Why hide the rifle? There was no reason to hide the rifle.
bobr
Bud
> There was no reason to hide the rifle.
What is the point of giving Oswald advice almost 50 years after what
he did worked for him?
claviger
bobr
He did not hide the rifle.
Cambridge Ray
In a real (non-marionette) assassination, LHO would have brought the
rifle to work the day/night before. His admitted handler, George De
Mohrenschildt was around during the mail-order purchase of the
Mannlicher Carcano and the attempt on General Walker. This manipulator
du jour, however, was moved -chess like- from the scene (to Haiti,
where the powers that be got him a contract) in June. So, who was the
manipulator until November?
LHO was captivated by the attention (first time in his life) being
paid to him by such important, glamorous folks, the Dallas white
Russians. Was played like the proverbial inexpensive banjo.
The genius in this kind of positioning was James Jesus Angleton, the
only person with all the resources to pull off something of this
magnitude.
-Ramon
bigdog
> There was no reason to hide the rifle.
Well the rifle was hidden so apparently the person who hid it had a
reason. Sorry if he didn't tell us what that reason was.
But your observation illustrates a point about so many objections the CTs
have regarding Oswald as the shooter. If it didn't make sense for Oswald,
why would it make sense for someone else?
Let me give you another example. I haven't heard this argument for a
while, but CTs liked to point out that no one saw Oswald stacking the
boxes to make the sniper's nest that morning, despite the fact there was a
crew of workers on the 6th floor that morning. But that crew of workers
didn't report seeing someone else stacking the boxes either, yet the boxes
were stacked to form the wall for the sniper's nest. That tells us that
whoever stacked those boxes there did so without being observed by the
work crew. Does it make more sense that someone else could have stacked
those boxes without being observed than it does that Oswald stacked the
boxes without being observed?
John Blubaugh
And leave the spent shells out in the pen? You are right, it makes no
sense.
JB
Chuck Schuyler
> There was no reason to hide the rifle.
Says who?
Anthony Marsh
No, we point out that the boxes were stacked by the floor laying crew,
not Oswald.
Are you saying the work crew didn't recognize each other?
Anthony Marsh
>
> On Aug 14, 9:25 pm, bobr<neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There was no reason to hide the rifle.
>
> In a real (non-marionette) assassination, LHO would have brought the
> rifle to work the day/night before. His admitted handler, George De
> Mohrenschildt was around during the mail-order purchase of the
> Mannlicher Carcano and the attempt on General Walker. This manipulator
> du jour, however, was moved -chess like- from the scene (to Haiti,
> where the powers that be got him a contract) in June. So, who was the
> manipulator until November?
>
Some have suggested David Atlee Phillips. I would like to suggest George
Joannides.
> LHO was captivated by the attention (first time in his life) being
> paid to him by such important, glamorous folks, the Dallas white
> Russians. Was played like the proverbial inexpensive banjo.
>
> The genius in this kind of positioning was James Jesus Angleton, the
> only person with all the resources to pull off something of this
> magnitude.
>
Angleton may have sent Oswald to Russia.
> -Ramon
>
Bud
> On Aug 14, 10:25 pm, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There was no reason to hide the rifle.
>
> And leave the spent shells out in the pen?
They weren`t in the pen. They weren`t even in the open.
> You are right, it makes no
> sense.
Had Oswald stopped to tidy up he might have ran into Baker. Hard to
argue with success.
> JB
bigdog
See my previous reply. Why does it make sense that someone else would
leave the shells and hide the rifle? We don't know why someone did the one
thing and not the other. We just know what was done and what was not done.
The rifle was hidden and the shells were left in place. Why ask why?
David Von Pein
>>> "He did not hide the rifle." <<<
He hid it well enough so that it wasn't found for 52 minutes. I'd say
LHO found a pretty fair makeshift hiding place.
But what's the point of this thread anyway? The rifle was found where
it was found. Period.
Are you inferring that the rifle was planted by somebody other than
Oswald perhaps? Then why didn't these rifle-planters just plant it
right there in the Sniper's Nest, next to LHO's three rifle shells?
charles
> There was no reason to hide the rifle.
There was no reason for Oswald to hide the rifle. The real TSBD
shooter was dressed in a DPD uniform and carried the rifle to the
staircase so he could shoot anyone he might meet unexpectedly. He hid
the rifle right before going down the stairs because if he met several
policemen coming up the stairs he could say he was just on the sixth
floor and didn't see anything. He was afraid he could be ordered to
accompany them to the sixth floor so he could not just lay the rifle
in plain sight near the staircase.
Charles
markusp
> Let me give you another example. I haven't heard this argument for a
> while, but CTs liked to point out that no one saw Oswald stacking the
> boxes to make the sniper's nest that morning, despite the fact there was a
> crew of workers on the 6th floor that morning. But that crew of workers
> didn't report seeing someone else stacking the boxes either, yet the boxes
> were stacked to form the wall for the sniper's nest. That tells us that
> whoever stacked those boxes there did so without being observed by the
> work crew. Does it make more sense that someone else could have stacked
> those boxes without being observed than it does that Oswald stacked the
> boxes without being observed?
Perhaps we should not assume that the person(s) that indeed stacked
the boxes were unobserved. It is possible that someone was observed,
and they simply did not admit to it. Fear of implication?
~Mark
John Blubaugh
I will admit that you sum of the nutter position rather perfectly.
"Why ask why?" Indeed, why ask anything at all. Just accept the sacred
WCR and move on.... Wow! Well, neither I nor any other CTs will be
doing that any time soon in spite of your bloviating....
JB
bigdog
I don't suppose it ever crossed your mind that Oswald could have had
the same thought process as you have assigned to your imaginary DPD
shooter.
bigdog
Lots of things are possible. Again I ask, why would this explaination
make more or less sense whether the shooter was Oswald or somebody
else.
Chuck Schuyler
You miss the point.
The evidence shows Oswald hid the rifle where it was found. It doesn't
need to be more complicated than that. It is what it is---even if it
doesn't make sense to you.
Why didn't he just leave the Carcano at the window? Who knows? We can
speculate, but who really knows. Shooting at the POTUS from your workplace
is itself irrational. The Carcano was found on the sixth floor. It's
Oswald's rifle. He left his prints on it. No one saw him at 1230pm. The
shells at the window match the rifle.
Can it be more simple to figure out what happened?
charles
If the shooter had been Oswald he would have left the rifle at the
window. Also one of the empty shells lying on the floor would not
show physical proof that it had been hit twice by the firing pin.
There would not have been a photograph of the shooter standing in the
adjacent window looking out. There would not have been an eye witness
telling the FBI that there was a man looking out of the 6th floor
window minutes after the shots.
CW
jas
> There was no reason to hide the rifle.
Really?
So you propose the shooter thought running down the stairs and out
into the street with a rifle moments after the shooting would be a
smart thing to do?
Why did Booth drop the pistol in the box at Ford's?
Hank Sienzant
> There was no reason to hide the rifle.
Yes there was.
It was simple. The rifle could be traced to him, the shells - independent
of the rifle - could not.
He could not leave the TSBD with the rifle, so his choices were two, leave
it in the open, or hide it someplace.
I believe he had other plans for the rest of the day, which necessitated
him being free for that period of time. I believe his plans included going
back to the roominghouse, getting his revolver, and then shooting General
Walker. He failed at that attempt in April, but didn't change his opinion
of Walker in the interim. He likened Walker to Hitler, and said the world
would be a better place if somebody had killed Hitler. Having killed JFK,
he had nothing to lose by shooting Walker (or Tippit, for that matter). As
he said in custody, "they can only fry you once."
But all of that doesn't matter. Let's just assume he wanted to enjoy his
last few hours of freedom (and asking why hide the rifle means you must
assume, for the purposes of this discussion, he shot JFK). If you are
going to turn around and argue in this thread that he didn't shoot JFK,
then your initial question becomes vacuous.
In any case, the clock starts ticking on tracing the rifle (and
discovering the owner) once the rifle is discovered. Until the rifle is
discovered, the clock doesn't start ticking on tracing the rifle back to
him. Are you following all that?
Thus, the longer Oswald can delay the discovery of the rifle, the longer
he is free. To enjoy the sunshine, or to get to General Walker's and gun
him down. As former football coach John Madden used to said, "Don't worry
about the horse being blind, just load the wagon." In other words, do what
you can and don't worry about the stuff you can't control.
Oswald hid the rifle to delay it's discovery, giving him more time as a
free man.
So there is a reason to hide the rifle.
Hank
aka Joe Zircon
Hank Sienzant
No, the point is that while we know what was done, sometimes we don't
know all the reasons. Conjecturing about the reasons is oft times a
simple parlor exercise, which does not change what we know was done.
See my post where I explain why I think Oswald hid the rifle, have at
it, and let me know your objections.
Also let me know why you think a conspirator would have a better
reason to hide the rifle than Oswald.
Because if you cannot provide a good reason for a conspirator to hide
the weapon, and you don't think Oswald had a reason for hiding it, you
are just saying nothing worthwhile -- after all, the rifle was hidden
by *somebody* -- right?
Hank
Hank Sienzant
Hi Charles,
The question concerns Oswald's reasons for hiding the rifle, not
someone else's.
As already pointed out by another poster, Oswald could have taken the
rifle to near the stairs as you conjecture the conspirator did, for
the same reasons you conjecture the conspirator did - to shoot anyone
coming up the stairs.
And to get rid of your other objection, he could have hidden the
weapon back by the sniper's nest rather than laying the rifle in plain
sight by the staircase.
Hank
aka Joe Zircon
David Von Pein
>>> "If the shooter had been Oswald he would have left the rifle at the window." <<<
It's good to know, therefore, that you DON'T think Oswald was being
set up as a "patsy" on 11/22. (Whew, that's a relief.)
Because, via your explanation, if some band of plotters wanted to make
it look as though Oswald WAS the shooter, they would (and should) have
just left the rifle right there in the Sniper's Nest. But since this
wasn't done, it stands to reason that nobody was trying to make it
look like LHO was really the killer either (unless your plotters were
all retarded, of course).
>>> "Also, one of the empty shells lying on the floor would not show physical proof that it had been hit twice by the firing pin." <<<
So what's the reasonable alternative -- that TWO of the shells could
be genuine (and fired that day), but then one additional shell of the
exact same type was "planted" alongside the other MC shells?
How silly do you want to get here?
>>> "There would not have been a photograph of the shooter standing in the adjacent window looking out." <<<
No such additional "shooter" exists, of course.
But to a conspiracy theorist, a dirty window = "a shooter...looking
out".
>>> "There would not have been an eyewitness telling the FBI that there was a man looking out of the 6th floor window minutes after the shots." <<<
Did it ever occur to you just how STUPID that other man/"shooter"
would have been...to just stand there at the window, in plain sight of
everyone below, for multiple "minutes" after the assassination?
