How did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

[BOZ]

How did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

[Jason Burke]

On 3/31/2017 1:51 PM, BOZ wrote:
> How did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
>

Bob Harris put, it there.

[mainframetech]

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:51:37 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> How did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

You have to be kidding! It was used from the 6th floor window, and to
leave it as evidence to implicate Oswald, it was left on a pallet between
some books.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:51:37 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:

> How did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

If your question was how did it get up to the 6th floor BEFORE the
shooting, Oswald probably took it there and told someone that it was
there. He may have used the paper bag that has been identified with his
prints.

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 1:51:37 PM UTC-7, BOZ wrote:
> How did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

Anthony "Alternative Facts" Marsh left it there.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/31/2017 4:51 PM, BOZ wrote:
> How did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
>

Because someone took it up there to shoot at the President.
Why was it left there?

[bigdog]

You left out the best part. Oswald was the one who did all that.

[bigdog]

Right. That explanation makes a lot more sense than Oswald snuck it into
the building to shoot JFK with it. <chuckle>

One of those two scenarios actually has evidence to support it.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 10:28:37 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

You've stated numerous times here that you've figured out what happened
that day.

Now your argument is that Oswald probably took the rifle - he repeatedly
denied doing so - and that he probably told someone about it.

Probably this and probably that. No evidence for either probability.

And then what happened? Who did this "someone" tell? And what did they -
the person told about the rifle - do? And when was this information
exchanged? That day?

So the day of the assassination someone "probably" found out that Oswald
brought his rifle and that someone - that same day - told someone else?
And this someone else then arranged for shooters - that same day - to
sneak into the building and use the rifle?

Probably?

You have guess after guess after guess after guess. No evidence whatsoever
for you guess. None of the books you cite or the authors you find credible
give any evidence for your guesses.

Your entire argument about what happened is a fantasy.

[David Von Pein]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 10:28:37 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

But it's out of the realm of possibility that Oswald HIMSELF utilized that
particular weapon to fire some shots at President Kennedy at 12:30 PM,
correct?

(Cue the Carolyn Arnold story here....even though....)

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IQXO73gqKtE/X5M6yvg7AQAJ

[OHLeeRedux]

Because even Oswald was not so stupid as to just stroll out of the Book
Depository, carrying his rifle into a large crowd of onlookers and police
officers.

[BOZ]

Someone took it there? Male or female? Why was it left there? Oswald
decided to hide it there because he was the shooter. Even Clouseau could
solve this one.

[Jason Burke]

As is everything else from the conspiracy crowd.
Nothing new here.

[John Paul Jones]

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 1:51:37 PM UTC-7, BOZ wrote:

> How did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

I heard of a video that shows police hoisting a rifle from the roof of the
TSBD that did not have the strap and was not a carcano?

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 10:55:28 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 10:28:37 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:51:37 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > > How did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
> >
> >
> >
> > If your question was how did it get up to the 6th floor BEFORE the
> > shooting, Oswald probably took it there and told someone that it was
> > there. He may have used the paper bag that has been identified with his
> > prints.
> >
> > Chris
>
> But it's out of the realm of possibility that Oswald HIMSELF utilized that
> particular weapon to fire some shots at President Kennedy at 12:30 PM,
> correct?
>

Actually, one of the recommended books made it clear that Oswald was
incapable of shooting at the moment it was needed, and 2 others did it
from the 6th floor. Mac Wallace and Loy Factor. RuthAnne Martinez gave a
signal to the other shooters around the plaza with a walkie-talkie.
Oswald did nothing.

> (Cue the Carolyn Arnold story here....even though....)
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IQXO73gqKtE/X5M6yvg7AQAJ

As usual, DVP has shown false information. The true story of Carolyn
Arnold was told by her in 1978 when she learned that the FBI had lied
about her statement. And he was not the only one they did that to.
There are 2 statements they made up for her, and both were wrong. When a
reporter told her what they had said, she thought it was silly, and she
gave her true statement, which was that she was definite about seeing
Oswald at 12:15pm in the 2nd floor lunchroom. And at about the same time
2 men with a gun were seen in the 6th floor window, which means if Oswald
went there, they weren't going to let him near a window that they had
staked out for themselves.

http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald

See? Anyone can put out links.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 10:51:16 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 10:28:37 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:51:37 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > > How did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
> >
> >
> >
> > If your question was how did it get up to the 6th floor BEFORE the
> > shooting, Oswald probably took it there and told someone that it was
> > there. He may have used the paper bag that has been identified with his
> > prints.
> >
> > Chris
>
> You've stated numerous times here that you've figured out what happened
> that day.
>

Check back and you'll find nothing of the sort. Some of the details
are still in 'probably' status.

> Now your argument is that Oswald probably took the rifle - he repeatedly
> denied doing so - and that he probably told someone about it.
>
> Probably this and probably that. No evidence for either probability.
>

No evidence? All through the case are facts that suggest that Oswald
wanted nothing to do with killing anyone. So even though it was his
rifle, that limits his actions on the final day, and leaves us with
'probably' this and maybe that.

> And then what happened? Who did this "someone" tell? And what did they -
> the person told about the rifle - do? And when was this information
> exchanged? That day?
>

If I let the book "The Men on the Sixth Floor" take over, then the
person that was told was Mac Wallace, and he went up to the 6th floor with
RuthAnne Martinez and Loy Factor, and they took over the shooting and the
signaling to the other shooters around Dealey Plaza to fire all at once.

> So the day of the assassination someone "probably" found out that Oswald
> brought his rifle and that someone - that same day - told someone else?
> And this someone else then arranged for shooters - that same day - to
> sneak into the building and use the rifle?
>
> Probably?
>

See above. You 'probably' won't believe it, since you have the perfect
WCR <belly laugh>, but there it is.

> You have guess after guess after guess after guess. No evidence whatsoever
> for you guess. None of the books you cite or the authors you find credible
> give any evidence for your guesses.
>
> Your entire argument about what happened is a fantasy.

Actually a lot of it is in fact, and much in the books fits with each
other and recognized facts. Think it through. You're trying to argue to
preserve a foolish WCR. The books I've recommended all fit the facts that
were known such as the location of the rifle and the 6th floor, etc. As
well, the books also made it clear that there were multiple shooters in
different locations around the plaza, and that also fits with know facts.

If I can be of further help, let me know.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

Boy, I'd sure love to see that video. That would sure be a bombshell.

I'm guessing that "John Paul Jones" is probably thinking of the Mentesana
film, which shows the police holding one of their own rifles or shotguns
outside the TSBD, not on the "roof".

[mainframetech]

Naah. It doesn't. You been fooling yourself for years now.

Chris

[John McAdams]

On 2 Apr 2017 20:03:03 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

It's a shotgun, and Tony has actually identified the model, since it
was standard with the Dallas cops.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm#2ndrifle

But earlier in the film, there is a brief shot of a cop on the fire
escape of the TSBD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFtyxICeLWg

Groden seems to have inferred that the long gun in the earlier
sequence was a rifle, and that it was brought down and examined.

Bogus, as is typical with Groden.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[mainframetech]

Naah.

Chris

[BOZ]

Danny Arce was the only TSBD worker who saw a stranger enter before
12:30pm

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 10:51:16 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

No evidence for the probability that he told someone he was bringing it.

Lots of evidence that he did bring it.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/1/2017 10:55 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 10:28:37 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:51:37 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
>>> How did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
>>
>>
>>
>> If your question was how did it get up to the 6th floor BEFORE the
>> shooting, Oswald probably took it there and told someone that it was
>> there. He may have used the paper bag that has been identified with his
>> prints.
>>
>> Chris
>
> But it's out of the realm of possibility that Oswald HIMSELF utilized that
> particular weapon to fire some shots at President Kennedy at 12:30 PM,
> correct?
>

Correction: 12"31 PM

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/1/2017 10:51 PM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 10:28:37 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:51:37 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
>>> How did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
>>
>>
>>
>> If your question was how did it get up to the 6th floor BEFORE the
>> shooting, Oswald probably took it there and told someone that it was
>> there. He may have used the paper bag that has been identified with his
>> prints.
>>
>> Chris
>
> You've stated numerous times here that you've figured out what happened
> that day.
>

False

> Now your argument is that Oswald probably took the rifle - he repeatedly
> denied doing so - and that he probably told someone about it.
>

Not exactly what Oswald denied.

> Probably this and probably that. No evidence for either probability.
>

Sounds like your SBT.

> And then what happened? Who did this "someone" tell? And what did they -
> the person told about the rifle - do? And when was this information
> exchanged? That day?
>
> So the day of the assassination someone "probably" found out that Oswald
> brought his rifle and that someone - that same day - told someone else?
> And this someone else then arranged for shooters - that same day - to
> sneak into the building and use the rifle?
>

No, silly. Whoever framed Oswald knew everything months before.
You're not very good at this straw many thing.

> Probably?
>
> You have guess after guess after guess after guess. No evidence whatsoever
> for you guess. None of the books you cite or the authors you find credible
> give any evidence for your guesses.
>

Kinda like your SBT. Welcome to the club.

> Your entire argument about what happened is a fantasy.
>
>

The WC is a fantasy.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 10:51:16 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

What Chris has inadvertently done with his guesses is add one more
conspirator to his plot. His three person shooting team consisted of Mac
Wallace, Loy Factor, and a woman whose name I forget. But now he needs a
middleman who Oswald told where he hid the rifle and who in turn would
tell the shooters. He couldn't have Oswald tell the shooters himself
because he has them sneaking in at the last minute and as we all know from
reading Chris's posts the last few years, Oswald was in the lunchroom the
whole time. Of course he offers no reason why Oswald would tell this
middleman where the rifle was hidden before it was time to show it to him
to sell. Now I suppose he could have told the shooters in advance where he
was going to hide the rifle, but that would make him a co-conspirator and
of course, Oswald was just a patsy.

This complicates things for the plotters as well. Not only do they need to
place their patsy in the TSBD before the motorcade route was determined
but they need to have a middleman working on the inside as well. And since
Oswald got his job well in advance of the motorcade route being
determined, they would need somebody planning the motorcade on their team
and that somebody would need to have to clout to make sure the motorcade
got routed where he wanted it. Now who would have that kind of clout? Oh,
I know. John Connally. That's it. He must have been part of the plot. I
guess they call that taking one for the team.

[Anthony Marsh]

Ah, paper bag? Duh? No one saw Oswald carry a rifle INTO the TSBD.

>

[mainframetech]

Not really. Oswald was seen in the 6th floor lunchroom at about 12:31pm
by Officer Baker. The others that were there on the 6th floor left down
the back stairs and out the loading dock door to a waiting car.

Chris

[mainframetech]

It was also intended to implicate Oswald as the killer, so the rifle
which was his had to be leift there. Note that the other rifle that was
there on the 6th floor was taken out.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 6:32:34 PM UTC-4, John Paul Jones wrote:

Oh, you heard of it. That's really compelling stuff.

