The REAL reason why Oswald went to Irving on 11.21.63

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

You're kidding, right?

You're just playing around with me now, aren't you?

 

On what evidence are you basing your opinion that Oswald did not have lunch before the assassination on 11-22.  I am not asking for your speculation.  What facts are you basing your opinion on.   

[David Von Pein]

48 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

On what evidence are you basing your opinion that Oswald did not have lunch before the assassination on 11-22.  I am not asking for your speculation.  What facts are you basing your opinion on.   

I base my opinion on the fact Buell Frazier said that Oswald did not have any lunch with him on the drive to work on 11/22. Plus the fact that LHO told BWF that he (LHO) was going to buy his lunch that day.

Now, I suppose we can speculate that Oswald DID, indeed, buy his lunch from the catering truck that morning and then ate it sometime before 12:30. But even if that did occur, it certainly would not exonerate Oswald for the President's murder in any way at all.

And now I'll repeat my question to you that you haven't yet answered....

Other than Carolyn Arnold, what other witness (or witnesses) said they saw Oswald eating lunch on 11/22? I don't think any other such witness exists.

Click to make bigger:

Edited June 21, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Cory Santos]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

I base my opinion on the fact Buell Frazier said that Oswald did not have any lunch with him on the drive to work on 11/22. Plus the fact that LHO told BWF that he (LHO) was going to buy his lunch that day.

Now, I suppose we can speculate that Oswald DID, indeed, buy his lunch from the catering truck that morning and then ate it sometime before 12:30. But even if that did occur, it certainly would not exonerate Oswald for the President's murder in any way at all.

And now I'll repeat my question to you that you haven't yet answered....

Other than Carolyn Arnold, what other witness (or witnesses) said they saw Oswald eating lunch on 11/22? I don't think any other such witness exists.

Click to make bigger:

So let’s go over this.  DVP, you find Frazier credible as your basis for Oswald not eating lunch on 11-22.  Even though Fraziers testimony is clear he was not with Oswald throughout the morning, specifically at noon-when the employees took their brakes for lunch.   Frazier testified he saw him once earlier that day working on the sixth floor.   That’s it.  So Frazier saying he did not bring a lunch DOES NOT prove Oswald did not eat lunch.   So you have ZERO evidence Oswald did not eat lunch that day.  Just speculation.   
As to our witness, Ms. Arnold, who said she saw him eating, without getting into the particulars of her statements and the issues with what she was asked etc., Fraziers testimony supports her version.   
Frazier testified that 1) he (Frazier) usually ate with the guys on the first floor 12 -12:45 a.m. 2). He testified he never saw Oswald eat lunch or ate w him.  3) He did not know where Oswald kept his lunch.
Thus it is safe to conclude based on Frazier’s testimony that Oswald did not eat lunch from 12-1245 on the first floor usually.  Otherwise Frazier would have answered these points differently.  This lends credence to Arnold’s testimony seeing him on 2nd floor eating around 12:15.  Oswald in fact did most likely, based on Fraziers testimony, eat alone on the second floor where Baker spotted him drinking a soda after the assassination.  See, my points are based on facts.   Fraziers testimony lends credibility to Arnold’s version which is supported by Baker seeing him where she said she saw him earlier.  
The problem is you ignore inconvenient testimony like Frazier saying where the shots came from, but choose to selectively enjoy other misinterpreted points.  For example, the bag Oswald brought in.  Frazier clearly was badgered but stuck to his opinion on the length and width of the package and identification of it.   It wasn’t the same package.   Also, why did he not see Oswald leave the building?   He was right there for several minutes?  
To address your ludicrous theory regarding the shots, please explain the science behind your opinion that a person who is standing underneath a window a few floors up, thinks the loud -many witnesses claimed the first shot was loud- came from a different area other than over his/her head?    That really is ludicrous and you have no science showing that the acoustics in Dealey would have fooled someone underneath the sixth floor shooting a loud rifle.   Just admit it.   Frazier correctly identified the area where the shots came from and that is why questioning about that was cutoff so quick.  Admit you have no evidence Oswald did not eat lunch that day.   

[David Von Pein]

56 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Admit you have no evidence Oswald did not eat lunch that day.   

It doesn't matter one bit whether he ate lunch or not. Oswald's still guilty (the overall evidence proves that fact many times over)---with or without a lunch in his stomach.

As I said earlier....

"Now, I suppose we can speculate that Oswald DID, indeed, buy his lunch from the catering truck that morning and then ate it sometime before 12:30. But even if that did occur, it certainly would not exonerate Oswald for the President's murder in any way at all."

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Michael Griffith]

Speaking of the paper bag that Oswald carried to work that day:

          The Warren Commission claimed that Oswald made the brown paper bag from wrapping paper
available to him at the Book Depository. However, an FBI report written shortly after the
assassination said that the paper from the Depository "was examined by the FBI laboratory and
found not to be identical with the paper gun case. . . ." (5:449, emphasis added).