Plus, I wonder where this other man is located in Tom Dillard's famous
photo of the sixth-floor window, which was taken within literally
seconds of the shooting?
Do you want to believe an assassin WASN'T there in Dillard's picture,
but DID make himself visible "minutes" later to bystanders?
The silliness never ends in Conspiracy Land...does it?
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 14, 10:25 pm, bobr<neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There was no reason to hide the rifle.
>
> Yes there was.
>
> It was simple. The rifle could be traced to him, the shells - independent
> of the rifle - could not.
>
> He could not leave the TSBD with the rifle, so his choices were two, leave
> it in the open, or hide it someplace.
>
In fact no one could find where Oswald bought his ammunition.
> I believe he had other plans for the rest of the day, which necessitated
> him being free for that period of time. I believe his plans included going
> back to the roominghouse, getting his revolver, and then shooting General
> Walker. He failed at that attempt in April, but didn't change his opinion
Silly speculation. Walker was intentionally out of town that day.
> of Walker in the interim. He likened Walker to Hitler, and said the world
> would be a better place if somebody had killed Hitler. Having killed JFK,
> he had nothing to lose by shooting Walker (or Tippit, for that matter). As
> he said in custody, "they can only fry you once."
>
Yeah, maybe if he could afford the airfare on the $13 he had left.
> But all of that doesn't matter. Let's just assume he wanted to enjoy his
> last few hours of freedom (and asking why hide the rifle means you must
> assume, for the purposes of this discussion, he shot JFK). If you are
> going to turn around and argue in this thread that he didn't shoot JFK,
> then your initial question becomes vacuous.
>
> In any case, the clock starts ticking on tracing the rifle (and
> discovering the owner) once the rifle is discovered. Until the rifle is
> discovered, the clock doesn't start ticking on tracing the rifle back to
> him. Are you following all that?
>
> Thus, the longer Oswald can delay the discovery of the rifle, the longer
> he is free. To enjoy the sunshine, or to get to General Walker's and gun
> him down. As former football coach John Madden used to said, "Don't worry
> about the horse being blind, just load the wagon." In other words, do what
> you can and don't worry about the stuff you can't control.
>
He might have stayed free longer if he had taken the bus to Mexico.
And then sought asylum in the Cuban embassy.
charles
Oswald's reasons for hiding the rifle is impossible to answer since he
was not the person who did the shooting. His only involvement was
being tricked into bringing his rifle to work that morning.
If the shooter had been Oswald he would have left the rifle at the
window. Also one of the empty shells lying on the floor would not
show physical proof that it had been hit twice by the firing pin.
There would not have been a photograph of the shooter standing in the
adjacent window looking out. There would not have been an eye
witness
telling the FBI that there was a man looking out of the 6th floor
window minutes after the shots.
There also would not have been a witness who saw the whole rifle
displayed outside the window just before the motorcade turned onto
Houston. Who would do such a thing? Not Oswald. An assassin who
silently wanted to tell his fellow assassin on the knoll that he had
Oswald's rifle would.
CW
Anthony Marsh
Because it was a single shot derringer. Duh!
You never studied history?
bigdog
your evidence that this was done. Or did you simply make that up
because it sounds interesting and you have to explain why an innocent
Oswald would do something so dumb as to bring his rifle to work on the
day the President was going to ride by his workplace. And if Oswald
was just an innocent patsy, why did he go to the trouble of hiding the
rifle in a brown paper wrapping and lie to his coworker about the
contents. At least you seem to recognize that Oswald did bring the
rifle into work that morning in the paper bag. That puts you one step
ahead of many of your cohorts.
> If the shooter had been Oswald he would have left the rifle at the
> window. Also one of the empty shells lying on the floor would not
> show physical proof that it had been hit twice by the firing pin.
If the primer on one of the empty shells had been struck twice by the
firing pint, one of three things would be true.
1. The shell was reloaded.
2. The primer was struck twice, once as a live round and again as a
spent round.
3. There was a hangfire (misfire) the first time the primer was struck
and the round was refired.
Which of the above explainations fits better with a conspiracy than it
does with Oswald as the shooter.
> There would not have been a photograph of the shooter standing in the
> adjacent window looking out. There would not have been an eye
> witness
> telling the FBI that there was a man looking out of the 6th floor
> window minutes after the shots.
>
Do you have a link to such a photograph?
> There also would not have been a witness who saw the whole rifle
> displayed outside the window just before the motorcade turned onto
> Houston. Who would do such a thing? Not Oswald. An assassin who
> silently wanted to tell his fellow assassin on the knoll that he had
> Oswald's rifle would.
>
Gee, don't you think they could have come up with a more discreet
signal than exposing the before the intended target came into range.
How dumb were these guys?
Hank Sienzant
lol. Please provide the evidence for that.
>
> If the shooter had been Oswald he would have left the rifle at the
> window.
Why would he have not carried it near the steps in case he had to
shoot a cop?
There was one bullet left in the chamber.
Why wouldn't he hide it to delay it's being found?
>Also one of the empty shells lying on the floor would not
> show physical proof that it had been hit twice by the firing pin.
Not according to the HSCA firearms panel:
(157) There was no evidence in the form of multiple extractor or
ejector marks on the cartridge case to indicate that it was chambered
in the rifle more than once. This also applies to cartridge cases CE
544 and CE 545.
Here's the link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/firearms_hsca.htm
Please provide a citation that says differently, and we can talk.
> There would not have been a photograph of the shooter standing in the
> adjacent window looking out. There would not have been an eye
> witness
> telling the FBI that there was a man looking out of the 6th floor
> window minutes after the shots.
And your evidence there was a man looking out the window minutes after the
shots is? Some unnamed witness? Where's this photo showing the shooting
looking out? Can you provide a link to a copy?
I've seen claims that the Dillard photo shows this, but it appears to be
more of the face-on-Mars stuff, where the person sees what they want to
see, not what is actually there.
>
> There also would not have been a witness who saw the whole rifle
> displayed outside the window just before the motorcade turned onto
> Houston. Who would do such a thing? Not Oswald. An assassin who
> silently wanted to tell his fellow assassin on the knoll that he had
> Oswald's rifle would.
Yeah, makes sense to me. Broadcast you're up in the TSBD ready to shoot
the President just moments before he arrives by showing the rifle to
everyone in Dealey Plaza! Another unnamed witness. Why don't you name
names and then let's talk about what they actually said.
I would be willing to bet you are misinterpretating something the witness
said.
Hank Sienzant
> On 8/16/2011 11:51 PM, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
> > On Aug 14, 10:25 pm, bobr<neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> There was no reason to hide the rifle.
>
> > Yes there was.
>
> > It was simple. The rifle could be traced to him, the shells - independent
> > of the rifle - could not.
>
> > He could not leave the TSBD with the rifle, so his choices were two, leave
> > it in the open, or hide it someplace.
>
> In fact no one could find where Oswald bought his ammunition.
Not my point. The ammo could be linked to the rifle, and the rifle
traced to Oswald.
As I noted, the shells could not be traced to him. The rifle could.
>
> > I believe he had other plans for the rest of the day, which necessitated
> > him being free for that period of time. I believe his plans included going
> > back to the roominghouse, getting his revolver, and then shooting General
> > Walker. He failed at that attempt in April, but didn't change his opinion
>
> Silly speculation. Walker was intentionally out of town that day.
Sorry, to clarify, Walker was due back on Saturday morning, as I
recall. Oswald merely had to stay free for 24 hours to get an
opportunity to shoot him.
>
> > of Walker in the interim. He likened Walker to Hitler, and said the world
> > would be a better place if somebody had killed Hitler. Having killed JFK,
> > he had nothing to lose by shooting Walker (or Tippit, for that matter). As
> > he said in custody, "they can only fry you once."
>
> Yeah, maybe if he could afford the airfare on the $13 he had left.
Not sure of your point.
>
>
>
>
>
> > But all of that doesn't matter. Let's just assume he wanted to enjoy his
> > last few hours of freedom (and asking why hide the rifle means you must
> > assume, for the purposes of this discussion, he shot JFK). If you are
> > going to turn around and argue in this thread that he didn't shoot JFK,
> > then your initial question becomes vacuous.
>
> > In any case, the clock starts ticking on tracing the rifle (and
> > discovering the owner) once the rifle is discovered. Until the rifle is
> > discovered, the clock doesn't start ticking on tracing the rifle back to
> > him. Are you following all that?
>
> > Thus, the longer Oswald can delay the discovery of the rifle, the longer
> > he is free. To enjoy the sunshine, or to get to General Walker's and gun
> > him down. As former football coach John Madden used to said, "Don't worry
> > about the horse being blind, just load the wagon." In other words, do what
> > you can and don't worry about the stuff you can't control.
>
> He might have stayed free longer if he had taken the bus to Mexico.
> And then sought asylum in the Cuban embassy.
And yet he didn't do that. He did stay in Dallas, passing up
opportunities to get out of town at the Greyhound bus station.
Instead, he chose to go back to the roominghouse and get his revolver.
I think that is pertinent - he made that choice. There was a reason he
stayed in Dallas and got the revolver.
I think it was his intent to kill Walker.
His choices make sense when evaluated in that light.
>
>
>
> > Oswald hid the rifle to delay it's discovery, giving him more time as a
> > free man.
>
> > So there is a reason to hide the rifle.
>
> > Hank
> > aka Joe Zircon- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
claviger
> > There also would not have been a witness who saw the whole rifle
> > displayed outside the window just before the motorcade turned onto
> > Houston. Who would do such a thing? Not Oswald. An assassin who
> > silently wanted to tell his fellow assassin on the knoll that he had
> > Oswald's rifle would.
>
> Yeah, makes sense to me. Broadcast you're up in the TSBD ready to shoot
> the President just moments before he arrives by showing the rifle to
> everyone in Dealey Plaza! Another unnamed witness. Why don't you name
> names and then let's talk about what they actually said.
>
> I would be willing to bet you are misinterpretating something the witness
> said.
The only witness to say that was Carolyn Walther. Her description sounds
like a Thompson submachine gun.
jas
He couldn't have reloaded and reused it again? Ever?
One of those disposible derringers they picked up at Walgreens back
then, I guess.
Duh.
Anthony Marsh
She told the FBI that the rifle had a short barrel and seemed large
around the stock or end of the rifle. Her impression was that the gun
was a machine gun, but she admitted that she knew nothing about guns.
I don't her description sounds like a Thompson submachine gun.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 17, 11:19 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 8/16/2011 11:51 PM, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 14, 10:25 pm, bobr<neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> There was no reason to hide the rifle.
>>
>>> Yes there was.
>>
>>> It was simple. The rifle could be traced to him, the shells - independent
>>> of the rifle - could not.
>>
>>> He could not leave the TSBD with the rifle, so his choices were two, leave
>>> it in the open, or hide it someplace.
>>
>> In fact no one could find where Oswald bought his ammunition.
