These Two Things Prove Lee Harvey Oswald's Guilt

[David Von Pein]

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used to assassinate JFK. With that weapon being found inside the building where Oswald was definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963.

2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky package into his place of employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the contents of this package to a co-worker.*

* As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the "curtain rods" based on the following:

A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository after the assassination.

B.) Oswald definitely did not carry any package inside his roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue when he arrived back home just prior to 1:00 PM on the afternoon of the assassination.

A and B above add up to the inescapable fact that: No "curtain rods" were in that paper package on 11/22/63.

The evidence (and Oswald's own words and actions) tell a reasonable person that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of two murders in 1963, and there's nothing any conspiracy theorist (or anybody else on the planet) can do or say to change that basic of all facts.

The conspiracists will continue to try to set Oswald free, of course, like always. But the more a reasonable person examines the evidence (and applies just a small dose of ordinary common sense to these facts in evidence), the more hollow, shallow, and inept all those pro-conspiracy arguments become.

David Von Pein
January 2006

-------------------------------------------------

More here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/two-things-that-prove-oswalds-guilt.html

--------------------------------------------------

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I don't argue for Oswald's innocence, but there is reasonable doubt about what Oswald was carrying in his Friday morning package. The only two people who saw it said that it was too short to have contained the Mannlicher-Carcanno, even disassembled. And there were some curtain rods which might really have been found in the TSBD, though I can't prove it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bouYbNXwYhA There certainly is reasonable doubt about what Oswald carried into the TSBD on Friday morning.

[David Von Pein]

But it's pretty clear, Sky Throne, that Oswald most certainly LIED to Buell Frazier about the contents of his package. (And why would I think for even a moment that the real liar in the "curtain rods" story is Buell Frazier? That is not a reasonable conclusion at all.)

We know Oswald lied to Frazier about the "curtain rods" package. Because if that *wasn't* a lie, Oswald would have certainly told the police that he HAD, indeed, carried some curtain rods into the TSBD building on Nov. 22---and Oswald would have then told the cops where they could find the rods within the TSBD.

What possible reason would Oswald have had for saying he had no rods if he really did take some rods into the building? That lie is one of the biggest (and most telling) of the lies Oswald told after his arrest, to be sure. Because if LHO had *anything* in that bag other than a rifle, he would have been shouting that fact from the roof of City Hall after he was arrested. Instead, he tells the police he took no large-ish package to work at all that day. But we know he did. That "large package" fact is confirmed by not only Buell Frazier; it's also verified by Linnie Mae Randle as well.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I think there is reasonable doubt about what Oswald told the police. It was not recorded. There was no stenographer. Also, Oswald might have carried a shorter gun, which probably had been used from behind the picket fence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RED2FBQX0HE It wouldn't have done Oswald any good to admit to bringing in a short gun. I don't know what Oswald had in his package on Friday morning. I think there is reasonable doubt about that.

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 3:42:43 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 3:02:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used to assassinate JFK. With that weapon being found inside the building where Oswald was definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963.
> >
> > 2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky package into his place of employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the contents of this package to a co-worker.*
> >
> > * As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the "curtain rods" based on the following:
> >
> > A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository after the assassination.
> >
> > B.) Oswald definitely did not carry any package inside his roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue when he arrived back home just prior to 1:00 PM on the afternoon of the assassination.
> >
> > A and B above add up to the inescapable fact that: No "curtain rods" were in that paper package on 11/22/63.
> >
> > The evidence (and Oswald's own words and actions) tell a reasonable person that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of two murders in 1963, and there's nothing any conspiracy theorist (or anybody else on the planet) can do or say to change that basic of all facts.
> >
> > The conspiracists will continue to try to set Oswald free, of course, like always. But the more a reasonable person examines the evidence (and applies just a small dose of ordinary common sense to these facts in evidence), the more hollow, shallow, and inept all those pro-conspiracy arguments become.
> >
> > David Von Pein
> > January 2006
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------
> >
> > More here:
> >
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/two-things-that-prove-oswalds-guilt.html
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> I don't argue for Oswald's innocence, but there is reasonable doubt

<BUZZ!> Wrong approach. The correct approach is what is reasonable to conclude, and which conclusions need the least amount of fantastic suppositions. Oswald and rifle are known to be at location "A". Oswald carried a long package to location "B". Rifle and Oswald are known to be at location "B". Of course there is more, but that is the basic groundwork.