[bigdog]

One author lies and another one swears to it. To you that constitutes
corroboration.

[BOZ]

2 others did it from the 6th floor. Mac Wallace and Loy Factor. So you
are NOW ADMITTING THAT THE SHOTS THAT KILLED KENNEDY CAME FROM ABOVE AND
BEHIND.

[BOZ]

12 30 pm is the correct time.

[David Von Pein]

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 8:31:07 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 4/1/2017 10:55 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 10:28:37 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> >> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:51:37 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> >>> How did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If your question was how did it get up to the 6th floor BEFORE the
> >> shooting, Oswald probably took it there and told someone that it was
> >> there. He may have used the paper bag that has been identified with his
> >> prints.
> >>
> >> Chris
> >
> > But it's out of the realm of possibility that Oswald HIMSELF utilized that
> > particular weapon to fire some shots at President Kennedy at 12:30 PM,
> > correct?
> >
>
> Correction: 12:31 PM
>

Correcting Tony's correction:
The assassination occurred at 12:30 exactly. (Click the image below.)

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U9wms0p8VJk/WOGodlMMEBI/AAAAAAABLmE/pnnIQMjktawyvUfKlsxlkTMZ25l59L98gCLcB/s1600/RH-Book-Excerpt-Time-Of-Assassination.png

[David Von Pein]

Thank you, John.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1239.html

[mainframetech]

WRONG again! He obviously brought his rifle to work, probably in the
paper bag. That would then be followed by the first book story of Mac
Wallace and his shooting team going up the back stairs to the 6th floor,
and firing on the motorcade, and that means that Wallace knew where the
rifle was hidden. That book was called "the Men on the Sixth Floor" by
Collum and Sample.

> What Chris has inadvertently done with his guesses is add one more
> conspirator to his plot. His three person shooting team consisted of Mac
> Wallace, Loy Factor, and a woman whose name I forget. But now he needs a
> middleman who Oswald told where he hid the rifle and who in turn would
> tell the shooters.

WRONG! How stupid can you get? Why have some middleman when Wallace
could be told where the rifle was? Stop inventing people to add to the
plot. Too much imagination on your part. And you might have the courage
to talk to me directly, or are you running for office?

He couldn't have Oswald tell the shooters himself
> because he has them sneaking in at the last minute and as we all know from
> reading Chris's posts the last few years, Oswald was in the lunchroom the
> whole time.

WRONG! How foolish of you! Oswald came in early in the morning and he
had much of the morning to hide the rifle and call to Wallace and inform
him where the rifle was. Or just as easily, they could have decided the
day before where to hide it. Stop trying to make problems with your
imagination.

> Of course he offers no reason why Oswald would tell this
> middleman where the rifle was hidden before it was time to show it to him
> to sell. Now I suppose he could have told the shooters in advance where he
> was going to hide the rifle, but that would make him a co-conspirator and
> of course, Oswald was just a patsy.
>

WRONG! Forget the middleman, I dealt him out above. Use you head for
something besides a hammer.

> This complicates things for the plotters as well. Not only do they need to
> place their patsy in the TSBD before the motorcade route was determined
> but they need to have a middleman working on the inside as well.

There was NO frigging middleman, and none needed. Get it together.

> And since
> Oswald got his job well in advance of the motorcade route being
> determined, they would need somebody planning the motorcade on their team
> and that somebody would need to have to clout to make sure the motorcade
> got routed where he wanted it. Now who would have that kind of clout? Oh,
> I know. John Connally. That's it. He must have been part of the plot. I
> guess they call that taking one for the team.

WRONG! Looks like you've lost it from losing so many arguments. They
knew they were going to bring JFK to Dallas at some point, and having
someone in the most obvious part of the route that would be chosen was not
a foolish move. Setting the route would be probably the job of Rowley,
the SS chief, and suspected as one of the plotters.

Try to build up the courage to talk to me directly, I can help you out
of your constant errors.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Of course. He did indeed bring it. It was his, who else would bring
it? However, did he the hide it and inform the shooter where it was? He
didn't fire it himself. All evidence previous to the shooting suggests
that he did not want to shoot anyone. He never practiced with his rifle,
and he never bought ammunition for it. The FBI tried to find where he
would buy ammo and they found 2 places, and one of them had reloaded all
his ammo with lead bullets, probably for hunting. The other had no memory
of having seen Oswald.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Correction. According to Fritz, Oswald repeatedly denied *owning* a rifle
at that time; he didn't repeatedly deny bringing it to work.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh

Take the time to wrap up his rifle while police are zeroing in on his
position? Stupid.

I would say "Nice try" but let's be honest -- your suggestion is really
lame.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/3/2017 3:40 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 8:10:05 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 2 Apr 2017 20:03:03 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 6:32:34 PM UTC-4, John Paul Jones wrote:
>>>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 1:51:37 PM UTC-7, BOZ wrote:
>>>>> How did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
>>>>
>>>> I heard of a video that shows police hoisting a rifle from the roof of the
>>>> TSBD that did not have the strap and was not a carcano?
>>>
>>> Boy, I'd sure love to see that video. That would sure be a bombshell.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing that "John Paul Jones" is probably thinking of the Mentesana
>>> film, which shows the police holding one of their own rifles or shotguns
>>> outside the TSBD, not on the "roof".
>>
>> It's a shotgun, and Tony has actually identified the model, since it
>> was standard with the Dallas cops.
>>

Groden: Turning a Shotgun into a Rifle

In both his video, The Assassination Films, and in his book The
Killing of a President, Robert Groden shows a segment from an amateur film
by Charles Mentesana that pictures a policeman holding a gun. He says that
the gun is a "second rifle" brought down from the Texas School Book
Depository, and says that the gun is "not a Carcano, and has never been
placed into evidence."

Sounds spooky, right? Two rifles in the Depository.

When Groden first showed his video at the 1995 COPA convention, Tony
Marsh wrote him to correct this mistake:

Several of us in the audience were very troubled by your
narration of some films. You are the leading photographic interpreter in
the research community and many people will take your word as gospel. So,
it is especially important that your video not perpetuate any myths. For
example, in the Mentesana footage you state that the policeman is holding
a second rifle, found in the TSBD. That is not a rifle; it is a shotgun.
The barrel and the bore are too big in diameter for a rifle. Some shotguns
have distinctive profiles and magazine caps by which we can identify them
at a glance. The shotgun the policeman was holding was his Remington 870.
I have enclosed some examples of that model for you to compare to the
Mentesana footage. I have reduced a diagram of the Remington 870 to about
the same size as an overlay transparency of the Mentesana frame from your
book so that you can see for yourself that they have the same profile at
the same size. Also, one of the cops in the tramp photos carried a
Remington 870. There were at least three different makes and models of
shotguns used by the DPD and the Remington 870 is one of the most popular
police shotguns.

Interestingly, still photos and films of Dallas cops holding shotguns
that are apparently identical to the one in the Mentesana film are
plentiful. But Groden neither prints any of them in his book, nor includes
any in his video. Needless to say, Groden has not corrected his mistake.

Addendum. Another researcher at the same conference made the same
objection. I can't remember his name, but he showed me a composite he had
made of the Mentessana film next to a photo of the Remington 870 to show
that the profiles match exactly. I offered to put it on my own Web site,
because he didn't know how to upload it, but I never heard back from him.
Even is he was actually a WC defender he was a nice guy.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/3/2017 3:39 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 8:31:07 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 4/1/2017 10:55 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 10:28:37 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:51:37 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
>>>>> How did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If your question was how did it get up to the 6th floor BEFORE the
>>>> shooting, Oswald probably took it there and told someone that it was
>>>> there. He may have used the paper bag that has been identified with his
>>>> prints.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>
>>> But it's out of the realm of possibility that Oswald HIMSELF utilized that
>>> particular weapon to fire some shots at President Kennedy at 12:30 PM,
>>> correct?
>>>
>>
>> Correction: 12:31 PM
>>
>
> Correcting Tony's correction:
> The assassination occurred at 12:30 exactly. (Click the image below.)
>
> https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U9wms0p8VJk/WOGodlMMEBI/AAAAAAABLmE/pnnIQMjktawyvUfKlsxlkTMZ25l59L98gCLcB/s1600/RH-Book-Excerpt-Time-Of-Assassination.png
>

Wrong. The clock is wrong. The DPD tape shows 12:31 PM.

[Anthony Marsh]

No. Not necessarily the shots that killed him. Maybe the shots that missed
him. The acoustical evidence proved that 3 shots were fired from the
sniper's nest.

I am getting annoyed by your refusal to obey the rules and quote properly.
So now I will quote you and claim that YOU said,"2 others did it from the

[mainframetech]

So now you're ready to accept anything that Oswald said during
interrogation?

I seem to remember he claimed innocence as to the murder.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

So what? It does not work in reverse. That does not rule out someone not
seeing a stranger enter before 12:30.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/2/2017 6:32 PM, John Paul Jones wrote:

> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 1:51:37 PM UTC-7, BOZ wrote:
>> How did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
>

> I heard of a video that shows police hoisting a rifle from the roof of the
> TSBD that did not have the strap and was not a carcano?
>

It's policeman with his shotgun talking to witnesses.

[Anthony Marsh]

Exactly. I don't mean to open a can or worms, but someone could argue
that he took a rifle and he didn't own it.

[bigdog]

You just accused Oswald of being a co-conspirator. And all this time I
thought you had him as an innocent patsy.

>
>
> > Of course he offers no reason why Oswald would tell this
> > middleman where the rifle was hidden before it was time to show it to him
> > to sell. Now I suppose he could have told the shooters in advance where he
> > was going to hide the rifle, but that would make him a co-conspirator and
> > of course, Oswald was just a patsy.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! Forget the middleman, I dealt him out above. Use you head for
> something besides a hammer.
>

With Oswald supplying the rifle to shooters, that makes him an accessory
to the assassination of JFK.

>
>
> > This complicates things for the plotters as well. Not only do they need to
> > place their patsy in the TSBD before the motorcade route was determined
> > but they need to have a middleman working on the inside as well.
>
>
>
> There was NO frigging middleman, and none needed. Get it together.
>

Not if you're going to switch horses and tell us Oswald was a
co-conspirator.

>
>
> > And since
> > Oswald got his job well in advance of the motorcade route being
> > determined, they would need somebody planning the motorcade on their team
> > and that somebody would need to have to clout to make sure the motorcade
> > got routed where he wanted it. Now who would have that kind of clout? Oh,
> > I know. John Connally. That's it. He must have been part of the plot. I
> > guess they call that taking one for the team.
>
>
> WRONG! Looks like you've lost it from losing so many arguments. They
> knew they were going to bring JFK to Dallas at some point, and having
> someone in the most obvious part of the route that would be chosen was not
> a foolish move. Setting the route would be probably the job of Rowley,
> the SS chief, and suspected as one of the plotters.
>

It was only obvious if they decided to have the luncheon at the Trade
Mart. If they had been going to the other locations being considered there
would be no need to make the job onto Elm St. They would have stayed on
Main and may have even reversed the direction of the motorcade through
downtown from west to east.