>
> Not my point. The ammo could be linked to the rifle, and the rifle
> traced to Oswald.
> As I noted, the shells could not be traced to him. The rifle could.
>
So you just ignore my point and spread more misinformation. The empty
shells were linked to Oswald's rifle which was linked to him.
That does not prove that he fired them.
>
>>
>>> I believe he had other plans for the rest of the day, which necessitated
>>> him being free for that period of time. I believe his plans included going
>>> back to the roominghouse, getting his revolver, and then shooting General
>>> Walker. He failed at that attempt in April, but didn't change his opinion
>>
>> Silly speculation. Walker was intentionally out of town that day.
>
> Sorry, to clarify, Walker was due back on Saturday morning, as I
> recall. Oswald merely had to stay free for 24 hours to get an
> opportunity to shoot him.
>
I like your thinking. So that's why Oswald needed those tent poles so
that he could camp out overnight at Walker's house and wait for him to
return. Only Oswald did not know where Walker was.
>>
>>> of Walker in the interim. He likened Walker to Hitler, and said the world
>>> would be a better place if somebody had killed Hitler. Having killed JFK,
>>> he had nothing to lose by shooting Walker (or Tippit, for that matter). As
>>> he said in custody, "they can only fry you once."
>>
>> Yeah, maybe if he could afford the airfare on the $13 he had left.
>
> Not sure of your point.
>
Afford the airfare to stalk Walker around the country. Like Bremmer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> But all of that doesn't matter. Let's just assume he wanted to enjoy his
>>> last few hours of freedom (and asking why hide the rifle means you must
>>> assume, for the purposes of this discussion, he shot JFK). If you are
>>> going to turn around and argue in this thread that he didn't shoot JFK,
>>> then your initial question becomes vacuous.
>>
>>> In any case, the clock starts ticking on tracing the rifle (and
>>> discovering the owner) once the rifle is discovered. Until the rifle is
>>> discovered, the clock doesn't start ticking on tracing the rifle back to
>>> him. Are you following all that?
>>
>>> Thus, the longer Oswald can delay the discovery of the rifle, the longer
>>> he is free. To enjoy the sunshine, or to get to General Walker's and gun
>>> him down. As former football coach John Madden used to said, "Don't worry
>>> about the horse being blind, just load the wagon." In other words, do what
>>> you can and don't worry about the stuff you can't control.
>>
>> He might have stayed free longer if he had taken the bus to Mexico.
>> And then sought asylum in the Cuban embassy.
>
> And yet he didn't do that. He did stay in Dallas, passing up
> opportunities to get out of town at the Greyhound bus station.
Maybe because he was innocent.
> Instead, he chose to go back to the roominghouse and get his revolver.
> I think that is pertinent - he made that choice. There was a reason he
> stayed in Dallas and got the revolver.
> I think it was his intent to kill Walker.
> His choices make sense when evaluated in that light.
>
So you think after he left the rooming house he was walking towards the
Walker house and it was a short walk?
Bud
> On 8/17/2011 8:53 PM, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 11:19 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 8/16/2011 11:51 PM, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 14, 10:25 pm, bobr<neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> There was no reason to hide the rifle.
>
> >>> Yes there was.
>
> >>> It was simple. The rifle could be traced to him, the shells - independent
> >>> of the rifle - could not.
>
> >>> He could not leave the TSBD with the rifle, so his choices were two, leave
> >>> it in the open, or hide it someplace.
>
> >> In fact no one could find where Oswald bought his ammunition.
>
> > Not my point. The ammo could be linked to the rifle, and the rifle
> > traced to Oswald.
> > As I noted, the shells could not be traced to him. The rifle could.
>
> So you just ignore my point and spread more misinformation.
What was your point? You didn`t speak to anything Hank said, you
just interjected a strawman about no one knowing where Oswald bought
his ammo is all.
And what did he write that was misinformation? The same thing he
said above you repeat below.
> The empty
> shells were linked to Oswald's rifle which was linked to him.
> That does not prove that he fired them.
No, it just makes him the most likely person on the planet to have
fired them.
> >>> I believe he had other plans for the rest of the day, which necessitated
> >>> him being free for that period of time. I believe his plans included going
> >>> back to the roominghouse, getting his revolver, and then shooting General
> >>> Walker. He failed at that attempt in April, but didn't change his opinion
>
> >> Silly speculation. Walker was intentionally out of town that day.
>
> > Sorry, to clarify, Walker was due back on Saturday morning, as I
> > recall. Oswald merely had to stay free for 24 hours to get an
> > opportunity to shoot him.
>
> I like your thinking. So that's why Oswald needed those tent poles so
> that he could camp out overnight at Walker's house and wait for him to
> return. Only Oswald did not know where Walker was.
I think Hank is right that Oswald meant to kill Walker, but wrong
that he knew Walker was out of town. I think Oswald was going there
immediately.
> >>> of Walker in the interim. He likened Walker to Hitler, and said the world
> >>> would be a better place if somebody had killed Hitler. Having killed JFK,
> >>> he had nothing to lose by shooting Walker (or Tippit, for that matter). As
> >>> he said in custody, "they can only fry you once."
>
> >> Yeah, maybe if he could afford the airfare on the $13 he had left.
>
> > Not sure of your point.
>
> Afford the airfare to stalk Walker around the country. Like Bremmer.
He only needed the bus or train fare to get up into Walker`s neck of
the woods.
> >>> But all of that doesn't matter. Let's just assume he wanted to enjoy his
> >>> last few hours of freedom (and asking why hide the rifle means you must
> >>> assume, for the purposes of this discussion, he shot JFK). If you are
> >>> going to turn around and argue in this thread that he didn't shoot JFK,
> >>> then your initial question becomes vacuous.
>
> >>> In any case, the clock starts ticking on tracing the rifle (and
> >>> discovering the owner) once the rifle is discovered. Until the rifle is
> >>> discovered, the clock doesn't start ticking on tracing the rifle back to
> >>> him. Are you following all that?
>
> >>> Thus, the longer Oswald can delay the discovery of the rifle, the longer
> >>> he is free. To enjoy the sunshine, or to get to General Walker's and gun
> >>> him down. As former football coach John Madden used to said, "Don't worry
> >>> about the horse being blind, just load the wagon." In other words, do what
> >>> you can and don't worry about the stuff you can't control.
>
> >> He might have stayed free longer if he had taken the bus to Mexico.
> >> And then sought asylum in the Cuban embassy.
>
> > And yet he didn't do that. He did stay in Dallas, passing up
> > opportunities to get out of town at the Greyhound bus station.
>
> Maybe because he was innocent.
You piss in Kennedy`s face when you cover-up for Oswald.
> > Instead, he chose to go back to the roominghouse and get his revolver.
> > I think that is pertinent - he made that choice. There was a reason he
> > stayed in Dallas and got the revolver.
> > I think it was his intent to kill Walker.
> > His choices make sense when evaluated in that light.
>
> So you think after he left the rooming house he was walking towards the
> Walker house and it was a short walk?
He was heading to the zoo, where buses and a train headed up into
area of Walker`s house.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 18, 6:35 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 8/17/2011 8:53 PM, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 17, 11:19 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 8/16/2011 11:51 PM, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Aug 14, 10:25 pm, bobr<neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> There was no reason to hide the rifle.
>>
>>>>> Yes there was.
>>
>>>>> It was simple. The rifle could be traced to him, the shells - independent
>>>>> of the rifle - could not.
>>
>>>>> He could not leave the TSBD with the rifle, so his choices were two, leave
>>>>> it in the open, or hide it someplace.
>>
>>>> In fact no one could find where Oswald bought his ammunition.
>>
>>> Not my point. The ammo could be linked to the rifle, and the rifle
>>> traced to Oswald.
>>> As I noted, the shells could not be traced to him. The rifle could.
>>
>> So you just ignore my point and spread more misinformation.
>
> What was your point? You didn`t speak to anything Hank said, you
> just interjected a strawman about no one knowing where Oswald bought
> his ammo is all.
>
Silly. He said the shells could not be linked to Oswald. That is wrong.
The shells were linked to the rifle and the rifle was linked to Oswald.
That is how the shells were linked to Oswald. My point about not being
able to find out where Oswald bought the ammo is that it is not necessary
to link him to the empties.
> And what did he write that was misinformation? The same thing he
> said above you repeat below.
>
When he said that the shells could not be traced to him.
He did not point out as I did that the shells were linked to the rifle.
>> The empty
>> shells were linked to Oswald's rifle which was linked to him.
>> That does not prove that he fired them.
>
> No, it just makes him the most likely person on the planet to have
> fired them.
>
Not at all. Various murders have been committed using someone else's
weapon.
>>>>> I believe he had other plans for the rest of the day, which necessitated
>>>>> him being free for that period of time. I believe his plans included going
>>>>> back to the roominghouse, getting his revolver, and then shooting General
>>>>> Walker. He failed at that attempt in April, but didn't change his opinion
>>
>>>> Silly speculation. Walker was intentionally out of town that day.
>>
>>> Sorry, to clarify, Walker was due back on Saturday morning, as I
>>> recall. Oswald merely had to stay free for 24 hours to get an
>>> opportunity to shoot him.
>>
>> I like your thinking. So that's why Oswald needed those tent poles so
>> that he could camp out overnight at Walker's house and wait for him to
>> return. Only Oswald did not know where Walker was.
>
> I think Hank is right that Oswald meant to kill Walker, but wrong
> that he knew Walker was out of town. I think Oswald was going there
> immediately.
>
I don't think Oswald would have a clue.
Show me the path he walked to get to Walker's house.
>>>>> of Walker in the interim. He likened Walker to Hitler, and said the world
>>>>> would be a better place if somebody had killed Hitler. Having killed JFK,
>>>>> he had nothing to lose by shooting Walker (or Tippit, for that matter). As
>>>>> he said in custody, "they can only fry you once."
>>
>>>> Yeah, maybe if he could afford the airfare on the $13 he had left.
>>
>>> Not sure of your point.
>>
>> Afford the airfare to stalk Walker around the country. Like Bremmer.
>
> He only needed the bus or train fare to get up into Walker`s neck of
> the woods.
>
How would he know that? How could he predict where Walker would go?
Nixon was in Dallas that morning, but in New York by the afternoon.
Show me. Diagram that this is the right way to do it.
Bud
> On 8/18/2011 7:18 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 18, 6:35 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 8/17/2011 8:53 PM, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 17, 11:19 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 8/16/2011 11:51 PM, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Aug 14, 10:25 pm, bobr<neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> There was no reason to hide the rifle.
>
> >>>>> Yes there was.
>
> >>>>> It was simple. The rifle could be traced to him, the shells - independent
> >>>>> of the rifle - could not.
>
> >>>>> He could not leave the TSBD with the rifle, so his choices were two, leave
> >>>>> it in the open, or hide it someplace.
>
> >>>> In fact no one could find where Oswald bought his ammunition.
