced with and a person that I do not know."
If you're not here to discuss the assassination and reach a reasonable conclusion, why are you here? What's your point?
Here's your original response. Note the points you responded to.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11813626&postcount=3202
You did indeed change the subject from a second shooter to a second person in the sniper's nest.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
But those statements weren't the only evidence accumulated that afternoon. For example, they found a rifle abandoned on the sixth floor that was traced to Oswald.
I'm sorry, if my rifle is found at my place of work, who do you think would have left it behind?
The Easter Bunny?
Let's look at the evidence, shall we?
The rifle was taken to the Paine's home in September when Marina moved back to Dallas. Oswald went to Mexico City. Marina testified she saw the rifle in the blanket in the Paine garage. Michael Paine affirmed he moved the blanket a couple of times, finally placing it on the floor where it would be out of the way. On the afternoon of 11/22/63, the blanket was pointed out to the police, but the blanket was determined to be empty.
Not so coincidentally, Oswald was seen transporting a long package in a paper sack that morning to the Depository. A paper sack long enough to contain the rifle was found on the sixth floor.
And again, not so coincidentally, Oswald rifle, discovered missing from the Paine garage on the afternoon of 11/22/63, was found in the Depository on the afternoon of 11/22/63.
Now, barring teleportation by the rifle from one place to another, do you agree someone must have transported the rifle from the garage to the Depository?
Now, I am going to list all the people that I know had access to both those locations to narrow down who possibly could have transported the weapon. If you have evidence of others having access to both locations, please provide their names.
Here's my list:
1. Lee Harvey Oswald.
Feel free to add to this list.
[eyeroll]Thank you, we've never seen that quote before.[/eyeroll]
Jesse Curry's opinion, do you affirm it because you knew him personally, or are you psoting this quote here for another reason?
Even in a criminal trial the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused to beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt.
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
Right, assuming the reporter made no errors in the story (it's hearsay) but you clearly didn't affirm Walther's account as true and accurate because you didn't know her: "I never said she was correct or that I even believed her... I do not think about the credibility of the witness, I am no position to put a value judgement on someone that [I} never interfaced with and a person that I do not know."
So what's the point of bring this up? Did you know Gaudet personally? Do you affirm the accuracy of his statement?
The underlined is meaningless as you don't show it applies here anymore than you show that Reader's Digest was a CIA asset because they publish stuff that was bought by others.
Regarding everything else, Gaudet is the source, and since you don't know him personally, to paraphrase you, you can't say he was correct or that you even believed him... You told us you do not think about the credibility of the witness, and you are in no position to put a value judgement on someone that you never interfaced with and a person that you do not know.
Right?
So what's your point here?
Hank
Last edited:
I will not respond to Sophomoric comments.Problem is you're talking in circles, I'm not sure if it's a language thing, but it's confusing.
Bottom line: There was only one person on the 6th Floor, Lee Oswald.
In fact the film footage from the motorcade shows that while the window was open, he hadn't set up to shoot until JFK's vehicle had reached the corner. He wasn't loitering, and while we don't know everything that he did, we do know he had to stack some boxes to rest his rifle upon.
The rifle would have been stashed somewhere safe so that none of his fellow employees could find it, and he would have had to unwrap it, and get into position. This would have been the contributing factor for the first shot missing the target.
We know it was Oswald because:
1. He was in the building.
2. It was his rifle, his fingerprints are STILL on it.
3.He was the only employee to flee the crime scene.
4. He murdered Officer Tippet, and attempted to kill a second DPD officer during his apprehension at the movie theater.
You can play the Introduction to Philosophy game of "Nobody can really know what happened" all you want, other CTers do it all the time, but the EVIDENCE points to Oswald as the lone shooter. 54 years of silly games have yet to change this fact.
Congrats Hank, you are as responsive as Beechnut. Your approach is old and it represents a person who can only attack a person and not discuss a subject... goodbye
HSienzant
Philosopher
No, the story you cited claimed he said he was an employee. No evidence is presented to confirm the claim. So I'll ask again, do you believe everything you read in the paper, especially since you didn't know Gaudet?