> Try to build up the courage to talk to me directly, I can help you out
> of your constant errors.
>

We've been down this road before. You have made comments about me to other
posters and you don't see me getting all whiny about it, but if I make a
comment about you to another poster you act as if it is somehow a breach
of netiquette. Just one more example of the double standards you employ.

[BOZ]

BUELL FRAZIER SAW OSWALD CARRY A LARGE PACKAGE. FRAZIER DID NOT HAVE XRAY
VISION

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/3/2017 6:28 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Anthony Marsh
> On 4/2/2017 2:01 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 1:41:24 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2017 4:51 PM, BOZ wrote:
>>>> How did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Because someone took it up there to shoot at the President.
>>> Why was it left there?
>>
>>
>> Because even Oswald was not so stupid as to just stroll out of the Book
>> Depository, carrying his rifle into a large crowd of onlookers and police
>> officers.
>>
>
> Ah, paper bag? Duh? No one saw Oswald carry a rifle INTO the TSBD.
>
>
> Take the time to wrap up his rifle while police are zeroing in on his
> position? Stupid.

Silly. It was already made into a sturdy bag. It woiuld only take a
couple of seconds to put the Carcano in it.

[Anthony Marsh]

False.

> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

Try thinking it through. No one said that the rifle was put into the
bag AFTER the shooting. At that time it was obviously left on the pallet
of books amid the boxes. Why would they bother to wrap up the rifle in
anything when in a hurry?

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

That's a fair cop. Accessory before the fact.
But that still does not prove that he was shooting.

>>
>>
>>> This complicates things for the plotters as well. Not only do they need to
>>> place their patsy in the TSBD before the motorcade route was determined
>>> but they need to have a middleman working on the inside as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> There was NO frigging middleman, and none needed. Get it together.
>>
>
> Not if you're going to switch horses and tell us Oswald was a
> co-conspirator.
>

That still makes it a conspiracy. Fritz tried to get Buell Frazier to
sign a confession that he was an accessory before the fact. Frazier did
not fire any shots and he had witnesses in the TSBD and outside.

>>
>>
>>> And since
>>> Oswald got his job well in advance of the motorcade route being
>>> determined, they would need somebody planning the motorcade on their team
>>> and that somebody would need to have to clout to make sure the motorcade
>>> got routed where he wanted it. Now who would have that kind of clout? Oh,
>>> I know. John Connally. That's it. He must have been part of the plot. I
>>> guess they call that taking one for the team.
>>
>>
>> WRONG! Looks like you've lost it from losing so many arguments. They
>> knew they were going to bring JFK to Dallas at some point, and having
>> someone in the most obvious part of the route that would be chosen was not
>> a foolish move. Setting the route would be probably the job of Rowley,
>> the SS chief, and suspected as one of the plotters.
>>
>
> It was only obvious if they decided to have the luncheon at the Trade
> Mart. If they had been going to the other locations being considered there
> would be no need to make the job onto Elm St. They would have stayed on

Silly. They did not need to make the JOG onto Elm to get to the Trade
Mart. They could have kept going down Main Street. They WANTED to go
through Dealey Plaza.

They could have gone directly from the airport to the Trade Mart and
avoided Dealey Plaza.

> Main and may have even reversed the direction of the motorcade through
> downtown from west to east.
>

Show us on a map how your West to East route gets them to the Trade Mart.

>> Try to build up the courage to talk to me directly, I can help you out
>> of your constant errors.
>>
>
> We've been down this road before. You have made comments about me to other
> posters and you don't see me getting all whiny about it, but if I make a

I see you get whiney every day. And use ad hominems.

[BOZ]

Name another witness who saw a stranger enter before 12 30pm.

[Anthony Marsh]

Neither did any of the other Dealey Plaza witnesses.

[Anthony Marsh]

Pallet? Show me the pallet.
I said if someone WANTED to take it out unnoticed, just put it in the
back. We see a cop carrying out the bag. Does it have a rifle in it?

> Chris
>

[OHLeeRedux]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 9:55:09 PM UTC-7, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 6:28:29 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> > Anthony Marsh
> > On 4/2/2017 2:01 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 1:41:24 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > >> On 3/31/2017 4:51 PM, BOZ wrote:
> > >>> How did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Because someone took it up there to shoot at the President.
> > >> Why was it left there?
> > >
> > >
> > > Because even Oswald was not so stupid as to just stroll out of the Book
> > > Depository, carrying his rifle into a large crowd of onlookers and police
> > > officers.
> > >
> >
> > Ah, paper bag? Duh? No one saw Oswald carry a rifle INTO the TSBD.
> >
> >
> > Take the time to wrap up his rifle while police are zeroing in on his
> > position? Stupid.
> >
> > I would say "Nice try" but let's be honest -- your suggestion is really
> > lame.
>
>
>
> Try thinking it through. No one said that the rifle was put into the
> bag AFTER the shooting.

Anthony "Alternative Facts" Marsh said it, although he'll probably deny
it.

[mainframetech]

It makes no difference if there was a stranger or not. The TSBD as
home to a few different companies and they had many employees that may
have been strangers to anyone standing near the door. And it didn't have
to be a stranger coming in from outside. Though there were 3 that came in
near the time of the shooting. They came in at the loading dock and went
up the back stairs while everyone was looking out for the motorcade. As
soon as they finished shooting, they ran down the back stairs and out the
loading dock to a waiting car.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Ya think it was curtain rods?

Chris

[mainframetech]

Oswald was a 'patsy' but not an innocent one. He did no shooting, but
knew something of the plot as far as doing his part in acquiring the
rifle. But he had no intention of shooting anyone, and didn't on the
fateful day. Though he was said to be present, he was unable to help or
do any shooting. I don't know if he knew the plot was to shoot JFK. Her
supposedly liked JFK.

> > > Of course he offers no reason why Oswald would tell this
> > > middleman where the rifle was hidden before it was time to show it to him
> > > to sell. Now I suppose he could have told the shooters in advance where he
> > > was going to hide the rifle, but that would make him a co-conspirator and
> > > of course, Oswald was just a patsy.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Forget the middleman, I dealt him out above. Use you head for
> > something besides a hammer.
> >
>
> With Oswald supplying the rifle to shooters, that makes him an accessory
> to the assassination of JFK.
>

You could say that. Doesn't matter now though. I'm not sure what
they did to make him do their bidding, but he was under control at the 6th
floor from what I can see.

> >
> >
> > > This complicates things for the plotters as well. Not only do they need to
> > > place their patsy in the TSBD before the motorcade route was determined
> > > but they need to have a middleman working on the inside as well.
> >
> >
> >
> > There was NO frigging middleman, and none needed. Get it together.
> >
>
> Not if you're going to switch horses and tell us Oswald was a
> co-conspirator.
>

WRONG! I'm not going to say that. But it appears that he had some
knowledge of what they were doing, at least as far as the 6th floor went.
I don't know if he was willing or not. He did not fire a rifle, that's
for sure.

> >
> >
> > > And since
> > > Oswald got his job well in advance of the motorcade route being
> > > determined, they would need somebody planning the motorcade on their team
> > > and that somebody would need to have to clout to make sure the motorcade
> > > got routed where he wanted it. Now who would have that kind of clout? Oh,
> > > I know. John Connally. That's it. He must have been part of the plot. I
> > > guess they call that taking one for the team.
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Looks like you've lost it from losing so many arguments. They
> > knew they were going to bring JFK to Dallas at some point, and having
> > someone in the most obvious part of the route that would be chosen was not
> > a foolish move. Setting the route would be probably the job of Rowley,
> > the SS chief, and suspected as one of the plotters.
> >
>
> It was only obvious if they decided to have the luncheon at the Trade
> Mart. If they had been going to the other locations being considered there
> would be no need to make the job onto Elm St. They would have stayed on
> Main and may have even reversed the direction of the motorcade through
> downtown from west to east.
>

WRONG! What other places did they have in mind? You seems to know
what they were thinking and planning. Are you also trying to be a psychic
among all your other expert faces? The planners missed in Florida and
another place, but things came together in Dallas. If they hadn't, I
don't doubt they would try somewhere else.

> > Try to build up the courage to talk to me directly, I can help you out
> > of your constant errors.
> >
>
> We've been down this road before. You have made comments about me to other
> posters and you don't see me getting all whiny about it, but if I make a
> comment about you to another poster you act as if it is somehow a breach
> of netiquette. Just one more example of the double standards you employ.

If you are able to look back, notice that I speak of you to others when
you do it. Get it together.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't have to. I said does not rule out.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 3:25:14 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:

It could have happened. Probably.

Maybe this or maybe that or possibly this or possibly that.

We know the routine. We have to give a detailed explanation of Oswald's
actions.

On the other hand, when they're asked to detail how the conspiracy was
done we get maybe this and probably that and Gulf of Tonkin and Hoover was
bad and this and that.

Just fantasies.

[John Paul Jones]

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 1:51:37 PM UTC-7, BOZ wrote:
> How did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

On the Trail of the Assassins, a reference is made to the video police
hoisting rifle from the roof of the tsbd. The specific film is identified.
Von Pein should address.

[BOZ]

This someone could never be Oswald. It would blow your whole theory.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not large. Not large enough to hold a rifle.

[bigdog]

I suppose we are making progress even if it comes at glacial speed. You
have finally admitted Oswald was a co-conspirator just as you finally came
around to admitting MAYBE he shot Tippit too. At this pace in another 50
years you might just figure this thing out.

>
>
>
> > > > Of course he offers no reason why Oswald would tell this
> > > > middleman where the rifle was hidden before it was time to show it to him
> > > > to sell. Now I suppose he could have told the shooters in advance where he
> > > > was going to hide the rifle, but that would make him a co-conspirator and
> > > > of course, Oswald was just a patsy.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Forget the middleman, I dealt him out above. Use you head for
> > > something besides a hammer.
> > >
> >
> > With Oswald supplying the rifle to shooters, that makes him an accessory
> > to the assassination of JFK.
> >
>
>
>
> You could say that. Doesn't matter now though. I'm not sure what
> they did to make him do their bidding, but he was under control at the 6th
> floor from what I can see.
>

Under control? Did the devil make him do it?