>
> >>> Not my point. The ammo could be linked to the rifle, and the rifle
> >>> traced to Oswald.
> >>> As I noted, the shells could not be traced to him. The rifle could.
>
> >> So you just ignore my point and spread more misinformation.
>
> > What was your point? You didn`t speak to anything Hank said, you
> > just interjected a strawman about no one knowing where Oswald bought
> > his ammo is all.
>
> Silly. He said the shells could not be linked to Oswald. That is wrong.
He didn`t say "linked". He said "traced". Different concept.
> The shells were linked to the rifle and the rifle was linked to Oswald.
> That is how the shells were linked to Oswald. My point about not being
> able to find out where Oswald bought the ammo is that it is not necessary
> to link him to the empties.
>
> > And what did he write that was misinformation? The same thing he
> > said above you repeat below.
>
> When he said that the shells could not be traced to him.
> He did not point out as I did that the shells were linked to the rifle.
But not traced. Not tracked down.
> >> The empty
> >> shells were linked to Oswald's rifle which was linked to him.
> >> That does not prove that he fired them.
>
> > No, it just makes him the most likely person on the planet to have
> > fired them.
>
> Not at all. Various murders have been committed using someone else's
> weapon.
But when a person`s weapon is used to commit murder the owner of the
weapon is the most likely person to have committed the murder.
> >>>>> I believe he had other plans for the rest of the day, which necessitated
> >>>>> him being free for that period of time. I believe his plans included going
> >>>>> back to the roominghouse, getting his revolver, and then shooting General
> >>>>> Walker. He failed at that attempt in April, but didn't change his opinion
>
> >>>> Silly speculation. Walker was intentionally out of town that day.
>
> >>> Sorry, to clarify, Walker was due back on Saturday morning, as I
> >>> recall. Oswald merely had to stay free for 24 hours to get an
> >>> opportunity to shoot him.
>
> >> I like your thinking. So that's why Oswald needed those tent poles so
> >> that he could camp out overnight at Walker's house and wait for him to
> >> return. Only Oswald did not know where Walker was.
>
> > I think Hank is right that Oswald meant to kill Walker, but wrong
> > that he knew Walker was out of town. I think Oswald was going there
> > immediately.
>
> I don't think Oswald would have a clue.
> Show me the path he walked to get to Walker's house.
Why would you assume he was following a path?
> >>>>> of Walker in the interim. He likened Walker to Hitler, and said the world
> >>>>> would be a better place if somebody had killed Hitler. Having killed JFK,
> >>>>> he had nothing to lose by shooting Walker (or Tippit, for that matter). As
> >>>>> he said in custody, "they can only fry you once."
>
> >>>> Yeah, maybe if he could afford the airfare on the $13 he had left.
>
> >>> Not sure of your point.
>
> >> Afford the airfare to stalk Walker around the country. Like Bremmer.
>
> > He only needed the bus or train fare to get up into Walker`s neck of
> > the woods.
>
> How would he know that?
Know what? That there was a train and buses that could be boarded at
the zoo that would take him in the vicinity of Walker`s house? He
didn`t drive, he used buses to get around.
> How could he predict where Walker would go?
He knew where Walker lived. He tried to kill him there once. All he
had to do is go there and knock. If Walker answers, shoot him a lot of
times. He even had practice with Tippit.
> Nixon was in Dallas that morning, but in New York by the afternoon.
I think Oswald would have capped Nixon if he could have. Open season
on fascists.
What do you mean by the "right way"? Any way he decided to go would
be the "right way", as long as he got there.
Sean Smiley
> On Aug 14, 10:25 pm, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There was no reason to hide the rifle.
>
> reason. Sorry if he didn't tell us what that reason was.
>
> But your observation illustrates a point about so many objections the CTs
> have regarding Oswald as the shooter. If it didn't make sense for Oswald,
> why would it make sense for someone else?
>
> Let me give you another example. I haven't heard this argument for a
> while, but CTs liked to point out that no one saw Oswald stacking the
> boxes to make the sniper's nest that morning, despite the fact there was a
> crew of workers on the 6th floor that morning. But that crew of workers
> didn't report seeing someone else stacking the boxes either, yet the boxes
> were stacked to form the wall for the sniper's nest. That tells us that
> whoever stacked those boxes there did so without being observed by the
> work crew. Does it make more sense that someone else could have stacked
> those boxes without being observed than it does that Oswald stacked the
> boxes without being observed?
Maybe Walt's suggestion is right--the area was an unofficial "smoker's
nook", & the boxes had been in place for months, or years....
dcw
Anthony Marsh
A silly distinction. Explain how you think they could ever TRACE specific
shells to a specific person. Fingerprints? Not usually found on the
shells.
>>>> The empty
>>>> shells were linked to Oswald's rifle which was linked to him.
>>>> That does not prove that he fired them.
>>
>>> No, it just makes him the most likely person on the planet to have
>>> fired them.
>>
>> Not at all. Various murders have been committed using someone else's
>> weapon.
>
> But when a person`s weapon is used to commit murder the owner of the
> weapon is the most likely person to have committed the murder.
>
But not always. Don't always assume the easiest answer.
>>>>>>> I believe he had other plans for the rest of the day, which necessitated
>>>>>>> him being free for that period of time. I believe his plans included going
>>>>>>> back to the roominghouse, getting his revolver, and then shooting General
>>>>>>> Walker. He failed at that attempt in April, but didn't change his opinion
>>
>>>>>> Silly speculation. Walker was intentionally out of town that day.
>>
>>>>> Sorry, to clarify, Walker was due back on Saturday morning, as I
>>>>> recall. Oswald merely had to stay free for 24 hours to get an
>>>>> opportunity to shoot him.
>>
>>>> I like your thinking. So that's why Oswald needed those tent poles so
>>>> that he could camp out overnight at Walker's house and wait for him to
>>>> return. Only Oswald did not know where Walker was.
>>
>>> I think Hank is right that Oswald meant to kill Walker, but wrong
>>> that he knew Walker was out of town. I think Oswald was going there
>>> immediately.
>>
>> I don't think Oswald would have a clue.
>> Show me the path he walked to get to Walker's house.
>
> Why would you assume he was following a path?
>
As usual you chicken out.
Because you can't prove your idea.
>>>>>>> of Walker in the interim. He likened Walker to Hitler, and said the world
>>>>>>> would be a better place if somebody had killed Hitler. Having killed JFK,
>>>>>>> he had nothing to lose by shooting Walker (or Tippit, for that matter). As
>>>>>>> he said in custody, "they can only fry you once."
>>
>>>>>> Yeah, maybe if he could afford the airfare on the $13 he had left.
>>
>>>>> Not sure of your point.
>>
>>>> Afford the airfare to stalk Walker around the country. Like Bremmer.
>>
>>> He only needed the bus or train fare to get up into Walker`s neck of
>>> the woods.
>>
>> How would he know that?
>
> Know what? That there was a train and buses that could be boarded at
> the zoo that would take him in the vicinity of Walker`s house? He
> didn`t drive, he used buses to get around.
>
>> How could he predict where Walker would go?
>
> He knew where Walker lived. He tried to kill him there once. All he
> had to do is go there and knock. If Walker answers, shoot him a lot of
> times. He even had practice with Tippit.
>
He didn't do that earlier. He attended one of the meetings and took
pictures of the house, planning to shoot with a rifle to get away.
You have yet to show that he was walking to Walker's house when Tippit
confronted him.
>> Nixon was in Dallas that morning, but in New York by the afternoon.
>
> I think Oswald would have capped Nixon if he could have. Open season
> on fascists.
>
Marina said she locked him in the bathroom to prevent him from kiling
Nixon.
Diagram the route you think he would have taken. You are merely guessing
without knowing any facts.
Anthony Marsh
> dcw
>
Supremely silly. The work crews were laying new floor THAT WEEK and
moved around the boxes as needed from one spot to another to clear an
area to lay down plywood.
bigdog
>
Well, they found spent shells but no cigarette butts so I'm betting it was
a sniper's nest. But that misses the point I was making. I was disputing
the CT argument that Oswald couldn't have been the shooter because no one
saw him stacking the boxes to form the sniper's nest. No one saw anyone
else stacking those boxes either. We don't know who stacked the boxes,
when they stacked them there, or why they stacked them there, yet the
boxes were stacked there, so the fact that no one saw Oswald doing it is
not an argument for his innocence. Oswald may have stacked the boxes
without anyone on the floor noticing because they were busy with their
work or Oswald might simply have taken advantage of boxes that had already
been stacked in such a way as to provide him cover. I tend to lean toward
the latter but we have no way of knowing nor do we need to know that.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 20, 8:54 pm, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 15, 11:18 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 14, 10:25 pm, bobr<neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> There was no reason to hide the rifle.
>>
>>> Well the rifle was hidden so apparently the person who hid it had a
>>> reason. Sorry if he didn't tell us what that reason was.
>>
>>> But your observation illustrates a point about so many objections the CTs
>>> have regarding Oswald as the shooter. If it didn't make sense for Oswald,
>>> why would it make sense for someone else?
>>
>>> Let me give you another example. I haven't heard this argument for a
>>> while, but CTs liked to point out that no one saw Oswald stacking the
>>> boxes to make the sniper's nest that morning, despite the fact there was a
>>> crew of workers on the 6th floor that morning. But that crew of workers
>>> didn't report seeing someone else stacking the boxes either, yet the boxes
>>> were stacked to form the wall for the sniper's nest. That tells us that
>>> whoever stacked those boxes there did so without being observed by the
>>> work crew. Does it make more sense that someone else could have stacked
>>> those boxes without being observed than it does that Oswald stacked the
>>> boxes without being observed?
>>
>> Maybe Walt's suggestion is right--the area was an unofficial "smoker's
>> dcw- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> Well, they found spent shells but no cigarette butts so I'm betting it was
> a sniper's nest. But that misses the point I was making. I was disputing
> the CT argument that Oswald couldn't have been the shooter because no one
> saw him stacking the boxes to form the sniper's nest. No one saw anyone
> else stacking those boxes either. We don't know who stacked the boxes,
Not true. The boxes were already stacked there before lunch by the work
crew. They saw themselves stacking them.
> when they stacked them there, or why they stacked them there, yet the
> boxes were stacked there, so the fact that no one saw Oswald doing it is
Yes, we do because they were doing the same thing all week long.
> not an argument for his innocence. Oswald may have stacked the boxes
> without anyone on the floor noticing because they were busy with their
> work or Oswald might simply have taken advantage of boxes that had already
> been stacked in such a way as to provide him cover. I tend to lean toward
> the latter but we have no way of knowing nor do we need to know that.
>
In other words you refuse to ever learn anything about this case.
Bud
<snicker> I know how you hate to address what people actually say.
You always opt to fight your own strawmen.
> Explain how you think they could ever TRACE specific
> shells to a specific person. Fingerprints? Not usually found on the
> shells.