His flight had a stopover in Mexico, but not in Mexico City. His flight landed in Merida, Mexico before continuing on (CD75, previously cited, page 588). That information comes via the statements of Gaudet to the FBI. Why did you claim he went to Mexico City?
And according to that FBI report, and again, according to Gaudet, technically he did not enter Mexico since he did not depart the plane in Mexico at any time.
So the Mexican government was part of the coverup? That's what you're implying. If you're not implying this, what's the point of bringing up the list not containing Gaudet's name?
Perhaps the list is a list of people who actually entered Mexican soil at some point? And since Gaudet only had a stopover in Merida, and did not deplane, he was technically never on Mexican soil?
What's hard to reconcile?
You can say that again.
You ignored entirely the conclusions of the HSCA, merely to make a snide remark aimed at me.
We can see right through stuff like that, you know.
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
Hilarious. You took your ball and went home, calling me names on the way out. Not unexpected behavior.
Couldn't add to this list, huh?
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
You're so obvious, it's funny in a sad sort of way. The question that was asked of you that you failed to answer was immediately above your response quoted above.
Here's my question in context: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11814060&postcount=3207
You failed to respond to my points whatsoever.
What was your point in changing the subject and bringing her statement up? Since you haven't affirmed you believe her or think her observations were accurate? Why are we talking about her at all given that circumstance?
Because the error in her observation is obvious (she saw brown boxes behind the gunman, and assumed it was part of a man from the shoulder to the waist who was wearing a brown suit, but she saw no head, no arms, no movement, nothing that would affirm she actually saw a man and not boxes), and it's apparent to anyone without a built-in bias in favor of a conspiracy.
I remind you the Warren Commission was operating under a budget and time constraints. To hear some conspiracy theorists, they should be investigating still.
Great. And what do you hope to accomplish, if not have a conversation here and possibly reach a reasonable conclusion?
So should we dig up Walthers, the seven deceased Warren Commissioners, round up the junior counsel (living and dead) and have them reconvene and ask Walthers questions? Clearly you're not suggesting that. So what exactly are you suggesting is the best resolution here? Or is the goal just to go in circles and never reach a resolution?
Not at the time the police arrived, no. But the evidence indicates he was there during the assassination. Not only did the descriptions I cited fit him the the exclusion of most of the employees of the Depository, but he happened to leave his weapon on the sixth floor, the same floor where the assassin was seen by numerous witnesses (yes, including Walthers) outside the building. Try to remember that.
You must speak a different version of English than I do. "Reasonable conclusion" does not equate to "guess" where I come from. Nor did I intend it in that way. But thank you for ignoring my point entirely. You must have no evidence to cite in rebuttal.
You characterize it as reckless but also call it a "regard for the facts". I agree with the latter - I reached my conclusion after considering all the facts, so I don't think it was reckless to reach that conclusion, especially after 53+ years have passed since the assassination.
Right, you ignored that point entirely that was under discussion and changed the subject.
But since we all know about it, what's unexplained is why you changed the subject, brought up Walthers, and what your point was in bringing her up. What did you hope to accomplish? I think it's clear you failed to do whatever you hoped to as you've since taken your ball and went home.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Yes, 'gaudiest' is my tablet trying to guess what I meant. So, no, you don't know Gaudet personally.
Sorry, come again? Both is first person statements given to the FBI. But you claim not to take a stance on Walther's claims but cite Gaudet's claims as if they are true.
Why the difference, since you know neither person, and you claimed that was pertinent to assessing a person's credibility: "I never said she was correct or that I even believed her... I do not think about the credibility of the witness, I am no position to put a value judgement on someone that [I} never interfaced with and a person that I do not know."
Why doesn't this apply to Gaudet?
You said: "I never said she was correct or that I even believed her... I do not think about the credibility of the witness, I am no position to put a value judgement on someone that [I} never interfaced with and a person that I do not know."
You yourself said you couldn't assess her credibility since you didn't know her.
Right, he told the same story to many people in the days after the assassination. Does mere repetition of a claim make it true?
Done.
A businessman reporting his observations about foreign countries to the CIA does not a CIA Agent make. It makes him a domestic contact. Period.
Yes, it reports what Gaudet told them. Where's the evidence what Gaudet told them was true?