          But the "corrected version" of this FBI report said, "This paper was examined and found to have the same observable characteristics" as Oswald's paper bag. When asked to explain the
contradiction, the FBI said the initial report was "inaccurate" and was "mistakenly passed along
to the Warren Commission." As Marrs observes, "this incident raises the question of how many
other assassination documents stated one thing and were subsequently 'revised.' And if there do
exist 'revised' documents in federal files, how would anyone know unless the originals
accidentally slip out, as in this case?" (5:449).

          If the brown paper bag was used to carry the Carcano, it is odd that no traces of oil were found on it, since the rifle was well oiled when it was discovered. In fact, when the Carcano was
examined by the FBI the day after the shooting, oil was found on surface of the rifle. Yet, not
only did the bag contain no oil traces, but it showed no creases that matched the outline of the
alleged murder weapon (68:66).

          But wasn't the paper bag found in the sniper's nest? If it was, then it is astonishing that it wasn't photographed there along with the three shells and the boxes that were allegedly used as a gun rest. Not only did Lt. Day and Detective Studebaker, the two policemen who were supposed to
take crime-scene pictures, inexplicably "fail" to photograph the bag in the sniper's nest, but the
bag does not appear in any of the photos that were taken of the nest on the afternoon of the
shooting. There are photos of the shells in the nest, and photos of the gun-rest boxes, but not one of these pictures shows the bag, even though most of them show the area where the bag was
allegedly lying.

          Some Warren Commission apologists have offered the admittedly weak suggestion that Day and Studebaker didn't photograph the bag in the nest because no one "pointed it out to them." This is surely an unbelievable theory. The bag would have been in plain view; the policemen would
have hardly needed anyone to "point it out" to them. The other explanation is that the bag was
removed before photos could be taken of it. Aside from being suspiciously convenient, this
explanation immediately raises the question of why anyone would have moved the bag before it
could be photographed. Furthermore, the testimony of the police officers at the scene is highly
contradictory on the issue of when the bag was moved (as well as on such matters as where the
bag was located, what it looked like, what else was lying beside it, and whether it was a "bag" at
all). In addition, these policemen surely knew better than to move a piece of evidence before it
had been photographed at the crime scene. (Hasty Judgment, pp. 17-18)

[Bill Brown]

11 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Now cue the tired argument that the testimonial record states that the inner workings of the rifle was well-oiled and this somehow means that oil should have been all over the bag.

 

 

Michael Griffith said:

" If the brown paper bag was used to carry the Carcano, it is odd that no traces of oil were found on it, since the rifle was well oiled when it was discovered."

 

See?  Told ya.  Predictable.

 

Why would oil be expected to be on the bag just because the inner workings of the rifle were well-oiled?

[Cory Santos]

9 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

It doesn't matter one bit whether he ate lunch or not. Oswald's still guilty (the overall evidence proves that fact many times over)---with or without a lunch in his stomach.

As I said earlier....

"Now, I suppose we can speculate that Oswald DID, indeed, buy his lunch from the catering truck that morning and then ate it sometime before 12:30. But even if that did occur, it certainly would not exonerate Oswald for the President's murder in any way at all."

 

It does matter if he ate lunch.   If he did, he would most likely have done so on the second floor.   Thus confirming her sighting of him.  That really hurts the theory he was on the sixth floor waiting for the delayed motorcade.  

[Gil Jesus]

On 6/20/2023 at 11:51 PM, David Von Pein said:

I don't know how the rifle was specifically packed for transit. Nobody does. But I can reasonably infer that Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle WAS transported (in some manner) to and from New Orleans in 1963.

 

Prove it. Name someone, other than Marina, who saw the rifle in New Orleans.

Edited June 23, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Karl Kinaski]

 Marinas fairy-tale about Ossi with the rifle on the porch in front of his apartment in NOLA, told by Priscilla Johnson McMillan in her storybook "Marina and Lee" , quote: 

Quote

One evening during the last week of August, she and June went
for  a  stroll.  Arriving  home  about  twilight,  they  found  Lee  on  the
porch perched on one knee, pointing his ri e toward the street. It
was the  rst time she had seen him with his ri e in months—and
she was horriffed.
“What are you doing?” she asked.
“Get  the  heck  out  of  here,”  he  said.  “Don’t  talk  to  me.  Get  on
about your own affairs.”
A few evenings later she again found him on the porch with his
rifle.
“Playing with your gun again, are you?” she said, sarcastically.
“Fidel  Castro  needs  defenders,”  Lee  said.  “I’m  going  to  join  his
army of volunteers. I’m going to be a revolutionary.”
After that, busy indoors, Marina frequently heard a clicking sound
out on the porch while Lee was sitting there at dusk. She heard it
three  times  a  week,  maybe  more  often,  until  the  middle  of
September. Often she saw him clean the rifle ... 