Is that really the only thing you can think of. How about a receipt
found amongst Oswald`s possessions. Someone who said they sold Oswald the
bullets. Someone who said they gave Oswald the bullets. A partially filled
box of the same bullets found amongst Oswald`s possessions. And of course
the one you mentioned, fingerprints. None of these things were found, so
the bullets couldn`t be traced to Oswald. Since what Hank said was true,
you had to change what he said to something untrue so you could attack it,
a cheap tactic apparently not beneath you.
> >>>> The empty
> >>>> shells were linked to Oswald's rifle which was linked to him.
> >>>> That does not prove that he fired them.
>
> >>> No, it just makes him the most likely person on the planet to have
> >>> fired them.
>
> >> Not at all. Various murders have been committed using someone else's
> >> weapon.
>
> > But when a person`s weapon is used to commit murder the owner of the
> > weapon is the most likely person to have committed the murder.
>
> But not always.
Yes, always. The owner of the weapon used to commit murder is always
the most likely person to have committed the murder.
> Don't always assume the easiest answer.
The only assumption I made that people use their own weapons to commit
murder more often than other people get possession of their weapon and
commit murders with them.
> >>>>>>> I believe he had other plans for the rest of the day, which necessitated
> >>>>>>> him being free for that period of time. I believe his plans included going
> >>>>>>> back to the roominghouse, getting his revolver, and then shooting General
> >>>>>>> Walker. He failed at that attempt in April, but didn't change his opinion
>
> >>>>>> Silly speculation. Walker was intentionally out of town that day.
>
> >>>>> Sorry, to clarify, Walker was due back on Saturday morning, as I
> >>>>> recall. Oswald merely had to stay free for 24 hours to get an
> >>>>> opportunity to shoot him.
>
> >>>> I like your thinking. So that's why Oswald needed those tent poles so
> >>>> that he could camp out overnight at Walker's house and wait for him to
> >>>> return. Only Oswald did not know where Walker was.
>
> >>> I think Hank is right that Oswald meant to kill Walker, but wrong
> >>> that he knew Walker was out of town. I think Oswald was going there
> >>> immediately.
>
> >> I don't think Oswald would have a clue.
> >> Show me the path he walked to get to Walker's house.
>
> > Why would you assume he was following a path?
>
> As usual you chicken out.
> Because you can't prove your idea.
I didn`t answer the question because it was based on an unwarranted
assumption.
I might walk someplace several times in one week and never take the same
route (even though only one is presumably the most efficient). I`m not
following a "path", I am heading for a destination.
> >>>>>>> of Walker in the interim. He likened Walker to Hitler, and said the world
> >>>>>>> would be a better place if somebody had killed Hitler. Having killed JFK,
> >>>>>>> he had nothing to lose by shooting Walker (or Tippit, for that matter). As
> >>>>>>> he said in custody, "they can only fry you once."
>
> >>>>>> Yeah, maybe if he could afford the airfare on the $13 he had left.
>
> >>>>> Not sure of your point.
>
> >>>> Afford the airfare to stalk Walker around the country. Like Bremmer.
>
> >>> He only needed the bus or train fare to get up into Walker`s neck of
> >>> the woods.
>
> >> How would he know that?
>
> > Know what? That there was a train and buses that could be boarded at
> > the zoo that would take him in the vicinity of Walker`s house? He
> > didn`t drive, he used buses to get around.
>
> >> How could he predict where Walker would go?
>
> > He knew where Walker lived. He tried to kill him there once. All he
> > had to do is go there and knock. If Walker answers, shoot him a lot of
> > times. He even had practice with Tippit.
>
> He didn't do that earlier. He attended one of the meetings and took
> pictures of the house, planning to shoot with a rifle to get away.
> You have yet to show that he was walking to Walker's house when Tippit
> confronted him.
Oswald showed that by his actions, you only need to read them
correctly.
> >> Nixon was in Dallas that morning, but in New York by the afternoon.
>
> > I think Oswald would have capped Nixon if he could have. Open season
> > on fascists.
>
> Marina said she locked him in the bathroom to prevent him from kiling
> Nixon.
I knew that. Some CTers take issue with the fact that bathrooms
rarely have outside locks.
There are plenty of facts to deduce that Oswald was going to kill
Walker. The fact that he had tried previously. The fact that he killed
Kennedy and Tippit and had nothing to lose. That fact that he went home to
get a gun. The fact that he was heading towards a place where he could
catch a bus that would take him in the vicinity of where Walker lived.
wgroom
> There was no reason to hide the rifle.
Other than to make someone look bad, like somebody who 'ordered' that type
of rifle. Careful research shows that there was no M-C ordered by Oswald.
Same with the BY Photos, made to have a person before the public look bad.
It was propaganda by design to make a patsy, then do away with him, and
let the others involved be scott free. Anyone knows if they have an ounce
of reason, that if they were really concerned with escaping in a fast
fashion, they would have never taken all that time to lift boxes and place
in a precise fashion the rifle under boxes and assemble boxes around that.
Anyone would not have have had time to do that plus make it downstairs for
a meeting with Truly and Baker IMO.
wg
Sean Smiley
The only boxes a shooter would have had to arrange, it seems, would
have been the "rifle rest" boxes. Easily & quietly done, perhaps
even while Williams was up there....
dcw
Jason Burke
But YO has no basis in reality or evidence. That sort of thing.
bigdog
I don't suppose you thought of this, but why couldn't someone just find a
couple rows of boxes that had already been stacked and drop the rifle
between them. How long would that take? Two seconds? A lot easier and
faster than collecting a bunch of unstacked boxes and stacking them
yourself.
Anthony Marsh
You can't frame someone unless you plant evidence. We've seen that with
numerous cases: Dreyfus, OJ Simpson, numerous drug busts.
But the rifle was simply dropped between some boxes very quickly.
Anthony Marsh
No receipt. Why should there be one?
> bullets. Someone who said they gave Oswald the bullets. A partially filled
They tried, but Mason denied it.
> box of the same bullets found amongst Oswald`s possessions. And of course
They could never find anything.
> the one you mentioned, fingerprints. None of these things were found, so
> the bullets couldn`t be traced to Oswald. Since what Hank said was true,
Wrong. The bullets were traced to the rifle and the rifle was traced to
Oswald.
> you had to change what he said to something untrue so you could attack it,
> a cheap tactic apparently not beneath you.
>
>>>>>> The empty
>>>>>> shells were linked to Oswald's rifle which was linked to him.
>>>>>> That does not prove that he fired them.
>>
>>>>> No, it just makes him the most likely person on the planet to have
>>>>> fired them.
>>
>>>> Not at all. Various murders have been committed using someone else's
>>>> weapon.
>>
>>> But when a person`s weapon is used to commit murder the owner of the
>>> weapon is the most likely person to have committed the murder.
>>
>> But not always.
>
> Yes, always. The owner of the weapon used to commit murder is always
> the most likely person to have committed the murder.
>
Not proof. Supposition.
>> Don't always assume the easiest answer.
>
> The only assumption I made that people use their own weapons to commit
> murder more often than other people get possession of their weapon and
> commit murders with them.
>
You probably don't even know of any examples of people using someone
else's weapon to commit a murder.
>>>>>>>>> I believe he had other plans for the rest of the day, which necessitated
>>>>>>>>> him being free for that period of time. I believe his plans included going
>>>>>>>>> back to the roominghouse, getting his revolver, and then shooting General
>>>>>>>>> Walker. He failed at that attempt in April, but didn't change his opinion
>>
>>>>>>>> Silly speculation. Walker was intentionally out of town that day.
>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, to clarify, Walker was due back on Saturday morning, as I
>>>>>>> recall. Oswald merely had to stay free for 24 hours to get an
>>>>>>> opportunity to shoot him.
>>
>>>>>> I like your thinking. So that's why Oswald needed those tent poles so
>>>>>> that he could camp out overnight at Walker's house and wait for him to
>>>>>> return. Only Oswald did not know where Walker was.
>>
>>>>> I think Hank is right that Oswald meant to kill Walker, but wrong
>>>>> that he knew Walker was out of town. I think Oswald was going there
>>>>> immediately.
>>
>>>> I don't think Oswald would have a clue.
>>>> Show me the path he walked to get to Walker's house.
>>
>>> Why would you assume he was following a path?
>>
>> As usual you chicken out.
>> Because you can't prove your idea.
>
> I didn`t answer the question because it was based on an unwarranted
> assumption.
>
> I might walk someplace several times in one week and never take the same
> route (even though only one is presumably the most efficient). I`m not
> following a "path", I am heading for a destination.
>
Sure, but you don't walk in the opposite direction.
>>>>>>>>> of Walker in the interim. He likened Walker to Hitler, and said the world
>>>>>>>>> would be a better place if somebody had killed Hitler. Having killed JFK,
>>>>>>>>> he had nothing to lose by shooting Walker (or Tippit, for that matter). As
>>>>>>>>> he said in custody, "they can only fry you once."
>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, maybe if he could afford the airfare on the $13 he had left.
>>
>>>>>>> Not sure of your point.
>>
>>>>>> Afford the airfare to stalk Walker around the country. Like Bremmer.
>>
>>>>> He only needed the bus or train fare to get up into Walker`s neck of
>>>>> the woods.
>>
>>>> How would he know that?
>>
>>> Know what? That there was a train and buses that could be boarded at
>>> the zoo that would take him in the vicinity of Walker`s house? He
>>> didn`t drive, he used buses to get around.
>>
>>>> How could he predict where Walker would go?
>>
>>> He knew where Walker lived. He tried to kill him there once. All he
>>> had to do is go there and knock. If Walker answers, shoot him a lot of
>>> times. He even had practice with Tippit.
>>
>> He didn't do that earlier. He attended one of the meetings and took
>> pictures of the house, planning to shoot with a rifle to get away.
>> You have yet to show that he was walking to Walker's house when Tippit
>> confronted him.
>
> Oswald showed that by his actions, you only need to read them
> correctly.
>
If you have a crystal ball.
>>>> Nixon was in Dallas that morning, but in New York by the afternoon.
>>
>>> I think Oswald would have capped Nixon if he could have. Open season
>>> on fascists.
>>
>> Marina said she locked him in the bathroom to prevent him from kiling
>> Nixon.
>
> I knew that. Some CTers take issue with the fact that bathrooms
> rarely have outside locks.
>
Did that door have a an outside lock?
Oh, so now you say deduce. You mean guess.
Show me, diagram the route and the bus line.
claviger
> I don't suppose you thought of this, but why couldn't someone just find a
> couple rows of boxes that had already been stacked and drop the rifle
> between them. How long would that take? Two seconds? A lot easier and
> faster than collecting a bunch of unstacked boxes and stacking them
> yourself.
The 6th floor was a target rich environment for hiding a rifle between
stacked rows of boxes.
Hank Sienzant
>
> > There was no reason to hide the rifle.
>
> Other than to make someone look bad, like somebody who 'ordered' that type
> of rifle.