You think everyone interviewed by the FBI tells the truth, all the time? Surely you're not that naïve, but here you are, apparently citing what Gaudet said as if it's the gospel truth. You can't know that. Can you?
Hank
Last edited:
I just heard about this documentary from the website SOFREP, which I have an RSS feed from but not a membership to. They apparently have an interview with Marty Skovlund, the former Green Beret who's in the show. I was immediately skeptical and after spending some time riffling Bugliosi's book, gave up and came here. I wasn't disappointed; thank you for torpedoing this nonsense!
Who said it didn't?
Last edited:
Yelling the loudest and frequently does not make anyone more correct than the other. When direct experiences are questioned as "how do you know they are true?", then all discussion ends as that is the trap door that someone springs when they cannot provide an intelligent rebuttal. Unfortunately, this thread has it. In fact, I purposefully have not taken a stance but my favorite Poster has gone to his usual MO of claiming I am not answering a question. The desire to have every Poster create a narrative is the old trick of attacking a person and not addressing their own short comings. A person who purposefully leaves out portions of documents they have read when those portions do not support his or her claim... could be disingenuous. This thread has degenerated into **** Way or No Way.
HSienzant
Philosopher
You did (bolded above). Above you drew a difference between Walther's statement to the FBI about her experience in Dealey Plaza and Gaudet's statement to the FBI about his experiences with the CIA.
You also argue for Gaudet's claims in your post following the one I am responding to here:
And when it was pointed out to you that the HSCA researched this issue and determined the record showed Gaudet inflated both how recent his contacts were with the CIA and how involved he was with that organization, you cited his own statements in rebuttal without qualification in any way:
So which is it? You cannot vouch for Gaudet's credibility and truthfulness because you don't know him, or questioning Gaudet's credibility and truthfulness is a "trap door that someone springs when they cannot provide an intelligent rebuttal".
Make up your mind. You appear to be arguing for Walther's eyewitness claim and Gaudet's claims about being a CIA agent until you are asked direct questions about the claims and the veracity of those two persons, and then you back away from those claims, stating you never said they were truthful or accurate or credible because you don't know the person personally:
Yet despite the above, and not knowing Gaudet or Walthers personally, you brought up their statements and appear to argue for what for their statements every chance you get.
Your arguments are hard to reconcile with each other. Can you explain?
Hank
Axxman300
Philosopher
George Gaudet is a dead end.
He had nothing to do with the assassination, and stopped working for the CIA in 1961. More to the point, if he had been an active field agent he would not have traveled under his real name, and sure as hell would not have received his travel visa on the same day as Oswald if they had been somehow working together.
That we even know the man's name suggests his unimportance to the story.
He's just a sock-puppet for the JFK-CT crowd.
He had nothing to do with the assassination, and stopped working for the CIA in 1961. More to the point, if he had been an active field agent he would not have traveled under his real name, and sure as hell would not have received his travel visa on the same day as Oswald if they had been somehow working together.
That we even know the man's name suggests his unimportance to the story.
He's just a sock-puppet for the JFK-CT crowd.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Right, it's the one that has the most evidence on their side. I pointed out, for instance, Walther was the only person to see two men in the sniper's nest window, while numerous other witnesses saw only one (including several who described the shooter in terms matching Oswald). As you yourself acknowledged, it's 11 vs 1. Who has the most evidence? Which witness is the outlier and should be discarded? Which witness saw what she claimed was a "man" behind the shooter exactly where we know brown boxes were, and described that "man" in terms fitting those brown boxes?
Sorry that's the logical fallacy of begging the question. That's where you imbed in the point the very issue under discussion, and presume it's true. In this case, you're presuming Gaudet's claims about being a CIA Agent are true, and calling those claims his "direct experiences". But you haven't established he was a CIA agent, so you haven't established he had those "direct experiences".
You still need to do that. The HSCA studied the issue in the late 1970s and found evidence contradicting Gaudet's claims. I pointed it out to you. You dismissed it with a snide remark.
Remember this?
There's a lot of questions you haven't answered. Off the top of my head, what's your point in bringing up Walther's claim if you're not arguing for her veracity, what's the "correct clothing" the witnesses got wrong and how do you know, and where's the evidence Gaudet was a CIA agent?
