The REAL reason why Oswald went to Irving on 11.21.63

[Jonathan Cohen]

5 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

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.

And the significance of this is... what, exactly?

[David Andrews]

50 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

And the significance of this is... what, exactly?

Why not disassemble it for target practice, since these target practice events temporally occur within a series of occasions when Oswald is said to have disassembled the rifle, including 11-22-63?  Why break form, when the target events each represent the longest time length when Oswald's rifle was carried in public?  Ten minutes to take it into the TSBD, but perhaps an hour each time to get it to and from Love Field? 

A crucial ten minutes for concealment, yes, but no concealment concerns for an hour each on more than one target practice occasion.  Doesn't prove the rifle wasn't bagged on 11-22, but a claimed procedural mismatch for Oz that deserves note.

Edited June 25, 2023 by David Andrews

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

Why not disassemble it for target practice, since these target practice events temporally occur within a series of occasions when Oswald is said to have disassembled the rifle, including 11-22-63?  Why break form, when the target events each represent the longest time length when Oswald's rifle was carried in public?  Ten minutes to take it into the TSBD, but perhaps an hour each time to get it to and from Love Field? 

The answer is that we simply don't know, and we will never know. I don't find it all that out of the ordinary that Oswald may have transported the rifle both assembled and disassembled at different times.

[Cory Santos]

8 hours ago, 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.

Thank you Gil.  
this needs to be read again.  
This is what I was getting at with DVP above.   You put it very nicely though I might not agree to an extent with you on Marina.  

Edited June 25, 2023 by Cory Santos

[Bill Brown]

10 hours ago, 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.

 

I can address every point you raise in your above post just as soon as you tell me whether or not you believe Oswald carried his lunch into the building tucked up underneath his armpit.

 

Gil Jesus foolishly said:

"I don't have a problem with Oswald using a 27 inch paper bag for his lunch if that was the only size bag available from the Paine home."

 

Edited June 25, 2023 by Bill Brown