Or to hid the rifle that was used in the shooting.
> Careful research shows that there was no M-C ordered by Oswald.
lol. Photos show him with the rifle. His handwriting is on the order
form. It was shipped to his PO Box.
Ignore it all you want.
> Same with the BY Photos, made to have a person before the public look bad.
No evidence of any alterations, per every qualified expert who has
ever examined the photos.
(Jack White and Robert Groden aren't qualified photo experts).
> It was propaganda by design to make a patsy, then do away with him, and
> let the others involved be scott free. Anyone knows if they have an ounce
> of reason, that if they were really concerned with escaping in a fast
> fashion, they would have never taken all that time to lift boxes and place
> in a precise fashion the rifle under boxes and assemble boxes around that.
Covered by another poster. The rifle was simply wedged between some
boxes near the stairs. Would have taken a second or two, tops.
> Anyone would not have have had time to do that plus make it downstairs for
> a meeting with Truly and Baker IMO.
Nonsense.
>
> wg
The real shooter had a reason to hide the rifle.
Thus far, I haven't seen any evidence anyone other than Oswald fired
any shots or hid any rifle.
You got any?
Hank Sienzant
I think the local Dallas papers were covering Walker's travels (and
travails) pretty extensively.
I believe Oswald could have known Walker's itinerary Easily enough.
>
> > >>> of Walker in the interim. He likened Walker to Hitler, and said the world
> > >>> would be a better place if somebody had killed Hitler. Having killed JFK,
> > >>> he had nothing to lose by shooting Walker (or Tippit, for that matter). As
> > >>> he said in custody, "they can only fry you once."
>
> > >> Yeah, maybe if he could afford the airfare on the $13 he had left.
>
> > > Not sure of your point.
>
> > Afford the airfare to stalk Walker around the country. Like Bremmer.
>
> He only needed the bus or train fare to get up into Walker`s neck of
> the woods.
Yes, my point exactly. He had shot at Walker before. He certainly knew
where Walker lived.
He also knew the rifle would be traced back to him eventually - within
a couple of days at the most.
He also knew that having shot JFK, he was pretty much bound to be
executed for that crime.
He had nothing to lose by trying to kill Walker.
Actually, there was a bus transfer point on Jefferson, jusst a short
walk from where Oswald killed Tippit.
Oswald could have transferred to a bus that took him to Walker's at
that point.
My source for this info is the book _ THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
KENNEDY: The Reasons Why _ by Albert Newman.
Hank Sienzant
> On 8/18/2011 7:18 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 18, 6:35 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 8/17/2011 8:53 PM, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 17, 11:19 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 8/16/2011 11:51 PM, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Aug 14, 10:25 pm, bobr<neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> There was no reason to hide the rifle.
>
> >>>>> Yes there was.
>
> >>>>> It was simple. The rifle could be traced to him, the shells - independent
> >>>>> of the rifle - could not.
>
> >>>>> He could not leave the TSBD with the rifle, so his choices were two, leave
> >>>>> it in the open, or hide it someplace.
>
> >>>> In fact no one could find where Oswald bought his ammunition.
>
> >>> Not my point. The ammo could be linked to the rifle, and the rifle
> >>> traced to Oswald.
> >>> As I noted, the shells could not be traced to him. The rifle could.
>
> >> So you just ignore my point and spread more misinformation.
>
> > What was your point? You didn`t speak to anything Hank said, you
> > just interjected a strawman about no one knowing where Oswald bought
> > his ammo is all.
>
> Silly. He said the shells could not be linked to Oswald. That is wrong.
> The shells were linked to the rifle and the rifle was linked to Oswald.
That is *exactly* what I said initially. Can you read the below quote
and tell me what you are quibbling about now?
-- quote --
It was simple. The rifle could be traced to him, the shells -
independent of the rifle - could not.
-- unquote --
> That is how the shells were linked to Oswald. My point about not being
> able to find out where Oswald bought the ammo is that it is not necessary
> to link him to the empties.
>
> > And what did he write that was misinformation? The same thing he
> > said above you repeat below.
>
> When he said that the shells could not be traced to him.
Nope. Never said that. I said they could be traced to him independent
of the rifle.
-- quote --
It was simple. The rifle could be traced to him, the shells -
independent of the rifle - could not.
-- unquote --
> He did not point out as I did that the shells were linked to the rifle.
-- quote --
It was simple. The rifle could be traced to him, the shells -
independent of the rifle - could not.
-- unquote --
Yep, you are saying exactly what I said. That the clock starts ticking
on linking Oswald to the shooting when the cops find the rifle, not
the shells.
So hiding the rifle delays the start of the clock and gives Oswald
more time after the shooting to be free.
>
> >> The empty
> >> shells were linked to Oswald's rifle which was linked to him.
> >> That does not prove that he fired them.
>
> > No, it just makes him the most likely person on the planet to have
> > fired them.
>
> Not at all. Various murders have been committed using someone else's
> weapon.
>
>
Please provide some evidence that is what happened in this case.
> >>>>> Hank- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
Is that a claim or just idle speculation. If you are going to make a
claim then upload the Dallas papers saying that.
>>
>>>>>> of Walker in the interim. He likened Walker to Hitler, and said the world
>>>>>> would be a better place if somebody had killed Hitler. Having killed JFK,
>>>>>> he had nothing to lose by shooting Walker (or Tippit, for that matter). As
>>>>>> he said in custody, "they can only fry you once."
>>
>>>>> Yeah, maybe if he could afford the airfare on the $13 he had left.
>>
>>>> Not sure of your point.
>>
>>> Afford the airfare to stalk Walker around the country. Like Bremmer.
>>
>> He only needed the bus or train fare to get up into Walker`s neck of
>> the woods.
>
> Yes, my point exactly. He had shot at Walker before. He certainly knew
> where Walker lived.
> He also knew the rifle would be traced back to him eventually - within
> a couple of days at the most.
> He also knew that having shot JFK, he was pretty much bound to be
> executed for that crime.
> He had nothing to lose by trying to kill Walker.
>
You have not shown that he was going in that direction or the route to
whatever bus route you imagine would take him to Walker's house.
It's pure speculation.
So this is the reason why Oswald kept the bus transfer in his shirt
pocket?
Bud
It`s possible he did know Walker was out of town. I tend to think he
didn`t, and that he was going for him when Tippit crossed paths with
him.
> > > >>> of Walker in the interim. He likened Walker to Hitler, and said the world
> > > >>> would be a better place if somebody had killed Hitler. Having killed JFK,
> > > >>> he had nothing to lose by shooting Walker (or Tippit, for that matter). As
> > > >>> he said in custody, "they can only fry you once."
>
> > > >> Yeah, maybe if he could afford the airfare on the $13 he had left.
>
> > > > Not sure of your point.
>
> > > Afford the airfare to stalk Walker around the country. Like Bremmer.
>
> > He only needed the bus or train fare to get up into Walker`s neck of
> > the woods.
>
> Yes, my point exactly. He had shot at Walker before. He certainly knew
> where Walker lived.
> He also knew the rifle would be traced back to him eventually - within
> a couple of days at the most.
He`d be a person of interest long before that.
> He also knew that having shot JFK, he was pretty much bound to be
> executed for that crime.
> He had nothing to lose by trying to kill Walker.
Thats true.
Thats quite possible. But if Oswald did know Walker was out of town
he may have been looking to make himself scarce also. The zoo had a
train station where the Texas Chief, a passenger train that could have
taken him out of Dallas stopped. The only way to get over the Thorton
Freeway to get to it would be at Marsalis Avenue.
Bud
Did I say there should be one? Focus on what I do say Tony, it`s not
that hard.
> > bullets. Someone who said they gave Oswald the bullets. A partially filled
>
> They tried, but Mason denied it.
Another strawman that doesn`t speak to the bullets being traced to
Oswald.
> > box of the same bullets found amongst Oswald`s possessions. And of course
>
> They could never find anything.
Another strawman that doesn`t speak to the bullets being traced to
Oswald.
> > the one you mentioned, fingerprints. None of these things were found, so
> > the bullets couldn`t be traced to Oswald. Since what Hank said was true,
>
> Wrong. The bullets were traced to the rifle and the rifle was traced to
> Oswald.
The bullets were linked to the rifle, not "traced". This is what
Hank has been saying for days.
> > you had to change what he said to something untrue so you could attack it,
> > a cheap tactic apparently not beneath you.
>
> >>>>>> The empty
> >>>>>> shells were linked to Oswald's rifle which was linked to him.
> >>>>>> That does not prove that he fired them.
>
> >>>>> No, it just makes him the most likely person on the planet to have
> >>>>> fired them.
>
> >>>> Not at all. Various murders have been committed using someone else's
> >>>> weapon.
>
> >>> But when a person`s weapon is used to commit murder the owner of the
> >>> weapon is the most likely person to have committed the murder.
>
> >> But not always.
>
> > Yes, always. The owner of the weapon used to commit murder is always
> > the most likely person to have committed the murder.
>
> Not proof. Supposition.
Yah, I suppose it`s true that the owner of a weapon used to commit
murder is the most likely person to have committed the murder where
that weapon was used. Don`t you?
> >> Don't always assume the easiest answer.
>
> > The only assumption I made that people use their own weapons to commit
> > murder more often than other people get possession of their weapon and
> > commit murders with them.
>
> You probably don't even know of any examples of people using someone
> else's weapon to commit a murder.
I probably don`t even know what that has to do with anything I`ve
said.
Oswald wasn`t walking in the opposite direction from where I said he
was heading. I said he was heading towards the zoo, where the buses
were and train station was.
> >>>>>>>>> of Walker in the interim. He likened Walker to Hitler, and said the world
> >>>>>>>>> would be a better place if somebody had killed Hitler. Having killed JFK,
> >>>>>>>>> he had nothing to lose by shooting Walker (or Tippit, for that matter). As
> >>>>>>>>> he said in custody, "they can only fry you once."
>
> >>>>>>>> Yeah, maybe if he could afford the airfare on the $13 he had left.
>
> >>>>>>> Not sure of your point.
>
> >>>>>> Afford the airfare to stalk Walker around the country. Like Bremmer.
>
> >>>>> He only needed the bus or train fare to get up into Walker`s neck of
> >>>>> the woods.
>
> >>>> How would he know that?
>
> >>> Know what? That there was a train and buses that could be boarded at
> >>> the zoo that would take him in the vicinity of Walker`s house? He
> >>> didn`t drive, he used buses to get around.
>
> >>>> How could he predict where Walker would go?
>
> >>> He knew where Walker lived. He tried to kill him there once. All he
> >>> had to do is go there and knock. If Walker answers, shoot him a lot of
> >>> times. He even had practice with Tippit.
>
> >> He didn't do that earlier. He attended one of the meetings and took
> >> pictures of the house, planning to shoot with a rifle to get away.