It would be nice if a conspiracy theorist, after nearly 54 years, could actually elucidate a coherent theory of the assassination that includes a conspiracy and explains more of the evidence that the conventional narrative. To date, all we get is the same quibbles over the outlier witnesses that don't even agree with each other and are used to exclude Oswald to the exclusion of all other persons.
For one example, Mark Lane, in Rush to Judgment (pg 104 in my copy, in the chapter THE SKY IS FALLING), points out that the three men on the fifth floor heard no one walking away from the Sniper's Nest, arguing this would eliminate Oswald as being up there * ... no, it would eliminate anyone and everyone from being up there, so by this logic no one was in the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination. But we know someone was up there, because numerous witnesses outside the building saw a person above the three men on the fifth floor. So we know Mark Lane's point goes nowhere and never did. This is the kind of nonsense that passes for conspiracy argument over the past 53+ years.
Examples?
Not sure what the **** denotes, but this thread is the same as it always was. A conspiracy theorist (or three) tries to make a case for a conspiracy by Just Asking Questions, or pointing out anomalies in the record, and then attempting to exclude Oswald and establish a conspiracy by those anomalies and those questions. Read the full thread (including the predecessor threads). Many of us have been here since the initial thread in 2011. Your approach isn't any different. Nor has it worked any better.
Walther's sighting has been explained in non-conspiratorial terms that fit the known evidence. You don't accept that explanation, but your acceptance isn't required for it to be the best explanation of what Walther's said she saw.
Gaudet has been shown to have inflated his own importance in statements he made to various persons, including to agents of the FBI. This is not uncommon, and a person's claims is not evidence those claims are true. You appear to accept his claims without question, affirming them more than once, but you have provided no evidence his claims are true, and dismissed with a snide remark the in-depth analysis of Gaudet provided to you that was done by the HSCA staff.
Hank
______
* Lane wrote: "The testimony that Oswald was not seen on the sixth floor minutes before the assassination was complemented by the testimony of the three men at the fifth-floor windows, none of whom heard any sound of movement after the shots."
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Yes, it's more of the same schizophrenic thinking from the conspiracy theorists.
On the one hand, they were so brilliant they've escaped justice for 53+ years, but on the other hand, they were so dumb they would do things like have a supposed CIA agent stand in line ahead of Oswald so both could get visas back-to-back.
Or, as we saw MicahJava (I think it was) argue earlier in this thread, that the real bullet that was found in Parkland and marked into evidence was swapped in FBI custody for the bullet now in evidence (CE399), but the conspirators were so dumb they forgot to forge the markings of the FBI agent who first handled and marked the bullet onto the substitute bullet.
Hank
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
It would be great if one of the CT crowd could explain this schizophrenia.
Why, if the Evil They were trying to frame Oswald, would they do so by planting evidence proving Oswald couldn't possibly have done it? The Magic Bullet, faking wounds so they loook like they came from the opposite direction, using obviously faked photos of LHO with the gun, planting a gun that couldn't have made the shots in that time etc. etc. Why would they do that?
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
[QUOTEWhy, if the Evil They were trying to frame Oswald, would they do so by planting evidence proving Oswald couldn't possibly have done it?[/QUOTE]
The intellectual problem for these CT researchers is that they have to backfill or retrofit their theory every time they encounter a piece of adverse evidence, and the theoretical model grows more unwieldy and absurd each time they do it. This is the problem with beginning with a fixed intellectual position--essentially a faith-based conviction--and having to shape all the dissonant data around it, through an illegitimate form of deduction. The rational approach is to encounter the evidence candidly and inductively and to allow those data to shape one's conclusions. These intellectual approaches are non-overlapping: the one a magisterium, the other a minestrone.
The intellectual problem for these CT researchers is that they have to backfill or retrofit their theory every time they encounter a piece of adverse evidence, and the theoretical model grows more unwieldy and absurd each time they do it. This is the problem with beginning with a fixed intellectual position--essentially a faith-based conviction--and having to shape all the dissonant data around it, through an illegitimate form of deduction. The rational approach is to encounter the evidence candidly and inductively and to allow those data to shape one's conclusions. These intellectual approaches are non-overlapping: the one a magisterium, the other a minestrone.
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
Because they didn't.