>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > This complicates things for the plotters as well. Not only do they need to
> > > > place their patsy in the TSBD before the motorcade route was determined
> > > > but they need to have a middleman working on the inside as well.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There was NO frigging middleman, and none needed. Get it together.
> > >
> >
> > Not if you're going to switch horses and tell us Oswald was a
> > co-conspirator.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! I'm not going to say that. But it appears that he had some
> knowledge of what they were doing, at least as far as the 6th floor went.
> I don't know if he was willing or not. He did not fire a rifle, that's
> for sure.
>

Just how stupid do you think Oswald was? 3 strangers want to come to his
work place and have Oswald leave a rifle there for them on the day the
POTUS was going to be passing right in front of the building in a slow
moving open top car and you don't think Oswald could figure out what they
were up to? As Vincent Bugliosi once observed, if Oswald was a patsy he
was the most cooperative patsy in history because everything he did over
the course of two days made him look like he was guilty.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > And since
> > > > Oswald got his job well in advance of the motorcade route being
> > > > determined, they would need somebody planning the motorcade on their team
> > > > and that somebody would need to have to clout to make sure the motorcade
> > > > got routed where he wanted it. Now who would have that kind of clout? Oh,
> > > > I know. John Connally. That's it. He must have been part of the plot. I
> > > > guess they call that taking one for the team.
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Looks like you've lost it from losing so many arguments. They
> > > knew they were going to bring JFK to Dallas at some point, and having
> > > someone in the most obvious part of the route that would be chosen was not
> > > a foolish move. Setting the route would be probably the job of Rowley,
> > > the SS chief, and suspected as one of the plotters.
> > >
> >
> > It was only obvious if they decided to have the luncheon at the Trade
> > Mart. If they had been going to the other locations being considered there
> > would be no need to make the job onto Elm St. They would have stayed on
> > Main and may have even reversed the direction of the motorcade through
> > downtown from west to east.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! What other places did they have in mind? You seems to know
> what they were thinking and planning. Are you also trying to be a psychic
> among all your other expert faces? The planners missed in Florida and
> another place, but things came together in Dallas. If they hadn't, I
> don't doubt they would try somewhere else.
>

One doesn't need to be psychic to know what other places were being
considered. All one has to do is read the WCR but since you refuse to do
that you'll just have to remain in the dark.

>
>
> > > Try to build up the courage to talk to me directly, I can help you out
> > > of your constant errors.
> > >
> >
> > We've been down this road before. You have made comments about me to other
> > posters and you don't see me getting all whiny about it, but if I make a
> > comment about you to another poster you act as if it is somehow a breach
> > of netiquette. Just one more example of the double standards you employ.
>
>
> If you are able to look back, notice that I speak of you to others when
> you do it. Get it together.
>

Really? That's the best you can do?

[Anthony Marsh]

Mentessana film. Been there, done that. Most people only know the one
still.

https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/mentesana-3.jpg

And before you even ask, no, that is not an antenna coming out of the
man's head, like My Favorite Martian.

Lots of people have the whole film, but there is often a contest to see
who has the best narration. Sometimes there is a contest to see who has
the worst music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkvPoAPaBds

[Anthony Marsh]

False. We have documented every claim we've made. Just because you deny
reality does not mean that it does not exist.

> Just fantasies.
>

[OHLeeRedux]

Not true. A typical Marsh alternative fact.

[mainframetech]

Nor when they're based on facts.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG again! You'll never get it! Oswald wasn't a co-conspirator. He was an unwilling dupe. While he knew a bit about why Mac Wallace was on the 6th floor, he didn't fully realize that he was going to be the 'patsy'. He did no shooting.

> > > > > Of course he offers no reason why Oswald would tell this
> > > > > middleman where the rifle was hidden before it was time to show it to him
> > > > > to sell. Now I suppose he could have told the shooters in advance where he
> > > > > was going to hide the rifle, but that would make him a co-conspirator and
> > > > > of course, Oswald was just a patsy.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! Forget the middleman, I dealt him out above. Use you head for
> > > > something besides a hammer.
> > > >
> > >
> > > With Oswald supplying the rifle to shooters, that makes him an accessory
> > > to the assassination of JFK.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > You could say that. Doesn't matter now though. I'm not sure what
> > they did to make him do their bidding, but he was under control at the 6th
> > floor from what I can see.
> >
>
> Under control? Did the devil make him do it?

As I said, I don't know what they did to gain control of him, but that appears to be the case.

> > > > > This complicates things for the plotters as well. Not only do they need to
> > > > > place their patsy in the TSBD before the motorcade route was determined
> > > > > but they need to have a middleman working on the inside as well.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There was NO frigging middleman, and none needed. Get it together.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not if you're going to switch horses and tell us Oswald was a
> > > co-conspirator.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! I'm not going to say that. But it appears that he had some
> > knowledge of what they were doing, at least as far as the 6th floor went.
> > I don't know if he was willing or not. He did not fire a rifle, that's
> > for sure.
> >
>
> Just how stupid do you think Oswald was? 3 strangers want to come to his
> work place and have Oswald leave a rifle there for them on the day the
> POTUS was going to be passing right in front of the building in a slow
> moving open top car and you don't think Oswald could figure out what they
> were up to? As Vincent Bugliosi once observed, if Oswald was a patsy he
> was the most cooperative patsy in history because everything he did over
> the course of two days made him look like he was guilty.

That was the idea, didn't you know that? Not that Bugliosi knew much. He was WRONG too.

The WCR has nothing of value in it. I've read portions of it and I know from that exposure that it's a waste. It's for the suckers.

> > > > Try to build up the courage to talk to me directly, I can help you out
> > > > of your constant errors.
> > > >
> > >
> > > We've been down this road before. You have made comments about me to other
> > > posters and you don't see me getting all whiny about it, but if I make a
> > > comment about you to another poster you act as if it is somehow a breach
> > > of netiquette. Just one more example of the double standards you employ.
> >
> >
> > If you are able to look back, notice that I speak of you to others when
> > you do it. Get it together.
> >
>
> Really? That's the best you can do?

You think I waste my best on you? Naah.

Chris

[bigdog]

If he knew what Mac Wallace was doing on the 6th floor and he supplied him
the rifle that would make him an accessory and a co-conspirator. He would
be guilty of murder even if he never fired a shot and that's according to
your scenario.

>
>
> > > > > > Of course he offers no reason why Oswald would tell this
> > > > > > middleman where the rifle was hidden before it was time to show it to him
> > > > > > to sell. Now I suppose he could have told the shooters in advance where he
> > > > > > was going to hide the rifle, but that would make him a co-conspirator and
> > > > > > of course, Oswald was just a patsy.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! Forget the middleman, I dealt him out above. Use you head for
> > > > > something besides a hammer.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > With Oswald supplying the rifle to shooters, that makes him an accessory
> > > > to the assassination of JFK.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You could say that. Doesn't matter now though. I'm not sure what
> > > they did to make him do their bidding, but he was under control at the 6th
> > > floor from what I can see.
> > >
> >
> > Under control? Did the devil make him do it?
>
>
>
> As I said, I don't know what they did to gain control of him, but that appears to be the case.
>

Just when I think you can't get any sillier, you surprise me. I don't know
why I should be surprised. You think it more likely that someone had mind
control over Oswald than that Oswald did all those things on his own. How
can you believe so much nonsense when there is a very simple straight
forward explanation available. Oswald brought his rifle to work and used
it to shoot JFK. No need for convoluted conspiracies involving a small
army to cover up what really happened. No need to imagine those charged
with investigating the crime engaged in a massive cover up. One little guy
did it all by himself.

>
>
> > > > > > This complicates things for the plotters as well. Not only do they need to
> > > > > > place their patsy in the TSBD before the motorcade route was determined
> > > > > > but they need to have a middleman working on the inside as well.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There was NO frigging middleman, and none needed. Get it together.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not if you're going to switch horses and tell us Oswald was a
> > > > co-conspirator.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! I'm not going to say that. But it appears that he had some
> > > knowledge of what they were doing, at least as far as the 6th floor went.
> > > I don't know if he was willing or not. He did not fire a rifle, that's
> > > for sure.
> > >
> >
> > Just how stupid do you think Oswald was? 3 strangers want to come to his
> > work place and have Oswald leave a rifle there for them on the day the
> > POTUS was going to be passing right in front of the building in a slow
> > moving open top car and you don't think Oswald could figure out what they
> > were up to? As Vincent Bugliosi once observed, if Oswald was a patsy he
> > was the most cooperative patsy in history because everything he did over
> > the course of two days made him look like he was guilty.
>
>
>
>
> That was the idea, didn't you know that? Not that Bugliosi knew much. He was WRONG too.

So on top of all the other nutty stuff you have proposed, you now have
Oswald acting like a robot for reasons only you seem to comprehend.

It has the other possible luncheon sites listed which would have answered
the question you asked. But you don't want answers. You prefer fables.

>
>
> > > > > Try to build up the courage to talk to me directly, I can help you out
> > > > > of your constant errors.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We've been down this road before. You have made comments about me to other
> > > > posters and you don't see me getting all whiny about it, but if I make a
> > > > comment about you to another poster you act as if it is somehow a breach
> > > > of netiquette. Just one more example of the double standards you employ.
> > >
> > >
> > > If you are able to look back, notice that I speak of you to others when
> > > you do it. Get it together.
> > >
> >
> > Really? That's the best you can do?
>
>
>
> You think I waste my best on you? Naah.
>

Well it's nice to know that crap you write isn't your best. It would be
pretty sad if it was.

[mainframetech]

I don't believe he knew what Wallace was doing. He may have (repeat:
'may have') thought Wallace was after Connally, or he may have thought
anything but that he was planned as the 'patsy' to kill JFK. I feel
reasonably sure that Oswald knew that Wallace was a killer, and that if he
said or did the wrong thing, he was going to be dead himself.

> > > > > > > Of course he offers no reason why Oswald would tell this
> > > > > > > middleman where the rifle was hidden before it was time to show it to him
> > > > > > > to sell. Now I suppose he could have told the shooters in advance where he
> > > > > > > was going to hide the rifle, but that would make him a co-conspirator and
> > > > > > > of course, Oswald was just a patsy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WRONG! Forget the middleman, I dealt him out above. Use you head for
> > > > > > something besides a hammer.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > With Oswald supplying the rifle to shooters, that makes him an accessory
> > > > > to the assassination of JFK.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You could say that. Doesn't matter now though. I'm not sure what
> > > > they did to make him do their bidding, but he was under control at the 6th
> > > > floor from what I can see.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Under control? Did the devil make him do it?
> >
> >
> >
> > As I said, I don't know what they did to gain control of him, but that appears to be the case.
> >
>
> Just when I think you can't get any sillier, you surprise me. I don't know
> why I should be surprised. You think it more likely that someone had mind
> control over Oswald than that Oswald did all those things on his own. How
> can you believe so much nonsense when there is a very simple straight
> forward explanation available.

WRONG! Leave it to you to take the easy path where you have no
responsibility, and the simplest explanation is the one you can
understand, so you go for it! If you are standing next to a killer who
has a gun, and you believe he will kill you if you don't do like you're
told, you do what you have to do to stay alive. You play it cool and keep
your mouth shut. That is the kind of 'mind control' I meant, not some
sci-fi version that your wild imagination concocted.