> >> You have yet to show that he was walking to Walker's house when Tippit
> >> confronted him.
>
> > Oswald showed that by his actions, you only need to read them
> > correctly.
>
> If you have a crystal ball.
Just the ability to reason. Of course if you could do that you
wouldn`t be a CTer.
> >>>> Nixon was in Dallas that morning, but in New York by the afternoon.
>
> >>> I think Oswald would have capped Nixon if he could have. Open season
> >>> on fascists.
>
> >> Marina said she locked him in the bathroom to prevent him from kiling
> >> Nixon.
>
> > I knew that. Some CTers take issue with the fact that bathrooms
> > rarely have outside locks.
>
> Did that door have a an outside lock?
I don`t even know what color it was.
But it could have just been the product of Marina`s faulty English.
She may have just blocked him or held the knob until she talked him
out of his murderous intentions. CTers focus on irrelevant details so
they can ignore the important stuff, like Oswald being hot to kill
political figures.
Did you think that it appeared in evidence that Oswald said he was
going to catch a bus to kill Walker and it somehow escaped your
notice?
> You mean guess.
No, I meant "deduce". Like I deduce the planes were trying to hit
the WTC buildings on 9-11. I don`t need the hijackers flying the
planes to tell me, it`s evident.
Hank Sienzant
Yeah, someone once said Mark Lane, unlike some lawyers, goes right for
the capillaries.
The stuff they focus on isn't worth a pile of warm dog poop, while
they ignore (or allege it is altered or forged, because it contradicts
the witnesses they like to utilize) all the hard evidence.
>
>
>
> > >>>>>>>>> But all of that doesn't matter. Let's just assume he wanted to enjoy his
> > >>>>>>>>> last few hours of freedom (and asking why hide the rifle means you must
> > >>>>>>>>> assume, for the purposes of this discussion, he shot JFK). If you are
> > >>>>>>>>> going to turn around and argue in this thread that he didn't shoot JFK,
> > >>>>>>>>> then your initial question becomes vacuous.
>
> > >>>>>>>>> In any case, the clock starts ticking on tracing the rifle (and
> > >>>>>>>>> discovering the owner) once the rifle is discovered. Until the rifle is
> > >>>>>>>>> discovered, the clock doesn't start ticking on tracing the rifle back to
> > >>>>>>>>> him. Are you following all that?
>
> > >>>>>>>>> Thus, the longer Oswald can delay the discovery of the rifle, the longer
> > >>>>>>>>> he is free. To enjoy the sunshine, or to get to General Walker's and gun
> > >>>>>>>>> him
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Hank Sienzant
Yes, I said 'at the most'. As it turned out, he was noticed missing by Roy
Truly, and his name came to the attention of the cops that way. But it was
a Friday afternoon, and if he wasn't noticed missing by Truly in all the
tumult, there would be no work until Monday, and it would have taken until
the rifle was traced to him through the money order that he'd become a
suspect in the assassination. Which is not to imply it would have taken
until Monday to trace the rifle (it didn't), but Oswald couldn't count on
not being being a person of interest past Monday morning, when he was next
due to report to work. Or to put it another way, Oswald knew he only had a
couple of days at the most he could count on being free to pursue his
priorities - which I think including taking another chance at killing
General Walker.
If the goal was to get out of town via train, why get a bus transfer?
Or am I misunderstanding your point?
Hank Sienzant
> On 8/16/2011 11:51 PM, HankSienzantwrote:
>
> > On Aug 14, 10:25 pm, bobr<neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> There was no reason to hide the rifle.
>
> > Yes there was.
>
> > It was simple. The rifle could be traced to him, the shells - independent
> > of the rifle - could not.
>
> > He could not leave the TSBD with the rifle, so his choices were two, leave
> > it in the open, or hide it someplace.
>
> In fact no one could find where Oswald bought his ammunition.
>
> > him being free for that period of time. I believe his plans included going
> > back to the roominghouse, getting his revolver, and then shooting General
> > Walker. He failed at that attempt in April, but didn't change his opinion
>
> Silly speculation. Walker was intentionally out of town that day.
Missed this the first time. I don't know of many people who accidentally
go out of town. For example, JFK was intentionally out of Washington that
day. And Connally was intentionally out of Austin that day.
Not sure of your point here, unless you are trying to imply that Walker
was trying to build an alibi for the JFK assassination attempt, which
means he had foreknowledge and was therefore a co-conspirator. If you're
accusing Walker of being a conspirator, come out and say it.
Otherwise, please explain why you added the "intentionally" above, which
is after all, totally redundant otherwise, as people generally don't go
out of town accidentally.
But it occurs to me that maybe you are giving us forewarning that what you
are about to write is just silly speculation on your part. After all, you
did precede the "Walker was intentionally out of town that day." with the
notice of "Silly speculation. " So I appreciate the warning if that's what
you intended.
Thanks much,
Hank
Hank Sienzant
> On 8/23/2011 6:25 PM, HankSienzantwrote:
It's a claim that's covered in extensive detail in Albert Newman's
book.
Newman, Albert H. The assassination of John F. Kennedy: the reasons
why. New York, C.N. Potter, 1970. 622 p. E842.9.N46 1970
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> of Walker in the interim. He likened Walker to Hitler, and said the world
> >>>>>> would be a better place if somebody had killed Hitler. Having killed JFK,
> >>>>>> he had nothing to lose by shooting Walker (or Tippit, for that matter). As
> >>>>>> he said in custody, "they can only fry you once."
>
> >>>>> Yeah, maybe if he could afford the airfare on the $13 he had left.
>
> >>>> Not sure of your point.
>
> >>> Afford the airfare to stalk Walker around the country. Like Bremmer.
>
> >> He only needed the bus or train fare to get up into Walker`s neck of
> >> the woods.
>
> > Yes, my point exactly. He had shot at Walker before. He certainly knew
> > where Walker lived.
> > He also knew the rifle would be traced back to him eventually - within
> > a couple of days at the most.
> > He also knew that having shot JFK, he was pretty much bound to be
> > executed for that crime.
> > He had nothing to lose by trying to kill Walker.
>
> You have not shown that he was going in that direction or the route to
> whatever bus route you imagine would take him to Walker's house.
> It's pure speculation.
Yes, I believe it is. But since Oswald is dead, he isn't about to tell
us where he was going anytime soon.
And since your entire case is built on speculation, is speculation a
bad thing?
Or is it only a bad thing when I do it?
Remember these points.
1. Oswald went back to the roominghouse to get the revolver, bypassing
opportunities to get out of town at the greyhound bus station (where
he instead caught a cab).
2. Oswald had attempted to kill Walker previously
3. Oswald had just killed JFK.
I conclude from the above Oswald had nothing to lose by attempting to
kill Walker. As he said in custody, 'they can only fry you once'.
When stopped by Officer Tippit, he gunned him down in cold blood. When
confronted by another cop in the theatre, he slugged that cop and
attempted to gun him down.
Oswald absolutely had no compunction about killing anyone who got in
his way that day. He demonstrated it twice after shooting JFK.
Yes, I think he was going to gun down Walker.
If you've got a different theory, please advance it now and let's hear
the evidence for it.
Yes, I believe this is the reason he asked for the bus transfer when
he got off the bus initially.
The transfer is also evidence (usually ignored) that he *planned* to
go somewhere else by bus after going back to the roominghouse.
If your theory doesn't include Oswald taking a bus somewhere, you are
ignoring the evidence of the bus transfer.
Bud
The bus (and the transfer) was to get to the boardinghouse to get
the handgun. When the bus got stuck in traffic he switched to the cab
to get to the boardinghouse (but he retained the transfer). After
getting the gun he might have been heading to the train station. Where
he might go by train and who he might be gunning for is anyone`s
guess. Next stop, Washington D.C.? Nixon?
bigdog
I think he was walking in the wrong direction to be going to the train
station. Dallas Union Station is on Houston St. just a few blocks south of
DP. The tracks of the triple overpass led right into the station. Oswald's
cab ride almost certainly would have taken him right past the station
before crossing over the tracks on Houston St on the way to the rooming
house. Use Google Earth to see the proximity. Also, he didn't have enough
money to get a train ticket for any distance other than a few towns away.
It's anybody's guess where Oswald was going and what he had in mind. It
wouldn't surprise me at all if his mindset was that he was going to get
cornered and he was going to go down fighting, taking as many cops with
him as he could. I really think he was surprised to get out of the TSBD
without getting caught and he had no plan at all after that. Of course
we'll never know for sure because he didn't live long enough to tell
anybody what he had in mind.
Anthony Marsh
How about a flight to Cuba for $13?
Hank Sienzant
No. He asked for the transfer when leaving the bus, not when boarding it.
Clearly the transfer wasn't necessary to get him to the boardinghouse, as
the bus trip itself would go down North Zang Blvd and take him within a
block of the roominghouse.
And just as clearly, he had another trip in mind when he asked for the
transfer - and not to the roominghouse, because he went to the
Greyhound bus station and took a cab to the roominghouse. The bus
transfer didn't help him there.
So he either asked for the transfer for no reason whatsoever or he
asked for it because he intended to take a bus somewhere *after* he
picked up the revolver. Pick one.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mcwatters.htm
Mr. BALL - Paid his fare, did he?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir; he just paid his fare and sat down on the
second cross seat on the right.
Mr. BALL - Do you remember whether or not you gave him a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - Not when he got on; no, sir.
Mr. BALL - You didn't. Did you ever give him a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir; I gave him one about two blocks from where
he got on.
Mr. BALL - Did he ask you for a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Do you remember what he said to you when he asked you for
the transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - Well, the reason I recall the incident, I had--there
was a lady that when I stopped in this traffic, there was a lady who
had a suitcase and she said, "I have got to make a 1 o'clock train at
Union Station," and she said, "I don't believe from the looks of this
traffic you are going to be held up."
She said, "Would you give me a transfer and I am going to walk on
down," which is about from where I was at that time about 7 or 8
blocks to Union Station and she asked me if I would give her a
transfer in case I did get through the traffic if I would pick her up
on the way.
So, I said, "I sure will." So I gave her a transfer and opened the
door and as she was going out the gentleman I had picked up about 2
blocks asked for a transfer and got off at the same place in the
middle of the block where the lady did.
Mr. BALL - Where was that near, what intersection?
Mr. McWATTERS - It was the intersection near Lamar Street
Anthony Marsh
Please post the newspaper accounts.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> of Walker in the interim. He likened Walker to Hitler, and said the world
>>>>>>>> would be a better place if somebody had killed Hitler. Having killed JFK,
>>>>>>>> he had nothing to lose by shooting Walker (or Tippit, for that matter). As
>>>>>>>> he said in custody, "they can only fry you once."
>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, maybe if he could afford the airfare on the $13 he had left.
>>
>>>>>> Not sure of your point.
>>
>>>>> Afford the airfare to stalk Walker around the country. Like Bremmer.