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 4:28:05 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 4:21:47 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > But it's pretty clear, Sky Throne, that Oswald most certainly LIED to Buell Frazier about the contents of his package. (And why would I think for even a moment that the real liar in the "curtain rods" story is Buell Frazier? That is not a reasonable conclusion at all.)
> >
> > We know Oswald lied to Frazier about the "curtain rods" package. Because if that *wasn't* a lie, Oswald would have certainly told the police that he HAD, indeed, carried some curtain rods into the TSBD building on Nov. 22---and Oswald would have then told the cops where they could find the rods within the TSBD.
> >
> > What possible reason would Oswald have had for saying he had no rods if he really did take some rods into the building? That lie is one of the biggest (and most telling) of the lies Oswald told after his arrest, to be sure. Because if LHO had *anything* in that bag other than a rifle, he would have been shouting that fact from the roof of City Hall after he was arrested. Instead, he tells the police he took no large-ish package to work at all that day. But we know he did. That "large package" fact is confirmed by not only Buell Frazier; it's also verified by Linnie Mae Randle as well.
> I think there is reasonable doubt

When conspiracy folk say "reasonable doubt", it is dumbspeak for "I can reject this information out of hand". The correct approach is to view the police reports as reflecting the information Oswald gave during the interviews (even if imperfect). That is the most reasonable assumption to proceed with.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Poor little Bud has diarrhea.

[Bud]

Conspiracy idiot, conspiracy idiot response.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You're such a cute little moron! Probably why nobody has bashed your head in.

[Bud]

Conspiracy idiot, conspiracy idiot thinking.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 00:02:03 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was
> used to assassinate JFK. With that weapon being found inside the
> building where Oswald was definitely located at 12:30 PM on November
> 22, 1963.

This is the simple logical fallacy of begging the question.

Notice that nothing is cited, no evidence is given, simply Von Penis
spouting his faith.

> 2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky package into his place of
> employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning
> of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the
> contents of this package to a co-worker.*

A package that EVERYONE said was too short to contain a rifle. Nor is
there "reasonable doubt" hanging around anywhere - just another bit of
begging the question.

Notice that nothing is cited, no evidence is given, simply Von Penis
spouting his faith.

> * As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the
> "curtain rods" based on the following:

Wait for it folks, more begging the question and lack of evidence...

> A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository
> after the assassination.

Yep... begging the question. No citations to ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER
that would support this logical fallacy.

> B.) Oswald definitely did not carry any package inside his
> roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue when he arrived back home just
> prior to 1:00 PM on the afternoon of the assassination.

Yep... begging the question. No citations to ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER
that would support this logical fallacy.

> A and B above add up to the inescapable fact that: No "curtain rods"
> were in that paper package on 11/22/63.

No, they don't. Again, all we have are Von Penis making naked claims
without a shred of citation.

> The evidence (and Oswald's own words and actions) tell a reasonable
> person that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of two murders in 1963, and
> there's nothing any conspiracy theorist (or anybody else on the
> planet) can do or say to change that basic of all facts.

There's certainly nothing anyone can do to change the mind of Von
Penis... but we *CAN* point out that he's yet again begging the
question.

> The conspiracists will continue to try to set Oswald free, of
> course, like always. But the more a reasonable person examines the
> evidence (and applies just a small dose of ordinary common sense to
> these facts in evidence), the more hollow, shallow, and inept all
> those pro-conspiracy arguments become.

And the cowards will continue to run from the evidence in this case...
nothing will change but how well supported their cowardice &
dishonesty is.

>David Von Pein
>January 2006
>
>-------------------------------------------------
>
>More here:
>

>http://jfk...


If you can't support it here against critical review, why link to it?

[Ben Holmes]

Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.

Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.

Which makes who exactly the fool? - Huckster Sienzant.