Quote from the book Me and Lee by Judyth Baker:

 

Quote

 As  September (1963) progressed,  Lee  transformed  himself  into  a  quiet homebody.  Neighbors  noticed  that  he  spent  many  hours  reading  on  his porch. At night, he was often still reading by lamplight. Mrs. Garner, the apartment manager, testified that Lee couldn’t possibly be working, as he was  spending  all  his  time  reading  books  on  the  hot  porch,  clad  only  in yellow beach shorts and wearing flip-flops.

Nobody saw Oswald with a rifle on that porch... not in August and not in September 1963... never... except Marina and she "saw" him nearly every day there from end of August till the middle of September... 

Edited June 24, 2023 by Karl Kinaski

[Bill Brown]

On 6/23/2023 at 9:12 AM, Karl Kinaski said:

 Marinas fairy-tale about Ossi with the rifle on the porch in front of his apartment in NOLA, told by Priscilla Johnson McMillan in her storybook "Marina and Lee" , quote: 

Quote from the book Me and Lee by Judyth Baker:

 

Nobody saw Oswald with a rifle on that porch... not in August and not in September 1963... never... except Marina and she "saw" him nearly every day there from end of August till the middle of September... 

 

"Marinas fairy-tale about Ossi with the rifle on the porch in front of his apartment in NOLA..."

 

You guys crack me up.  You criticize while being unaware of even the smallest details.  For example, the porch was not a "front porch".  The apartment's porch was on the side of the building and toward the back.  It is entirely possible that Oswald could have practiced dry-firing that rifle without being seen by others.  Learn the evidence; it's a credibility thing.

 

Edited June 24, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

On 6/21/2023 at 10:04 AM, Michael Griffith said:

Speaking of the paper bag that Oswald carried to work that day:

          The Warren Commission claimed that Oswald made the brown paper bag from wrapping paper
available to him at the Book Depository. However, an FBI report written shortly after the
assassination said that the paper from the Depository "was examined by the FBI laboratory and
found not to be identical with the paper gun case. . . ." (5:449, emphasis added).

          But the "corrected version" of this FBI report said, "This paper was examined and found to have the same observable characteristics" as Oswald's paper bag. When asked to explain the
contradiction, the FBI said the initial report was "inaccurate" and was "mistakenly passed along
to the Warren Commission." As Marrs observes, "this incident raises the question of how many
other assassination documents stated one thing and were subsequently 'revised.' And if there do
exist 'revised' documents in federal files, how would anyone know unless the originals
accidentally slip out, as in this case?" (5:449).

          If the brown paper bag was used to carry the Carcano, it is odd that no traces of oil were found on it, since the rifle was well oiled when it was discovered. In fact, when the Carcano was
examined by the FBI the day after the shooting, oil was found on surface of the rifle. Yet, not
only did the bag contain no oil traces, but it showed no creases that matched the outline of the
alleged murder weapon (68:66).

          But wasn't the paper bag found in the sniper's nest? If it was, then it is astonishing that it wasn't photographed there along with the three shells and the boxes that were allegedly used as a gun rest. Not only did Lt. Day and Detective Studebaker, the two policemen who were supposed to
take crime-scene pictures, inexplicably "fail" to photograph the bag in the sniper's nest, but the
bag does not appear in any of the photos that were taken of the nest on the afternoon of the
shooting. There are photos of the shells in the nest, and photos of the gun-rest boxes, but not one of these pictures shows the bag, even though most of them show the area where the bag was
allegedly lying.

          Some Warren Commission apologists have offered the admittedly weak suggestion that Day and Studebaker didn't photograph the bag in the nest because no one "pointed it out to them." This is surely an unbelievable theory. The bag would have been in plain view; the policemen would
have hardly needed anyone to "point it out" to them. The other explanation is that the bag was
removed before photos could be taken of it. Aside from being suspiciously convenient, this
explanation immediately raises the question of why anyone would have moved the bag before it
could be photographed. Furthermore, the testimony of the police officers at the scene is highly
contradictory on the issue of when the bag was moved (as well as on such matters as where the
bag was located, what it looked like, what else was lying beside it, and whether it was a "bag" at
all). In addition, these policemen surely knew better than to move a piece of evidence before it
had been photographed at the crime scene. (Hasty Judgment, pp. 17-18)

 

"If the brown paper bag was used to carry the Carcano, it is odd that no traces of oil were found on it, since the rifle was well oiled when it was discovered. In fact, when the Carcano was
examined by the FBI the day after the shooting, oil was found on surface of the rifle. Yet, not
only did the bag contain no oil traces, but it showed no creases that matched the outline of the
alleged murder weapon (68:66)."