>>
>>>> He only needed the bus or train fare to get up into Walker`s neck of
>>>> the woods.
>>
>>> Yes, my point exactly. He had shot at Walker before. He certainly knew
>>> where Walker lived.
>>> He also knew the rifle would be traced back to him eventually - within
>>> a couple of days at the most.
>>> He also knew that having shot JFK, he was pretty much bound to be
>>> executed for that crime.
>>> He had nothing to lose by trying to kill Walker.
>>
>> You have not shown that he was going in that direction or the route to
>> whatever bus route you imagine would take him to Walker's house.
>> It's pure speculation.
>
> Yes, I believe it is. But since Oswald is dead, he isn't about to tell
> us where he was going anytime soon.
>
> And since your entire case is built on speculation, is speculation a
> bad thing?
> Or is it only a bad thing when I do it?
>
Speculation has to lead to research which then has to lead to documents,
evidence, proof.
I guess maybe the reason why you have never uploaded anything is because
you don't know how to upload or search Google Images.
So mail me the newspapers and I'll scan them in for you.
> Remember these points.
> 1. Oswald went back to the roominghouse to get the revolver, bypassing
> opportunities to get out of town at the greyhound bus station (where
> he instead caught a cab).
He didn't even try to get on a Greyhound bus. Where is he going to go on
$13? Cuba? Hijack a bus to Cuba??
> 2. Oswald had attempted to kill Walker previously
Conceded.
> 3. Oswald had just killed JFK.
>
Not proved.
> I conclude from the above Oswald had nothing to lose by attempting to
> kill Walker. As he said in custody, 'they can only fry you once'.
>
He was talking about Tippit AND Kennedy.
> When stopped by Officer Tippit, he gunned him down in cold blood. When
You don't know it was cold blood. It certainly wasn't planned. It was
probably panic.
> confronted by another cop in the theatre, he slugged that cop and
> attempted to gun him down.
> Oswald absolutely had no compunction about killing anyone who got in
> his way that day. He demonstrated it twice after shooting JFK.
>
> Yes, I think he was going to gun down Walker.
>
But you can't show me any evidence, only speculation.
> If you've got a different theory, please advance it now and let's hear
> the evidence for it.
>
I have no theory.
Where was that bus headed? Florida? Or is that the route that goes to
his rooming house?
Please list the details and show us on a map.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 17, 11:19 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 8/16/2011 11:51 PM, HankSienzantwrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 14, 10:25 pm, bobr<neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> There was no reason to hide the rifle.
>>
>>> Yes there was.
>>
>>> It was simple. The rifle could be traced to him, the shells - independent
>>> of the rifle - could not.
>>
>>> He could not leave the TSBD with the rifle, so his choices were two, leave
>>> it in the open, or hide it someplace.
>>
>> In fact no one could find where Oswald bought his ammunition.
>>
>>> I believe he had other plans for the rest of the day, which necessitated
>>> him being free for that period of time. I believe his plans included going
>>> back to the roominghouse, getting his revolver, and then shooting General
>>> Walker. He failed at that attempt in April, but didn't change his opinion
>>
>> Silly speculation. Walker was intentionally out of town that day.
>
> Missed this the first time. I don't know of many people who accidentally
> go out of town. For example, JFK was intentionally out of Washington that
> day. And Connally was intentionally out of Austin that day.
>
Walker could have gone on any other day. But he wanted to be out of
Dallas that Friday.
> Not sure of your point here, unless you are trying to imply that Walker
> was trying to build an alibi for the JFK assassination attempt, which
> means he had foreknowledge and was therefore a co-conspirator. If you're
> accusing Walker of being a conspirator, come out and say it.
>
Nah, that's not my theory.
> Otherwise, please explain why you added the "intentionally" above, which
> is after all, totally redundant otherwise, as people generally don't go
> out of town accidentally.
>
Oh, jeez, thanks. I forgot to put in quotes. Thanks for reminding me.
Some people are smart enough to intentionally decide when to get out of
town. Is Obama intending to stick to his schedule and leave Martha's
Vineyard on Sunday afternoon? Or is he smart enough to leave this
afternoon? Leaving today is intentional.
> But it occurs to me that maybe you are giving us forewarning that what you
> are about to write is just silly speculation on your part. After all, you
> did precede the "Walker was intentionally out of town that day." with the
> notice of "Silly speculation. " So I appreciate the warning if that's what
> you intended.
>
Well, that's a great suggestion. If only everyone would preface their
remarks at the top with WARNING: Silly speculation ahead.
> Thanks much,
>
> Hank
Anthony Marsh
It should not take 3 days to trace the rifle. It only took a couple of
hours and it only traced to some guy named Hidell, not Oswald.
> suspect in the assassination. Which is not to imply it would have taken
> until Monday to trace the rifle (it didn't), but Oswald couldn't count on
> not being being a person of interest past Monday morning, when he was next
> due to report to work. Or to put it another way, Oswald knew he only had a
> couple of days at the most he could count on being free to pursue his
> priorities - which I think including taking another chance at killing
> General Walker.
>
If Oswald had not already been arrested how long would it take them to
figure out that Hidell was Oswald? Did the Intelligence division or 112th
MI have the FPCC fliers with both Oswald's name and Hidell's?
Anthony Marsh
$13 in his wallet? It doesn't sound to me like Oswald was planning to
assassinate the President and then flee.
> It's anybody's guess where Oswald was going and what he had in mind. It
> wouldn't surprise me at all if his mindset was that he was going to get
> cornered and he was going to go down fighting, taking as many cops with
> him as he could. I really think he was surprised to get out of the TSBD
> without getting caught and he had no plan at all after that. Of course
> we'll never know for sure because he didn't live long enough to tell
> anybody what he had in mind.
>
Go down fighting? Without his revolver and with only one bullet in the
rifle? Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.
Bud
Thanks for bring that to mt attention, Hank.
Perhaps the thing to keep in mind is that Oswald was probably
winging it, never expecting to get clear of the TSBD after the
shooting. He was in a "now what?" situation. At that point in time a
Union station departure may have been seen by Oswald as a good option.
Or maybe he just wanted to be seen doing the things that people who
hadn`t killed a President were doing.
Bud
Theres a possibility, maybe he got the handgun to hijack a plane. Of
course Cuba would have had no choice but to return him if he was
successful. It might have turned out to be a case like Booth, where he
didn`t get the reaction from the people who he struck a blow for that
he thought he would.
claviger
> Go down fighting? Without his revolver and with only one bullet in the
> rifle? Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.
Exactly. It appears LHO never thought he would get out of the building
alive, so an escape plan was not important. With dumb luck he did escape
and went home to grab his pistol. Maybe he thought he could knock off
Walker then go down raging against the system, a marxist hero dying for
the cause in a hail of fascist bullets. There is every reason to believe
LHO had a Walter Mitty personality.
wgroom
If the photos are real and they aren't the real person, then they aren't
real. You don't need to be a photo expert to know that if the anomolies
are too great then it's not real. Jack White and Groden are good enough,
and anyone can see their observations are irrefutable.
The rifle was never order, nor was there any paperwork shown that it was.
There was evidence that the money order was picked out from a box after
the assassination that was two years out of sequence. That was an
intention to deceive and fabricate a scheme.
wg
Anthony Marsh
Oswald did have a plan to hijack a plane to Cuba. Before the Kennedy
assassination. But Marina said no.
Anthony Marsh
If he wanted to escape all he had to do was walk a couple of blocks and
board a Greyhound bus, headed for Mexico.
When I would leave work every day my first thought was never to escape
to Mexico. I would want to go home.
Sandy McCroskey
Jack White?! Jack White is an*idiot.* He doesn't believe man landed on
the moon.
Did you know that?
Or maybe you agree?
He "proved" it with the same impeccable methodology and unassailable
logic that he applies to the Kennedy assassination.
;-D
/sm
Anthony Marsh
Maybe he just wanted to help the sweet little old lady and then could
get back on the next bus going on the same route. I don't think the
transfer would get him to Mexico.
bigdog
White and Groden are bad jokes. Groden has been reduced to trying to eke
out a living by hawking his latest self published tripe in DP along with
all of the other hucksters. It's a wonder what this guy would have done to
make a living if JFK hadn't been shot.
> The rifle was never order, nor was there any paperwork shown that it was.
> There was evidence that the money order was picked out from a box after
> the assassination that was two years out of sequence. That was an
> intention to deceive and fabricate a scheme.
>
You really believe that? <snicker>
Bud
Yes, either there was a massive conspiracy to make Oswald appear
guilty or he was just guilty.
> wg
Jason Burke
I don't think I've seen anyone so desperate at grasping for straws in a
looong time. Even on acj...
Anthony Marsh
Another strawman argument. It doesn't have to be massive. Just a few
people in key places. Many people cooperate with a conspiracy thinking
it is an official program.
>> wg
>
>
Bud
Too bad he didn`t ask her for permission to shoot Kennedy.
Bud
Home was where Oswald kept his gun. I suspect that was the reason
for the trip.
Bud
"many people" equals massive conspiracy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> wg
Anthony Marsh
Right. Go home where the police would be waiting for you. Good plan.
bigdog
Anthony Marsh
No, it doesn't. Time to throw away your stockpile of straw.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> wg
>
>
claviger
times. It was part of his MO.
Bud
I would think "many people" to be a requirement of a massive
conspiracy. Hard to imagine a massive conspiracy with only a few
people.
> Time to throw away your stockpile of straw.
You said "many people", not me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> wg
Anthony Marsh
Again, many people is not massive.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> wg
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Illogical. Many is not the same thing as massive.
Sandy McCroskey
"Massive" is sure not the same thing as "a few."
/sm
Anthony Marsh
I said many. Now you want to argue over the definition of "a few." So tell
everyone EXACTLY how many constitute "a few." I never said massive. You
did.
Bud
Distinction without a difference.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> wg
Sandy McCroskey
"A few" is the opposite of "many." If many people are involved, I
would call it a massive conspiracy. The surest way to keep a secret
among three people is if two of them are dead.
/sm
bigdog
Bud
Tony can`t make the distinction between me saying a person can`t be
thrown significantly back by the impact of a bullet and a head moving
slightly being caused by the impact of a bullet, but he can make the
distinction between a lot of people conspiring and a massive
conspiracy.
Anthony Marsh
Slightly? 2.3 inches in half a Zapruder film? And you call that not
significant?
Bud
I can move a head 6 inches with a slap. How does the force of a slap
compare with the force of a bullet?
> And you call that not
> significant?
You don`t really think "slightly" and "not significant" mean the
same thing, do you Tony?
wgroom
>
Of course, the pattern of deceptions are many and significant. Some are
just so blatantly, glaring that one can just hone on this cavalier type of
end run.
Of course when a fake BY Photo has a rifle that doesn't even match up with
a rifle found in the TSBD, one should have just said, stop the presses, or
dies laughing.
Apparently one's ignorance is still being kept with a straight face.
wg