Now what-all things did you think that Oswald did on his own? And do
you have any idea what he was thinking at those times?

Oswald brought his rifle to work and used
> it to shoot JFK. No need for convoluted conspiracies involving a small
> army to cover up what really happened. No need to imagine those charged
> with investigating the crime engaged in a massive cover up. One little guy
> did it all by himself.
>

WRONG! Oswald proved that he had no interest in shooting anyone
throughout his time with a rifle. It appears he didn't buy ammo, he
didn't practice with his rifle, and he threw in the corner of the garage
after he got the photos that he wanted with it. It was worn and corroded
when the FBI looked at it, and was not safe to shoot when the army looked
at it, and had to be repaired by the gunsmith before they would fire it.

> > > > > > > This complicates things for the plotters as well. Not only do they need to
> > > > > > > place their patsy in the TSBD before the motorcade route was determined
> > > > > > > but they need to have a middleman working on the inside as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There was NO frigging middleman, and none needed. Get it together.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not if you're going to switch horses and tell us Oswald was a
> > > > > co-conspirator.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! I'm not going to say that. But it appears that he had some
> > > > knowledge of what they were doing, at least as far as the 6th floor went.
> > > > I don't know if he was willing or not. He did not fire a rifle, that's
> > > > for sure.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just how stupid do you think Oswald was? 3 strangers want to come to his
> > > work place and have Oswald leave a rifle there for them on the day the
> > > POTUS was going to be passing right in front of the building in a slow
> > > moving open top car and you don't think Oswald could figure out what they
> > > were up to? As Vincent Bugliosi once observed, if Oswald was a patsy he
> > > was the most cooperative patsy in history because everything he did over
> > > the course of two days made him look like he was guilty.
> >
> >
> >
> >

> > That was the idea, didn't you know that? Not that Bugliosi knew much. He was WRONG too. Who told you they were strangers to him? You made another opinion of no worth. Oswald had a whole life that was shaded from you. Including his involvement with Jack Ruby, who was definitely Mafia connected.

>



> So on top of all the other nutty stuff you have proposed, you now have
> Oswald acting like a robot for reasons only you seem to comprehend.
>

WRONG! I didn't say I comprehended it at all. I can only think he was
being controlled by fear of being killed or some similar method of
control. He probably knew the people on the 6th floor, but didn't wish to
do any killing.

Thank you. I'm not a fan of your writing either, nor your foolish
imagination.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Try to make yourself clear. Do you think that Oswald even know about Mac
Wallace? Yes or no?

General Walker. "Hunter of Fascists." "Kill any American."
That pretty much sums up Oswald's world view.

>
>
> Oswald brought his rifle to work and used
>> it to shoot JFK. No need for convoluted conspiracies involving a small
>> army to cover up what really happened. No need to imagine those charged
>> with investigating the crime engaged in a massive cover up. One little guy
>> did it all by himself.
>>
>
>
> WRONG! Oswald proved that he had no interest in shooting anyone
> throughout his time with a rifle. It appears he didn't buy ammo, he
> didn't practice with his rifle, and he threw in the corner of the garage
> after he got the photos that he wanted with it. It was worn and corroded
> when the FBI looked at it, and was not safe to shoot when the army looked
> at it, and had to be repaired by the gunsmith before they would fire it.
>

Explain the ammo boxes the DPD found.

Why did he buy a revolver or are you going to deny that as well? Are you
going to deny that Oswald pulled out his revolver at the Soviet embsassy
in Mexico? Why don't you just deny that Oswald ever existed? You are a
serial denier.

[bigdog]

You just got done saying, "While he knew a bit about why Mac Wallace was
on the 6th floor". If he knew that he would have been a conspirator. If he
didn't he was incredibly stupid. Someone asks Oswald to sneak his rifle
into work and hide it and you want us to believe Oswald wouldn't have even
been curious as to why. He couldn't make the connection between that and
JFK passing by the building. He couldn't figure out that if his rifle was
used to kill JFK that would make him a prime suspect.

> He may have (repeat:
> 'may have') thought Wallace was after Connally,

That still makes him a co-conspirator, not a patsy.

> or he may have thought
> anything but that he was planned as the 'patsy' to kill JFK.

If he supplied a rifle to someone to shoot Joe Schmoe then he was a
co-conspirator. If he couldn't figure out that if the murder weapon were
traced back to him he would have been stump stupid. Oswald was not stump
stupid.

> I feel
> reasonably sure that Oswald knew that Wallace was a killer, and that if he
> said or did the wrong thing, he was going to be dead himself.
>

You just accused Oswald of being a co-conspirator in the assassination of
JFK.

>
>
>
> > > > > > > > Of course he offers no reason why Oswald would tell this
> > > > > > > > middleman where the rifle was hidden before it was time to show it to him
> > > > > > > > to sell. Now I suppose he could have told the shooters in advance where he
> > > > > > > > was going to hide the rifle, but that would make him a co-conspirator and
> > > > > > > > of course, Oswald was just a patsy.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > WRONG! Forget the middleman, I dealt him out above. Use you head for
> > > > > > > something besides a hammer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With Oswald supplying the rifle to shooters, that makes him an accessory
> > > > > > to the assassination of JFK.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You could say that. Doesn't matter now though. I'm not sure what
> > > > > they did to make him do their bidding, but he was under control at the 6th
> > > > > floor from what I can see.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Under control? Did the devil make him do it?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As I said, I don't know what they did to gain control of him, but that appears to be the case.
> > >
> >
> > Just when I think you can't get any sillier, you surprise me. I don't know
> > why I should be surprised. You think it more likely that someone had mind
> > control over Oswald than that Oswald did all those things on his own. How
> > can you believe so much nonsense when there is a very simple straight
> > forward explanation available.
>
>
>
>
> WRONG! Leave it to you to take the easy path where you have no
> responsibility,

There is no rule that says presidential assassinations have to be
complicated. Booth learned that Lincoln was coming to his work place and
snuck into his box and shot him in the back of the head. Charles Guiteau
waited for Garfield on a railroad platform and shot him at close range.
Leon Csolgosz shot McKinley at close range as he was shaking hands with
the public. All simple acts. The JFK assassination was no more complicated
that that. The only difference is that Oswald used a rifle from some
distance. It is only complicated to put who want it to be complicated.

> and the simplest explanation is the one you can
> understand, so you go for it!

The simplest explanation is the one the evidence gives us.

> If you are standing next to a killer who
> has a gun, and you believe he will kill you if you don't do like you're
> told, you do what you have to do to stay alive. You play it cool and keep
> your mouth shut. That is the kind of 'mind control' I meant, not some
> sci-fi version that your wild imagination concocted.
>

All of that are things you have imagined because there is no evidence any
of that happened.

> Now what-all things did you think that Oswald did on his own? And do
> you have any idea what he was thinking at those times?
>

Oswald snuck his rifle into work in a makeshift paper bag and when JFK
rode past he stuck it out the window and shot him. I have no idea what he
was thinking when he did that.

>
>
> Oswald brought his rifle to work and used
> > it to shoot JFK. No need for convoluted conspiracies involving a small
> > army to cover up what really happened. No need to imagine those charged
> > with investigating the crime engaged in a massive cover up. One little guy
> > did it all by himself.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Oswald proved that he had no interest in shooting anyone
> throughout his time with a rifle. It appears he didn't buy ammo, he
> didn't practice with his rifle, and he threw in the corner of the garage
> after he got the photos that he wanted with it. It was worn and corroded
> when the FBI looked at it, and was not safe to shoot when the army looked
> at it, and had to be repaired by the gunsmith before they would fire it.
>

Oswald proved no such thing. You have pretended to know what was going on
in Oswald's mind because it's your excuse to believe didn't kill JFK.

>
>
> > > > > > > > This complicates things for the plotters as well. Not only do they need to
> > > > > > > > place their patsy in the TSBD before the motorcade route was determined
> > > > > > > > but they need to have a middleman working on the inside as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There was NO frigging middleman, and none needed. Get it together.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not if you're going to switch horses and tell us Oswald was a
> > > > > > co-conspirator.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! I'm not going to say that. But it appears that he had some
> > > > > knowledge of what they were doing, at least as far as the 6th floor went.
> > > > > I don't know if he was willing or not. He did not fire a rifle, that's
> > > > > for sure.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just how stupid do you think Oswald was? 3 strangers want to come to his
> > > > work place and have Oswald leave a rifle there for them on the day the
> > > > POTUS was going to be passing right in front of the building in a slow
> > > > moving open top car and you don't think Oswald could figure out what they
> > > > were up to? As Vincent Bugliosi once observed, if Oswald was a patsy he
> > > > was the most cooperative patsy in history because everything he did over
> > > > the course of two days made him look like he was guilty.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That was the idea, didn't you know that? Not that Bugliosi knew much. He was WRONG too. Who told you they were strangers to him? You made another opinion of no worth. Oswald had a whole life that was shaded from you. Including his involvement with Jack Ruby, who was definitely Mafia connected.
> >
>
>
>
> > So on top of all the other nutty stuff you have proposed, you now have
> > Oswald acting like a robot for reasons only you seem to comprehend.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! I didn't say I comprehended it at all. I can only think he was
> being controlled by fear of being killed or some similar method of
> control. He probably knew the people on the 6th floor, but didn't wish to
> do any killing.
>

I'm not surprised that is the only thing you can think of even though
there is no evidence that supports that.

Ultimate irony alert.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! "A bit" is a small amount. Knowing a small part of what
someone is doing does not tell you what is being done in full. I hate to
bother explaining these simple things to you, but I'm eternally patient.
A good example is knowing that a train will come by your location at
6:15pm, but not whether it will be an express that will run right on by,
or a local that will stop for you.

> If he knew that he would have been a conspirator.

WRONG! Not necessarily. He may think he was in the know, while he was
really just being used, and would later be a 'patsy'.

> If he
> didn't he was incredibly stupid. Someone asks Oswald to sneak his rifle
> into work and hide it and you want us to believe Oswald wouldn't have even
> been curious as to why.

WRONG! You (of course) forgot that Oswald might have been told all
kinds of stories that he believed, only to find out later than he was
duped, like all the WCR believers.

> He couldn't make the connection between that and
> JFK passing by the building. He couldn't figure out that if his rifle was
> used to kill JFK that would make him a prime suspect.
>

WRONG! You forget that Connally also passed the building. And a
number of other dignitaries and agents of the SS. And if anything
occurred to him, there was always Mac Wallace with a rifle sitting right
there.

> > He may have (repeat:
> > 'may have') thought Wallace was after Connally,
>
> That still makes him a co-conspirator, not a patsy.
>

WRONG! Thinking that someone was after a governor, and knowing it, or
being told a story and believing it, then later finding out you'd been had
does not make someone guilty.

You sure got a lot of WRONGs in this post. Mind not working right?