 

Oil was not found on the surface of the rifle.  Your source is faulty.  Typical.

 

 

[Gil Jesus]

16 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"Marinas fairy-tale about Ossi with the rifle on the porch in front of his apartment in NOLA..."

 

It is entirely possible that Oswald could have practiced dry-firing that rifle without being seen by others.  Learn the evidence; it's a credibility thing.

 

You Lone Nutters always take one witness, whose account is not corrborated by physical evidence or other witnesses, and believe him/her.

But if a dozen witnesses see smoke on the knoll, they're all wrong.

If 59 witnesses see the limo slow down or stop on Elm St., they're all wrong.

If a half dozen witnesses see a wound of entrance in the President's throat, or a gaping exit wound in the rear of his head, they're all wrong.

It's obvious that the standard you use to determine a witness' credibility is whether or not that witness can add to Oswald's guilt.

If they can add to Oswald's guilt, they're credible.

If they add to Oswald's innocence, they're not.

And that's what cracks ME up about YOU people.

But this standard is flawed.

YOU need to learn the difference between an allegation and actual evidence.

Marina Oswald's account of the rifle in New Orleans is an ALLEGATION, not evidence. It is NOT corroborated by either the physical evidence or by another witness.

I agree that it's a "credibility thing". Let's look at Marina's credibility.

Other statements she made, like the attempt by Oswald to kill Richard Nixon, are provable lies. This is your credible witness ?

An uncorroborated account made by a woman who is a provable xxxx ?

And as if your standard being flawed wasn't enough, your reasoning is flawed. Your reasoning is flawed because it is based on circular reasoning.

And, BTW, something that is "entirely possible" does not make it fact. That's your opinion but its not evidence unless you can prove it.

When you people use phrases like "could have been", "might have been" or ( my personal favorite ) "common sense" or words like "possibly", those are red flags that tell me you have no evidence.

Your standards are flawed, your reasoning is flawed and the only result that can come from that is that your conclusions are flawed.

Just like those of Warren Commission which you support.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Mark Ulrik]

Gotta love the grandstanding. Don't ever change, Gil.

One would be hard-pressed to find a better example of an actual red flag than the thread title.

[Sean Coleman]

On 6/25/2023 at 10:28 AM, Gil Jesus said:

You Lone Nutters always take one witness, whose account is not corrborated by physical evidence or other witnesses, and believe him/her.

But if a dozen witnesses see smoke on the knoll, they're all wrong.

If 59 witnesses see the limo slow down or stop on Elm St., they're all wrong.

If a half dozen witnesses see a wound of entrance in the President's throat, or a gaping exit wound in the rear of his head, they're all wrong.

It's obvious that the standard you use to determine a witness' credibility is whether or not that witness can add to Oswald's guilt.

If they can add to Oswald's guilt, they're credible.

If they add to Oswald's innocence, they're not.

And that's what cracks ME up about YOU people.

But this standard is flawed.

YOU need to learn the difference between an allegation and actual evidence.

Marina Oswald's account of the rifle in New Orleans is an ALLEGATION, not evidence. It is NOT corroborated by either the physical evidence or by another witness.

I agree that it's a "credibility thing". Let's look at Marina's credibility.

Other statements she made, like the attempt by Oswald to kill Richard Nixon, are provable lies. This is your credible witness ?

An uncorroborated account made by a woman who is a provable xxxx ?

And as if your standard being flawed wasn't enough, your reasoning is flawed. Your reasoning is flawed because it is based on circular reasoning.

And, BTW, something that is "entirely possible" does not make it fact. That's your opinion but its not evidence unless you can prove it.

When you people use phrases like "could have been", "might have been" or ( my personal favorite ) "common sense" or words like "possibly", those are red flags that tell me you have no evidence.

Your standards are flawed, your reasoning is flawed and the only result that can come from that is that your conclusions are flawed.

Just like those of Warren Commission which you support.

BOOM!!

 

What a rousing retort Gil!

Edited July 9, 2023 by Sean Coleman

[David Andrews]

On 6/20/2023 at 11:41 PM, Matt Allison said:

David- I am genuinely curious to how you would answer the questions I posed above:

"The rifle would have had to have been packed and unpacked several times; the original trip to New Orleans in Spring of '63, and then once again upon return to Texas in September of '63.

Do we assume it was taken apart and transported in pieces? If so, what were the pieces carried in?

And what is the evidence of such?"

To bring up a procedural mismatch that I noted before:

Marina claimed that Oswald took the rifle through the streets of Dallas and onto buses for target practice, full-length and concealed under a raincoat.

Yet other witnesses caused the WC to infer that Oswald disassembled the rifle and brought it up to the TSBD sixth floor in a paper sack.