First off, "they" could have killed JFK by poisoning his medication because "they" (CIA, FBI, Mafia, *your evil entity's name here) would have known this would be the simplest move with the least amount of risk.
And it's all about limiting risk when you're planning an assassination.
There were so many variables which would have jeopardized the Dealey Plaza shoot starting with the weather, had it rained the bubble top would have been on the limo. Plus, getting the weapon into the building(s) would have been a risk too. All someone at the TSBD had to do was stop LHO and ask him what he was carrying in that morning.
Finally, the big problem is the rifle. Why use a weapon with proprietary ammunition in a state where everyone and their brother owns a 30.06 hunting rifle?
The truth is that there is nothing that screams "Conspiracy!" when you look at the basic facts.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Correct.
As far as "Tracking Oswald" goes, I predict they will rehash all of the finer-edged stuff relating to Operation Mongoose, but not prove a damned thing while implying that the "evidence speaks for itself".
If I still drank, we could make a drinking game were we take a shot every time someone says "We will never know the full truth.".
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Because they didn't.
First off, "they" could have killed JFK by poisoning his medication because "they" (CIA, FBI, Mafia, *your evil entity's name here) would have known this would be the simplest move with the least amount of risk.
And it's all about limiting risk when you're planning an assassination.
There were so many variables which would have jeopardized the Dealey Plaza shoot starting with the weather, had it rained the bubble top would have been on the limo. Plus, getting the weapon into the building(s) would have been a risk too. All someone at the TSBD had to do was stop LHO and ask him what he was carrying in that morning.
Finally, the big problem is the rifle. Why use a weapon with proprietary ammunition in a state where everyone and their brother owns a 30.06 hunting rifle?
The truth is that there is nothing that screams "Conspiracy!" when you look at the basic facts.
I hope I'm misreading your post, because it looks like you think I'm a conspiracy believer.
It might be better if you addressed these remarks to MicahJava, and possibly NoOther, although the latter is being very tight-lipped about what he/she actually believes.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,820
You are misreading the post. Read the last paragraph.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Oswald understood that. I was once asked:
(a) why Oswald bothered to fashion a paper sack out of wrapping paper from the Depository since the rifle was already wrapped within a blanket, and
(b) if he was going to that trouble, why didn't he make the sack long enough to contain the assembled rifle?
In regards to (b), I had to point out that the rifle Oswald ordered was four inches shorter than the one he was actually shipped.
Here's the rifle Oswald ordered (36 inches long, according to the advertisement): https://sites.google.com/site/jfkwords/carcano
But that one was being phased out by Kleins and they shipped him a longer, 40-inch weapon they then had in stock. Here's the advertisement for that one from April of 1963: https://www.milsurps.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=42647&d=1366926484
Apparently remembering he ordered a 36-inch rifle, Oswald then made a 38-inch long sack from Depository paper sometime before the assassination: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0255b.htm
That sack was long enough to contain the rifle he ordered, but not the one he was actually shipped. I doubt if Oswald ever measured the rifle prior to the assassination and thus, he probably never realized the rifle he was shipped was four inches longer than the stated length of the rifle he ordered until he tried to put the 40-inch rifle into the 38-inch sack [big oops along with a few expletives!], necessitating disassembling it into two smaller pieces.
In regards to the other half of the question, why make a sack at all, when he could have transported the rifle (already wrapped in a blanket) to the Depository that morning? Marina's actions tell the reason for doing that. Remember that Oswald left the blanket appearing undisturbed on the floor of the Paine garage when he took the weapon on the morning of 11/22/63. He did that for a reason.
When Marina heard about the assassination and shots being fired from her husband's place of work, and knowing of his earlier assassination attempt on former General Edwin Walker, her first thought was to check to see if the rifle was still in the garage:
Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn of the shooting of President Kennedy?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was watching television, and Ruth by that time was already with me, and she said someone had shot at the President.
Mr. RANKIN. What did you say?
Mrs. OSWALD. It was hard for me to say anything. We both turned pale. I went to my room and cried.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you think immediately that your husband might have been involved?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. RANKIN. Did Mrs. Paine say anything about the possibility of your husband being involved?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, but she only said that "By the way, they fired from the building in which Lee is working."