> > or he may have thought
> > anything but that he was planned as the 'patsy' to kill JFK.
>
> If he supplied a rifle to someone to shoot Joe Schmoe then he was a
> co-conspirator.

He supplied a rifle, but as to what it was for exactly, he may not have
known.

> If he couldn't figure out that if the murder weapon were
> traced back to him he would have been stump stupid. Oswald was not stump
> stupid.
>

If he was given a good enough excuse he may have believed it, but if
not, there was always Wallace with a gun at his back. Think it through.

> > I feel
> > reasonably sure that Oswald knew that Wallace was a killer, and that if he
> > said or did the wrong thing, he was going to be dead himself.
> >
>
> You just accused Oswald of being a co-conspirator in the assassination of
> JFK.
>

WRONG! You did. I said otherwise!

WRONG! Why do I keep hearing that the Lincoln killing was a plot?

"The assassination of Lincoln was planned and carried out by the
well-known stage actor John Wilkes Booth, as part of a larger conspiracy
in a bid to revive the Confederate cause."

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Abraham_Lincoln




> Leon Csolgosz shot McKinley at close range as he was shaking hands with
> the public. All simple acts. The JFK assassination was no more complicated
> that that. The only difference is that Oswald used a rifle from some
> distance. It is only complicated to put who want it to be complicated.
>

The evidence suggests that Oswald did NOT fire his rifle into Dealey
Plaza, probably Loy Factor did that chore, and missed all 3 shots.

> > and the simplest explanation is the one you can
> > understand, so you go for it!
>
> The simplest explanation is the one the evidence gives us.
>

FALSE! You have NO evidence saying that. You have a few
circumstantial items and that's it. None of which say Oswald did anything
with the rifle.

> > If you are standing next to a killer who
> > has a gun, and you believe he will kill you if you don't do like you're
> > told, you do what you have to do to stay alive. You play it cool and keep
> > your mouth shut. That is the kind of 'mind control' I meant, not some
> > sci-fi version that your wild imagination concocted.
> >
>
> All of that are things you have imagined because there is no evidence any
> of that happened.
>

WRONG! There is evidence that I have put forward, and corroboration
as well. Stop trying to cover it up.

> > Now what-all things did you think that Oswald did on his own? And do
> > you have any idea what he was thinking at those times?
> >
>
> Oswald snuck his rifle into work in a makeshift paper bag and when JFK
> rode past he stuck it out the window and shot him. I have no idea what he
> was thinking when he did that.
>

WRONG! Of course you don't, because he had no reason to do that.
Others were there to do it, and it was stated to that effect.

> >
> >
> > Oswald brought his rifle to work and used
> > > it to shoot JFK. No need for convoluted conspiracies involving a small
> > > army to cover up what really happened. No need to imagine those charged
> > > with investigating the crime engaged in a massive cover up. One little guy
> > > did it all by himself.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Oswald proved that he had no interest in shooting anyone
> > throughout his time with a rifle. It appears he didn't buy ammo, he
> > didn't practice with his rifle, and he threw in the corner of the garage
> > after he got the photos that he wanted with it. It was worn and corroded
> > when the FBI looked at it, and was not safe to shoot when the army looked
> > at it, and had to be repaired by the gunsmith before they would fire it.
> >
>
> Oswald proved no such thing. You have pretended to know what was going on
> in Oswald's mind because it's your excuse to believe didn't kill JFK.
>

FALSE! I've put forward the reasons that it was easy to see that
Oswald did not buy the rifle for shooting people, he bought it to look
like he was rough and ready, and once he got his photos with the rifle, he
rolled it up in a blanket and threw it in the garage.

Actually, there is a lot of evidence, all of which I've put forward.

Thanks for warning us of what you're about to do.

Chris

[bigdog]

If Oswald supplied a rifle for Mac Wallace to use and couldn't figure out
what it was for he would have been the stupidest man in Dallas.

> I hate to
> bother explaining these simple things to you, but I'm eternally patient.
> A good example is knowing that a train will come by your location at
> 6:15pm, but not whether it will be an express that will run right on by,
> or a local that will stop for you.
>

I suppose there is a point in there somewhere but we would need a search
party to find it.

>
> > If he knew that he would have been a conspirator.
>
>
>
> WRONG! Not necessarily. He may think he was in the know, while he was
> really just being used, and would later be a 'patsy'.
>

So you think Oswald was just stump stupid?

>
>
> > If he
> > didn't he was incredibly stupid. Someone asks Oswald to sneak his rifle
> > into work and hide it and you want us to believe Oswald wouldn't have even
> > been curious as to why.
>
>
>
> WRONG! You (of course) forgot that Oswald might have been told all
> kinds of stories that he believed, only to find out later than he was
> duped, like all the WCR believers.
>

And if he be dumb enough to believe any of them he would be a good
candidate for becoming a conspiracy hobbyist.

>
>
> > He couldn't make the connection between that and
> > JFK passing by the building. He couldn't figure out that if his rifle was
> > used to kill JFK that would make him a prime suspect.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! You forget that Connally also passed the building. And a
> number of other dignitaries and agents of the SS.
>

Oh, he only thought they were going to shoot the governor. I guess that
let's him off the hook then.

>
> And if anything occurred to him, there was always Mac Wallace with a rifle
> sitting right there.

You mean with the rifle Oswald gave him.

>
>
> > > He may have (repeat:
> > > 'may have') thought Wallace was after Connally,
> >
> > That still makes him a co-conspirator, not a patsy.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Thinking that someone was after a governor, and knowing it, or
> being told a story and believing it, then later finding out you'd been had
> does not make someone guilty.
>

If he thought they were going to use his rifle to shoot Joe Schmoe he
would still be a conspirator.

> You sure got a lot of WRONGs in this post. Mind not working right?
>

As I've told you before, it is always reassuring when you tell me I am
wrong because you are almost never right.

>
>
> > > or he may have thought
> > > anything but that he was planned as the 'patsy' to kill JFK.
> >
> > If he supplied a rifle to someone to shoot Joe Schmoe then he was a
> > co-conspirator.
>
>
>
> He supplied a rifle, but as to what it was for exactly, he may not have
> known.
>

And he wasn't at all curious. Boy he was dumb.

>
>
> > If he couldn't figure out that if the murder weapon were
> > traced back to him he would have been stump stupid. Oswald was not stump
> > stupid.
> >
>
>
> If he was given a good enough excuse he may have believed it, but if
> not, there was always Wallace with a gun at his back. Think it through.
>

I'd love to hear that excuse but something tells me this is one of those
blanks you aren't going to fill in because anything you could insert in
that blank would sound really stupid.

>
>
>
> > > I feel
> > > reasonably sure that Oswald knew that Wallace was a killer, and that if he
> > > said or did the wrong thing, he was going to be dead himself.
> > >
> >
> > You just accused Oswald of being a co-conspirator in the assassination of
> > JFK.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! You did. I said otherwise!

You said he knew that Wallace was a killer and he supplied him a rifle
which was used to shoot JFK. That would make him an accessory to murder
and a co-conspirator.

No one said it wasn't a conspiracy. The act itself was very simple. He
snuck into the President's box and shot him in the back of the head. While
it was part of a larger plot to decapitate the federal government, Booth's
carried out his part of it all by himself.

>
>
>
> > Leon Csolgosz shot McKinley at close range as he was shaking hands with
> > the public. All simple acts. The JFK assassination was no more complicated
> > that that. The only difference is that Oswald used a rifle from some
> > distance. It is only complicated to put who want it to be complicated.
> >
>
>
> The evidence suggests that Oswald did NOT fire his rifle into Dealey
> Plaza, probably Loy Factor did that chore, and missed all 3 shots.
>

It only suggests that to people who prefer to believe nonsense.

>
>
> > > and the simplest explanation is the one you can
> > > understand, so you go for it!
> >
> > The simplest explanation is the one the evidence gives us.
> >
>
>
> FALSE! You have NO evidence saying that.

None that you wouldn't find an excuse to dismiss.

> You have a few
> circumstantial items and that's it. None of which say Oswald did anything
> with the rifle.
>

Not to people who can't add 2 + 2.

>
>
>
> > > If you are standing next to a killer who
> > > has a gun, and you believe he will kill you if you don't do like you're
> > > told, you do what you have to do to stay alive. You play it cool and keep
> > > your mouth shut. That is the kind of 'mind control' I meant, not some
> > > sci-fi version that your wild imagination concocted.
> > >
> >
> > All of that are things you have imagined because there is no evidence any
> > of that happened.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! There is evidence that I have put forward, and corroboration
> as well. Stop trying to cover it up.
>

Where is your evidence or corroboration that Oswald was threatened or
coerced to cooperate with the assassins?

>
>
> > > Now what-all things did you think that Oswald did on his own? And do
> > > you have any idea what he was thinking at those times?
> > >
> >
> > Oswald snuck his rifle into work in a makeshift paper bag and when JFK
> > rode past he stuck it out the window and shot him. I have no idea what he
> > was thinking when he did that.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Of course you don't, because he had no reason to do that.

He had a reason. I just don't know what it was. I'm not sure it would make
sense to me if I did.

> Others were there to do it, and it was stated to that effect.
>

There is zero evidence others were involved. That comes purely from
assumptions, speculations, and imagination.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Oswald brought his rifle to work and used
> > > > it to shoot JFK. No need for convoluted conspiracies involving a small
> > > > army to cover up what really happened. No need to imagine those charged
> > > > with investigating the crime engaged in a massive cover up. One little guy
> > > > did it all by himself.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Oswald proved that he had no interest in shooting anyone
> > > throughout his time with a rifle. It appears he didn't buy ammo, he
> > > didn't practice with his rifle, and he threw in the corner of the garage
> > > after he got the photos that he wanted with it. It was worn and corroded
> > > when the FBI looked at it, and was not safe to shoot when the army looked
> > > at it, and had to be repaired by the gunsmith before they would fire it.
> > >
> >
> > Oswald proved no such thing. You have pretended to know what was going on
> > in Oswald's mind because it's your excuse to believe didn't kill JFK.
> >

I have never pretended to know what was going on in Oswald's mind and have
stated so numerous times. How many examples would you like. I can play the
guessing game as well as anybody else as to what his motive was but there
is no way anyone can know that.

>
>
>
> FALSE! I've put forward the reasons that it was easy to see that
> Oswald did not buy the rifle for shooting people,

Your reasons made no sense.

> he bought it to look
> like he was rough and ready,

Now you are pretending to know what was going on in Oswald's mind. You
have no evidence to support that statement.

> and once he got his photos with the rifle, he
> rolled it up in a blanket and threw it in the garage.
>

And that is where he retrieved it from the night before he killed JFK with
it.

Sure you have. <chuckle>

[mainframetech]

Well, he let himself be blamed for killing JFK, and when he had a
chance to say something to the cops, he chose silence. Or he was indeed
'under control' by blackmail or fear of death, or whatever.

