Friday, February 19, 2016

Feb 18 (16 hours ago)
On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 7:08:42 PM UTC-5, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> This post was directed to Mainframe Chris and that other guy who kept
> saying that Oswald was referencing Jarman and Norman as being outside the
> building on the sidewalk when he saw them. It was a totally unwarranted
> assumption on their part based on nothing but their imagination. And it's
> one of those things which, if it wasn't specified, it cannot be assumed.
> But, now it's a moot point because we have it in black and white that he
> referred to them coming into the room when he was there.

  Try and get it together and look around at the various posts that are
made.  I don't make "totally unwarranted assumptions".  I have seen the
statement of Carolyn Arnold who said she SAW Oswald in the 2nd floor
lunchroom at about 12:15pm.  At about that same time, 2 men we seen in the
6th floor window with a gun.  Now if Oswald said he was in the
'lunchroom', then he may have meant that one on the 2nd floor.  Either
way, I wouldn't take Oswald's word against Carolyn Arnold's.  I don't
consider him a reliable person, and he would lie in a minute if it suited
his purposes.  Though I still think he was innocent of the shooting.

   So my statements were from evidence, both that of Carolyn Arnold, and
the 3 people that said there were 2 men in the 6th floor window.  Try and
not jump in when you don't know what's going on.  Better to ask a question
first, then act on the answer.


Ralph Cinque:

Chris, Carolyn Arnold changing her story after 5000+ days is OK with you; but, it's not OK with me. And I don't consider it evidence. 

Evidence refers to a material something- actual physical evidence- OR some factual information that is relevant to the case. Carolyn Arnold's 5000+ day revision cannot be considered factual information as per what Oswald did. It doesn't reach the threshold of factual information- and far from it. 

Get this in your head: I don't accept the veracity of what she said 5000+ days later. Therefore, it is not evidence to me. And don't you assume that I am obliged to accept it; I'm not.  

And no, Oswald could NOT have been referring to the 2nd floor lunch room because he referenced Jarman and Norman coming in, and they meant the 1st floor lunch room. 

The 1st floor lunch room was where the "order-fillers" ate. The smaller lunch room on the 2nd floor was for the clerical workers who worked up there. There is are no grounds whatsoever to assume that Oswald was talking about the second floor. 

But, I'm glad you revealed your contempt for Oswald. What a weird wacky world the "JFK community" is where even his defenders trash him. But, you are NOT his defender, and I have known that for a long time. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.