My heart dropped. I then went to the garage to see whether the rifle was there, and I saw that the blanket was still there, and I said, "Thank God." I thought, "Can there really be such a stupid man in the world that could do something like that?" But I was already rather upset at that time--I don't know why. Perhaps my intuition. I didn't know what I was doing.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you look in the blanket to see if the rifle was there?
Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't unroll the blanket. It was in its usual position, and it appeared to have something inside.
She only checked after the assassination, and seeing the blanket in its usual position, appearing untouched, assumed it still contained the rifle (it didn't). But what if she thought about it beforehand, perhaps about 10am, and actually looked in the garage and realized the blanket (and hence the rifle) was missing?
Or if she had gone in the garage to retrieve something else and noticed the blanket was nowhere to be seen? She might have been able to prevent the assassination by mentioning it to Ruth, and together deciding to call the police ("this may turn out to be nothing, but..."
So that's why I believe Oswald made a 38-inch sack (instead of a 42-inch sack) and went to the trouble of disassembling the rifle and taking it out of the blanket, putting it in the homemade sack, and returning the blanket to its normal storage place.
Like you said, it's all about limiting risk.
QUESTIONS FOR THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS HERE:
Why did the conspirators, who presumably planted the 40-inch weapon on the sixth floor, make a 38-inch sack and plant that instead of planting a 42-inch sack? Didn't they know the length of the rifle they were framing Oswald for owning?
How did the blanket in the Paine garage which presumably normally contained the rifle Oswald didn't own or ever possess, happen to wind up empty on 11/22/63? If it never contained a rifle, what did it contain when Marina looked inside it and when Michael Paine moved it?
Hank
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
Axxman300
Philosopher
Recapping episode 2 of "Tracking Oswald":
The go to Moscow and interview a former KGB agent who recounted Oswald's defection, attempted suicide, and return to the US. This same agent met with Oswald in Mexico City. He claims when the interview started going south that Oswald pulled out his pistol declaring he was a desperate man. The Soviets kicked him out.
The story moves to Oswald's visit to the Cuban Consulate where the focus of the story moves to Silvia Duran. They review the Mexican Police files on her where she recounted Oswald's visit. He lost his cool there too, and they tossed him out.
Next Week: The gang heads to New Orleans.
The go to Moscow and interview a former KGB agent who recounted Oswald's defection, attempted suicide, and return to the US. This same agent met with Oswald in Mexico City. He claims when the interview started going south that Oswald pulled out his pistol declaring he was a desperate man. The Soviets kicked him out.
The story moves to Oswald's visit to the Cuban Consulate where the focus of the story moves to Silvia Duran. They review the Mexican Police files on her where she recounted Oswald's visit. He lost his cool there too, and they tossed him out.
Next Week: The gang heads to New Orleans.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
HSienzant
Philosopher
Recapping episode 2 of "Tracking Oswald":
The go to Moscow and interview a former KGB agent who recounted Oswald's defection, attempted suicide, and return to the US. This same agent met with Oswald in Mexico City. He claims when the interview started going south that Oswald pulled out his pistol declaring he was a desperate man. The Soviets kicked him out.
The story moves to Oswald's visit to the Cuban Consulate where the focus of the story moves to Silvia Duran. They review the Mexican Police files on her where she recounted Oswald's visit. He lost his cool there too, and they tossed him out.
Next Week: The gang heads to New Orleans.
Of course, none of this is new. They just pretend it is.
The Nechiporenko story first surfaced 24 years ago in 1993 when Nechiporenko published PASSPORT TO ASSASSINATION - https://www.amazon.com/Passport-Ass...vey-Colonel/dp/155972210X/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
That Oswald got upset when he couldn't obtain his Cuban visa is well-known and detailed in the Warren Report, published 53 years ago in 1964 - https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-13.html#mexico
They did get a couple of things wrong. They had Oswald getting upset on his only visit to the Cuban Embassy over being told he needed to submit a photo of himself. That was wholly incorrect. Oswald did need to supply a photo, but Duran advised him of a nearby location where he could obtain that photo, and Oswald returned later the same day with the required photo.