> > I hate to
> > bother explaining these simple things to you, but I'm eternally patient.
> > A good example is knowing that a train will come by your location at
> > 6:15pm, but not whether it will be an express that will run right on by,
> > or a local that will stop for you.
> >
>
> I suppose there is a point in there somewhere but we would need a search
> party to find it.
>

Well, you would. You have shown a lack of understanding of even the
simplest things.

> >
> > > If he knew that he would have been a conspirator.
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Not necessarily. He may think he was in the know, while he was
> > really just being used, and would later be a 'patsy'.
> >
> So you think Oswald was just stump stupid?

Hey, do you know how many things over time you've not understood? A lot
more than Oswald.

> > > If he
> > > didn't he was incredibly stupid. Someone asks Oswald to sneak his rifle
> > > into work and hide it and you want us to believe Oswald wouldn't have even
> > > been curious as to why.
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! You (of course) forgot that Oswald might have been told all
> > kinds of stories that he believed, only to find out later than he was
> > duped, like all the WCR believers.
> >
>
> And if he be dumb enough to believe any of them he would be a good
> candidate for becoming a conspiracy hobbyist.
>

Like you? You're a WCR believer.

> > > He couldn't make the connection between that and
> > > JFK passing by the building. He couldn't figure out that if his rifle was
> > > used to kill JFK that would make him a prime suspect.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! You forget that Connally also passed the building. And a
> > number of other dignitaries and agents of the SS.
> >
>
> Oh, he only thought they were going to shoot the governor. I guess that
> let's him off the hook then.
>

WRONG! We don't know what he was told or what he was thinking.

> > And if anything occurred to him, there was always Mac Wallace with a rifle
> > sitting right there.
>
> You mean with the rifle Oswald gave him.
>

WRONG! Factor had that one, Wallace had a different one.

> > > > He may have (repeat:
> > > > 'may have') thought Wallace was after Connally,
> > >
> > > That still makes him a co-conspirator, not a patsy.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Thinking that someone was after a governor, and knowing it, or
> > being told a story and believing it, then later finding out you'd been had
> > does not make someone guilty.
> >
>
> If he thought they were going to use his rifle to shoot Joe Schmoe he
> would still be a conspirator.
>

Not under the info I set up for conspirators. The original plan was
made by plotters, no one else was one of them. Some folks were following
orders, or they were duped into doing things, or whatever, but were NOT
plotters.

> > You sure got a lot of WRONGs in this post. Mind not working right?
> >
>
> As I've told you before, it is always reassuring when you tell me I am
> wrong because you are almost never right.
>
> >
> >
> > > > or he may have thought
> > > > anything but that he was planned as the 'patsy' to kill JFK.
> > >
> > > If he supplied a rifle to someone to shoot Joe Schmoe then he was a
> > > co-conspirator.
> >
> >
> >
> > He supplied a rifle, but as to what it was for exactly, he may not have
> > known.
> >
>
> And he wasn't at all curious. Boy he was dumb.
>

Depends. We don't know if a rifle was put under his nose and he was
told to shut up and don't say a word. That's one possibility out of many.

> > > If he couldn't figure out that if the murder weapon were
> > > traced back to him he would have been stump stupid. Oswald was not stump
> > > stupid.
> > >
> >
> >
> > If he was given a good enough excuse he may have believed it, but if
> > not, there was always Wallace with a gun at his back. Think it through.
> >
>
> I'd love to hear that excuse but something tells me this is one of those
> blanks you aren't going to fill in because anything you could insert in
> that blank would sound really stupid.

The stupidity is in the asking. We haven't a clue what was used on
Oswald there on the 6th floor.

> > > > I feel
> > > > reasonably sure that Oswald knew that Wallace was a killer, and that if he
> > > > said or did the wrong thing, he was going to be dead himself.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You just accused Oswald of being a co-conspirator in the assassination of
> > > JFK.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! You did. I said otherwise!
>
> You said he knew that Wallace was a killer and he supplied him a rifle
> which was used to shoot JFK. That would make him an accessory to murder
> and a co-conspirator.
>

I did NOT say that Wallace was supplied a rifle to kill JFK with. We
do NOT know what Oswald was told, or not told. Wallace was indeed a
killer, known around Texas, and Oswald may have known it too. If he was
threatened, he might have believed the threat and shut up right away. We
just don't know. Try and remember what we have talked about, and save me
some wiping behind your ears.

As far as we know. Whether someone was in the theater that let him
past, we don't know. Or someone that pointed out the right booth Lincoln
was in.

> > > Leon Csolgosz shot McKinley at close range as he was shaking hands with
> > > the public. All simple acts. The JFK assassination was no more complicated
> > > that that. The only difference is that Oswald used a rifle from some
> > > distance. It is only complicated to put who want it to be complicated.
> > >
> >
> >
> > The evidence suggests that Oswald did NOT fire his rifle into Dealey
> > Plaza, probably Loy Factor did that chore, and missed all 3 shots.
> >
>
> It only suggests that to people who prefer to believe nonsense.

Oh? You have some proof that you've been holding back? Everything
you've shown up to now wouldn't get a serial killer indicted.

> > > > and the simplest explanation is the one you can
> > > > understand, so you go for it!
> > >
> > > The simplest explanation is the one the evidence gives us.
> > >
> >
> >
> > FALSE! You have NO evidence saying that.
>
> None that you wouldn't find an excuse to dismiss.
>
> > You have a few
> > circumstantial items and that's it. None of which say Oswald did anything
> > with the rifle.
> >
>
> Not to people who can't add 2 + 2.
>

4

> >
> >
> >
> > > > If you are standing next to a killer who
> > > > has a gun, and you believe he will kill you if you don't do like you're
> > > > told, you do what you have to do to stay alive. You play it cool and keep
> > > > your mouth shut. That is the kind of 'mind control' I meant, not some
> > > > sci-fi version that your wild imagination concocted.
> > > >
> > >
> > > All of that are things you have imagined because there is no evidence any
> > > of that happened.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! There is evidence that I have put forward, and corroboration
> > as well. Stop trying to cover it up.
> >
>
> Where is your evidence or corroboration that Oswald was threatened or
> coerced to cooperate with the assassins?
>

We have a statement to that effect, and like any case, it often hinges
on testimony of witnesses. As well, there is evidence that suggests that
Oswald did not want to kill anyone.

> > > > Now what-all things did you think that Oswald did on his own? And do
> > > > you have any idea what he was thinking at those times?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oswald snuck his rifle into work in a makeshift paper bag and when JFK
> > > rode past he stuck it out the window and shot him. I have no idea what he
> > > was thinking when he did that.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Of course you don't, because he had no reason to do that.
>
> He had a reason. I just don't know what it was. I'm not sure it would make
> sense to me if I did.
>

WRONG! If you don't know the reason, then it's very possible there was
no reason, and you certainly can't be sure about it. Since Oswald did no
shooting, why would he have a reason to shoot anyone?

> > Others were there to do it, and it was stated to that effect.
> >
>
> There is zero evidence others were involved. That comes purely from
> assumptions, speculations, and imagination.
>

FALSE! There was clear statements that others were to do shooting, and
there was proof also in the plaza of shots from multiple guns.

> > > > Oswald brought his rifle to work and used
> > > > > it to shoot JFK. No need for convoluted conspiracies involving a small
> > > > > army to cover up what really happened. No need to imagine those charged
> > > > > with investigating the crime engaged in a massive cover up. One little guy
> > > > > did it all by himself.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! Oswald proved that he had no interest in shooting anyone
> > > > throughout his time with a rifle. It appears he didn't buy ammo, he
> > > > didn't practice with his rifle, and he threw in the corner of the garage
> > > > after he got the photos that he wanted with it. It was worn and corroded
> > > > when the FBI looked at it, and was not safe to shoot when the army looked
> > > > at it, and had to be repaired by the gunsmith before they would fire it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oswald proved no such thing. You have pretended to know what was going on
> > > in Oswald's mind because it's your excuse to believe didn't kill JFK.
> > >
>
> I have never pretended to know what was going on in Oswald's mind and have
> stated so numerous times. How many examples would you like. I can play the
> guessing game as well as anybody else as to what his motive was but there
> is no way anyone can know that.
>

WRONG! There are suggestions in some of the events leading up to the
shooting. And testimony to the effect that Oswald did not handle a gun
while on the 6th floor.

> > FALSE! I've put forward the reasons that it was easy to see that
> > Oswald did not buy the rifle for shooting people,
>
> Your reasons made no sense.
>

To you.

> > he bought it to look
> > like he was rough and ready,
>
> Now you are pretending to know what was going on in Oswald's mind. You
> have no evidence to support that statement.
>
> > and once he got his photos with the rifle, he
> > rolled it up in a blanket and threw it in the garage.
> >
>
> And that is where he retrieved it from the night before he killed JFK with
> it.
>

Probably.

Guaranteed. <belly laugh>

Chris

[bigdog]

He did that by killing JFK.

> and when he had a
> chance to say something to the cops, he chose silence. Or he was indeed
> 'under control' by blackmail or fear of death, or whatever.
>

Or facing the electric chair.

>
>
> > > I hate to
> > > bother explaining these simple things to you, but I'm eternally patient.
> > > A good example is knowing that a train will come by your location at
> > > 6:15pm, but not whether it will be an express that will run right on by,
> > > or a local that will stop for you.
> > >
> >
> > I suppose there is a point in there somewhere but we would need a search
> > party to find it.
> >
>
>
> Well, you would. You have shown a lack of understanding of even the
> simplest things.
>

There is nothing simple about the things you propose. Everything you
believe requires the most convoluted scenarios imaginable.

>
>
> > >
> > > > If he knew that he would have been a conspirator.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Not necessarily. He may think he was in the know, while he was
> > > really just being used, and would later be a 'patsy'.
> > >
> > So you think Oswald was just stump stupid?
>
>
>
> Hey, do you know how many things over time you've not understood? A lot
> more than Oswald.
>

So you think Oswald was just stump stupid?

>
>
> > > > If he
> > > > didn't he was incredibly stupid. Someone asks Oswald to sneak his rifle
> > > > into work and hide it and you want us to believe Oswald wouldn't have even
> > > > been curious as to why.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! You (of course) forgot that Oswald might have been told all
> > > kinds of stories that he believed, only to find out later than he was
> > > duped, like all the WCR believers.
> > >
> >
> > And if he be dumb enough to believe any of them he would be a good
> > candidate for becoming a conspiracy hobbyist.
> >
>
>
> Like you? You're a WCR believer.
>

Yes I am. The polar opposite of a conspiracy hobbyist.

