Yeah, and so? The question I was addressing was whether or not it was
possible someone stole the rifle. David reacted with fake outrage and
wrote "How is it even remotely possible for a reasonable and rational
person who has been looking deeply into the JFK-assassination evidence
since 2006 (like Patrick J. Speer) to utter the above words about Oswald's
rifle being stolen from Ruth Paine's home prior to 11/22/63?" He then
admitted I was right, and that it was entirely possible someone stole the
rifle in order to frame Oswald. He thought it was possible but not likely.
He then asked questions related to his reasons for believing no one stole
the rifle and that Oswald himself brought the rifle to work, which is an
entirely separate issue.
>A stolen rifle has to fit with the
> rest of the evidence or it's not worthy of belief.
It does. There are a number of pieces of evidence more suggestive of a
set-up than guilt. Fibers that appear after the rifle's been dusted for
prints. Palm prints uncovered by the DPD after the FBI's dusted the rifle
and found no prints. A paper bag put into evidence that supposedly held
the rifle that bears little resemblance to the bag removed from the
building... I'm not a lawyer, but even I could get Oswald off with
evidence as shaky as this. Which might be too bad... IMO, there's a slight
possibility Oswald killed Kennedy, but that the DPD and FBI were afraid it
wouldn't stick, and fudged up a case against him...mucking it up
forevermore...
>If what you propose
> actually happened, was it just a coincidence that Oswald went to Irving on
> Thursday, left his wedding ring, and carried a package to work -- a
> package unusual enough for Frasier to ask Oswald what it was and for his
> sister to bring it up to the cops?
I have no idea. Oswald might have provided us the answer but he was
murdered while under the "protection" of the Dallas Police.
>
>
>
> > P.S. Since Oswald was murdered before he could answer questions 1-3, it is
> > illogical and unfair to assume he had no answers for them. It's like
> > asking, "If Trayvon Martin was a good kid, then why did he get kicked out
> > of school, and why did he attack George Zimmerman?"
>
> Oswald did answer questions 1-3, according to his
> interrogators. He said that he went to Irving on Thursday because there
> was going to be a children's party that weekend (the party had actually
> taken place the previous weekend). He said that the only package he
> brought was his lunch, which he kept in the front seat. Either Oswald
> lied, or these people did.
>
> The theory that Oswald was innocent requires many improbable
> coincidences and a long, long list of people who lied in order to help
> frame him.
The theory Oswald acted alone requires just as many, if not more,
improbables, which is why reasonable people think "Gee, maybe Oswald lied
AND there was a conspiracy." The two aren't mutually exclusive. LNs are
locked into this virgin/whore dichotomy regarding Oswald. True
researchers--people earnestly trying to make their way through the
mindfield (pun intended) of nonsense proposed by LNs and CTs with an
agenda--are willing to acknowledge the possibility of all sorts of
scenarios in which Oswald was involved in some way, and distrustful of the
authorities, and lied. They are also willing to acknowledge the
possibility Oswald killed Tippit.
>CTs never seem to want to address this problem, though.
Just as LNs refuse to address the elephant in the room... There is
clear-cut evidence those pushing Oswald' s guilt lied, lied, lied. We
mentioned Cunningham and Gallagher on another thread. Well, how about
Thomas Kelley, who testified about the May 24 SBT re-enactment for the
Secret Service? He testified that the horizontal trajectory worked because
Connally's jump seat was six inches inboard of the back seat, when the
schematics released by the HSCA showed it to be 2 1/2 inches. At Arlen
Specter's prodding, he also said the back wound used in the re-enactment
was established via the Rydberg drawings. The FBI's Shaneyfelt then
testified that the SBT trajectory approximated the back wound location
used in the re-enactment. Specter then pushed in the WR that the SBT
trajectory approximated the back wound location in the Rydberg drawings.
Well, this last bit was true... And yet, something was a bit odd. NO
photos showing the back wound location used in the re-enactment were
admitted into evidence, and the photo supposedly showing that the SBT
trajectory approximated its position was taken from the front.
And yet, press photos of the re-enactment were recycled with the
publication of the WR, and these showed that the back wound location used
in the re-enactment was INCHES away from its location in the Rydberg
drawings.
And then...years later, after researchers began complaining that the WC
never inspected the autopsy photos to establish the actual back wound
location, Specter and Kelley both admitted that they'd looked at a photo
of Kennedy's back wound on the day of the re-enactment. Well, oops, this
proved--beyond a reasonable doubt--that Kelley lied when he said they'd
used the Rydberg drawings to establish the back wound location.
And then, in time, FBI photos of the re-enactment seeped to the surface.
These showed that the SBT trajectory tested by Specter passed inches above
the back wound location used in the re-enactment. This proved, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that Specter knew Shaneyfelt's testimony that the
trajectory approximated that of the back wound was misleading, if not a
deliberate lie. This proved, moreover, that Specter's pushing, in the WR,
that the SBT trajectory approximated the trajectory in the Rydberg
drawings was also misleading, and deliberately so.
This whole scenario, in fact, suggests that Specter orchestrated the
testimony regarding the re-enactment to hide that 1) the actual back wound
location was inches lower than in the Rydberg drawings, and 2) there were
strong reasons to doubt the SBT trajectory.
This is 2 plus 2 = 4 kind of stuff. But will you find even one LNer
willing to admit that the evidence suggests that Specter deliberately
misled the public and suborned perjury? Of course not.
Because, to them, it's not about uncovering the truth, but about pushing
the one true religion.
> Jean