His visa application - obtained by the HSCA from the Cuban government - has his photo attached (not some imposter's photo). The signature was also verified as Oswald's, which pretty much kills any claims that it wasn't Oswald in Mexico City (not that the facts ever stopped a conspiracy theorist). http://www.blather.net/blather_img/oswald visa application cuba 400 wide.jpg
Oswald did get upset on a later visit over his inability to obtain a Cuban visa. His plan, I believe, was to open an escape hatch for himself and his family upon his assassination of General Walker (he had already failed once in an assassination attempt on Walker). He apparently expected to be hailed as a hero after his assassination of Walker and upon his arrival in Cuba. When he was unable to acquire the Cuban visa, he called the Cuban consul a bureaucrat who was standing in the way of the Cuban revolution (or some such language) and eventually returned to the United States. He apparently felt stymied because he couldn't exactly reveal his plan to commit murder to the Cubans to facilitate his visa.
I'd be willing to bet they deal next week with the allegations of Oswald plotting with Clay Shaw in New Orleans, and whether the Fair Play for Cuba Committee Chapter was Oswald being a Marxist, or simply pretending to be one. Ditto with his attempt to join Carlos Bringuer's group. And no doubt all this will be presented in the same breathless manner as if they just discovered it all and are actively investigating the assassination of JFK.
Hank
Last edited:
2 things... 1. Kleins did not run out of stock on the 36" until September of '63. 2. Kleins did not start selling the 40" until April '63 which is after the time the WC said LHO bought the rifle.
Hank, your imagination is ripe! I took the liberty to highlight your inferences and WAGs. Not one of the speculations is supported by evidence outside of your fertile story telling mind.
And I am sure you can provide documentation to support your guess. The only person who can speak to LHO frame of mind is LHO... not you.
Excellent Straw Men! First, a Witness that saw LHO carry the sack into the TSBD is required. Buell Wesley Frazier witnessed LHO bringing a sack approximately 27" long with him that morning but not a 38" sack. Buell's sister also witnessed seeing a sack the size that her brother saw... outside of that Nobody saw LHO carry a 38" sack into the building that day or any other day. The WC said Frazier was mistaken on the length and then they said his sister was also mistaken yet the cornerstone of the WC saying LHO brought the rifle to work is based on Buell's and his sister's testimony (except for their description of what they say). So the only 2 people who can put LHO with a package were told they were wrong (the size of the package) by a Committee that never saw the package. The 36" rifle broken down still had a measurement of 34.8". Hank, this is classic, you were complaining about Micah dismissing evidence when it didn't fit his outcome and this is exactly what the WC did. So really your question means nothing; it is only a Red Herring.
This is another ridiculous question; it is nothing but speculation within a circular argument.
In order to believe what Hank is saying you need to believe:
That Klein's provided a rifle that had not yet been advertised yet
for sale and continued to advertise a firearm that they no longer had.
The CIA tried to kill Castro how many times (CIA says 8 and Castro says 638)? None of them were successful
This is exactly why a Mannlicher Carcano would be used, it excludes all the 30 aut 6's in the area. You do not want a large pool of suspects. If you want to frame someone make sure you have rock solid "planted" evidence that points the finger at your patsy.
Do not attempt or allude that I am a CT or Lone Nutter, you have no idea. Your use of fallacies is now at the point of absurdity, to actually think a CT or someone who happens to disagree with a point or several points HAS TO HAVE a narrative. That level of thinking establishes the baseline of knowledge or lack of when it comes to discussing differences of opinion. You use the fallacies of Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Popular Opinion is childish.
You recycle your statements way too often, it is tiring hearing about your experience on this thread and again your use of the fallacy of Appeal to Authority is exhausted. You and your supporters are the only ones who can make unsupported claims and that all of your evidence should be believed while those who counter what you say, their information is required to go through a litmus test. Stick to facts instead of speculation.
You need to provide support for this claim.
Once again Hank, I never made a value judgement on Gaudet's comments and if you continue to put words in my mouth and mind without my approval, I will exhaust my paths for remedy.
As usual you twist and add words. Gaudet was a Participant and Walthers was a Spectator.
First, what did Gaudet inflate? Second, if you wish to believe the HSCA then you are a CT'er because they published that LHO most likely did not act alone.
Because you cannot reconcile do not ask me to explain what you fail to understand, that is not my problem.
- Status