>
>
> > > > He couldn't make the connection between that and
> > > > JFK passing by the building. He couldn't figure out that if his rifle was
> > > > used to kill JFK that would make him a prime suspect.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! You forget that Connally also passed the building. And a
> > > number of other dignitaries and agents of the SS.
> > >
> >
> > Oh, he only thought they were going to shoot the governor. I guess that
> > let's him off the hook then.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! We don't know what he was told or what he was thinking.
>

You can't logically say that Oswald was just a patsy and then provided the
murder weapon to the shooter. If he supplied the murder weapon to the
triggerman, he would be as guilty as if he pulled the trigger himself no
matter who the intended target was.

>
>
> > > And if anything occurred to him, there was always Mac Wallace with a rifle
> > > sitting right there.
> >
> > You mean with the rifle Oswald gave him.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Factor had that one, Wallace had a different one.
>

Doesn't matter. Under your scenario all three would be guilty of capital
murder.

>
>
> > > > > He may have (repeat:
> > > > > 'may have') thought Wallace was after Connally,
> > > >
> > > > That still makes him a co-conspirator, not a patsy.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Thinking that someone was after a governor, and knowing it, or
> > > being told a story and believing it, then later finding out you'd been had
> > > does not make someone guilty.
> > >
> >
> > If he thought they were going to use his rifle to shoot Joe Schmoe he
> > would still be a conspirator.
> >
>
>
> Not under the info I set up for conspirators. The original plan was
> made by plotters, no one else was one of them. Some folks were following
> orders, or they were duped into doing things, or whatever, but were NOT
> plotters.
>

You still haven't supplied a rational explanation for how Oswald was duped
into supplying his rifle to the shooter. You used to tell us he brought it
in to sell to somebody at the TSBD but you dropped that one when you
decided to have him supplying the shooting team with a rifle. Now you need
a new explanation for why he would do that which wouldn't make him an
accessory to capital murder but you seem to be having a problem coming up
with one. Not surprising given there is no plausible explanation that fits
the bill.

>
>
> > > You sure got a lot of WRONGs in this post. Mind not working right?
> > >
> >
> > As I've told you before, it is always reassuring when you tell me I am
> > wrong because you are almost never right.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > or he may have thought
> > > > > anything but that he was planned as the 'patsy' to kill JFK.
> > > >
> > > > If he supplied a rifle to someone to shoot Joe Schmoe then he was a
> > > > co-conspirator.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > He supplied a rifle, but as to what it was for exactly, he may not have
> > > known.
> > >
> >
> > And he wasn't at all curious. Boy he was dumb.
> >
>
>
>
> Depends. We don't know if a rifle was put under his nose and he was
> told to shut up and don't say a word. That's one possibility out of many.
>

Just what do you suppose a completely innocent man would do if he were
told to bring a rifle to his workplace knowing that three strangers were
going to take possession of it on a day in which the POTUS was going to be
passing by in a slow moving open top car. Would he dutifully supply them
with the rifle and then carry on as if nothing were happening rather than
alert law enforcement about what was happening. Wouldn't he at the very
least suspect those people were intending to use his rifle to shoot the
POTUS. Wouldn't he at least make sure he was with people he worked with at
the time the POTUS passed by so he would have an alibi. But no, you have
him handing over his rifle to those people and then slipping out of sight
and then fleeing the scene of the crime in the immediate aftermath. As
Bugliosi observed he must have been the most cooperative patsy in
history.

>
>
> > > > If he couldn't figure out that if the murder weapon were
> > > > traced back to him he would have been stump stupid. Oswald was not stump
> > > > stupid.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If he was given a good enough excuse he may have believed it, but if
> > > not, there was always Wallace with a gun at his back. Think it through.
> > >
> >
> > I'd love to hear that excuse but something tells me this is one of those
> > blanks you aren't going to fill in because anything you could insert in
> > that blank would sound really stupid.
>
>
> The stupidity is in the asking. We haven't a clue what was used on
> Oswald there on the 6th floor.
>

You can't even come up with a rational possibility.

>
>
> > > > > I feel
> > > > > reasonably sure that Oswald knew that Wallace was a killer, and that if he
> > > > > said or did the wrong thing, he was going to be dead himself.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You just accused Oswald of being a co-conspirator in the assassination of
> > > > JFK.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! You did. I said otherwise!
> >
> > You said he knew that Wallace was a killer and he supplied him a rifle
> > which was used to shoot JFK. That would make him an accessory to murder
> > and a co-conspirator.
> >
>
>
> I did NOT say that Wallace was supplied a rifle to kill JFK with. We
> do NOT know what Oswald was told, or not told.

That never stopped you before from making things up like when you used to
tell us he brought his rifle to work to sell even though you have no
evidence of that. You just made the assumption.

> Wallace was indeed a
> killer, known around Texas, and Oswald may have known it too. If he was
> threatened, he might have believed the threat and shut up right away. We
> just don't know. Try and remember what we have talked about, and save me
> some wiping behind your ears.
>

So you can't think of any plausible explanation for why Oswald would
cooperate with known killers if he wasn't an accomplice.

Booth was a well known actor who worked regularly at that theater so he
could pretty much go wherever he chose without arousing suspicion. It also
helped that the soldier who was supposed to be guarding the entrance to
the box was at a nearby tavern getting plastered.

>
>
>
> > > > Leon Csolgosz shot McKinley at close range as he was shaking hands with
> > > > the public. All simple acts. The JFK assassination was no more complicated
> > > > that that. The only difference is that Oswald used a rifle from some
> > > > distance. It is only complicated to put who want it to be complicated.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The evidence suggests that Oswald did NOT fire his rifle into Dealey
> > > Plaza, probably Loy Factor did that chore, and missed all 3 shots.
> > >
> >
> > It only suggests that to people who prefer to believe nonsense.
>
>
>
> Oh? You have some proof that you've been holding back? Everything
> you've shown up to now wouldn't get a serial killer indicted.
>

The proof is on the table. His rifle. His prints on the rifle, the rifle
bag, and the boxes in the sniper's nest. His shirt fibers on the butt
plate of the rifle. Fleeing the scene of the crime in the immediate
aftermath and gunning down the first cop who stopped him. An eyewitness
who identified the shooter as being the same guy which all that other
evidence pointed to. Stack that up against the "evidence" you have
presented that Loy Factor and Mac Wallace were the shooters. A story
supposedly told by a dead guy.

>
>
> > > > > and the simplest explanation is the one you can
> > > > > understand, so you go for it!
> > > >
> > > > The simplest explanation is the one the evidence gives us.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > FALSE! You have NO evidence saying that.
> >
> > None that you wouldn't find an excuse to dismiss.
> >
> > > You have a few
> > > circumstantial items and that's it. None of which say Oswald did anything
> > > with the rifle.
> > >
> >
> > Not to people who can't add 2 + 2.
> >
>
>
> 4
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > If you are standing next to a killer who
> > > > > has a gun, and you believe he will kill you if you don't do like you're
> > > > > told, you do what you have to do to stay alive. You play it cool and keep
> > > > > your mouth shut. That is the kind of 'mind control' I meant, not some
> > > > > sci-fi version that your wild imagination concocted.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > All of that are things you have imagined because there is no evidence any
> > > > of that happened.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! There is evidence that I have put forward, and corroboration
> > > as well. Stop trying to cover it up.
> > >
> >
> > Where is your evidence or corroboration that Oswald was threatened or
> > coerced to cooperate with the assassins?
> >
>
>
> We have a statement to that effect,

Which of course you won't quote. Oswald said he was a patsy but didn't say
anything about being threatened. His story was that the cops singled him
out because he had lived in Russia. Got any other statements?

> and like any case, it often hinges
> on testimony of witnesses.

The WCR doesn't rely on witnesses. It is based on hard physical evidence
which can refute or corroborate witnesses.

> As well, there is evidence that suggests that
> Oswald did not want to kill anyone.
>

There is no such evidence. That is something you dreamed up which doesn't
remotely constitute evidence.

>
>
> > > > > Now what-all things did you think that Oswald did on his own? And do
> > > > > you have any idea what he was thinking at those times?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oswald snuck his rifle into work in a makeshift paper bag and when JFK
> > > > rode past he stuck it out the window and shot him. I have no idea what he
> > > > was thinking when he did that.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Of course you don't, because he had no reason to do that.
> >
> > He had a reason. I just don't know what it was. I'm not sure it would make
> > sense to me if I did.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! If you don't know the reason, then it's very possible there was
> no reason, and you certainly can't be sure about it. Since Oswald did no
> shooting, why would he have a reason to shoot anyone?
>

It might be possible he had no motive but what isn't possible that Oswald
was not the shooter. There is overwhelming evidence that he was.

>
>
> > > Others were there to do it, and it was stated to that effect.
> > >
> >
> > There is zero evidence others were involved. That comes purely from
> > assumptions, speculations, and imagination.
> >
>
>
>
> FALSE! There was clear statements that others were to do shooting, and
> there was proof also in the plaza of shots from multiple guns.
>

None of those statements are evidence. Those statements were not only
unsworn but hearsay. If you want to believe that sort of nonsense that is
your choice but don't buy into that crap and tell us you are in a search
for the truth. You don't want to know the truth. You want your beliefs to
be true.

>
>
> > > > > Oswald brought his rifle to work and used
> > > > > > it to shoot JFK. No need for convoluted conspiracies involving a small
> > > > > > army to cover up what really happened. No need to imagine those charged
> > > > > > with investigating the crime engaged in a massive cover up. One little guy
> > > > > > did it all by himself.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! Oswald proved that he had no interest in shooting anyone
> > > > > throughout his time with a rifle. It appears he didn't buy ammo, he
> > > > > didn't practice with his rifle, and he threw in the corner of the garage
> > > > > after he got the photos that he wanted with it. It was worn and corroded
> > > > > when the FBI looked at it, and was not safe to shoot when the army looked
> > > > > at it, and had to be repaired by the gunsmith before they would fire it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oswald proved no such thing. You have pretended to know what was going on
> > > > in Oswald's mind because it's your excuse to believe didn't kill JFK.
> > > >
> >
> > I have never pretended to know what was going on in Oswald's mind and have
> > stated so numerous times. How many examples would you like. I can play the
> > guessing game as well as anybody else as to what his motive was but there
> > is no way anyone can know that.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! There are suggestions in some of the events leading up to the
> shooting. And testimony to the effect that Oswald did not handle a gun
> while on the 6th floor.
>

Who testified Oswald did not handle a gun while on the 6th floor?

>
>
> > > FALSE! I've put forward the reasons that it was easy to see that
> > > Oswald did not buy the rifle for shooting people,
> >
> > Your reasons made no sense.
> >
>
>
> To you.
>

To rational people.

>
>
> > > he bought it to look
> > > like he was rough and ready,
> >
> > Now you are pretending to know what was going on in Oswald's mind. You
> > have no evidence to support that statement.
> >
> > > and once he got his photos with the rifle, he
> > > rolled it up in a blanket and threw it in the garage.
> > >
> >
> > And that is where he retrieved it from the night before he killed JFK with
> > it.
> >
>
>
>
> Probably.
>

Freudian slip?