So you say that it was collecting dust...
No, I quoted Michael Paine who moved it under a bandsaw and said he felt bad about that as it would be casting [saw]dust on the blanket.
Mr. PAINE - ... The garage was kind of crowded and I did have my tools in there and I had to move this package several times in order to make space to work, and the final time I put it on the floor underneath the saw where the bandsaw would be casting dust on it and I was a little embarrassed to be putting his goods on the floor....
but then quote someone who said it was in a package in a blanket, so that is two layers, probably a dustproof layer and then a blanket to protect against bumps.
Just the blanket. No other wrapping. The blanket and the weapon comprised the entirety of the package.
And he trusted this guy enough to work on his house
Hilarious. Okay, it's clear you know little to nothing about the circumstances of Oswald's life. Oswald didn't own the house, Michael & Ruth Paine did. It was the Paine's garage, as well. Oswald imposed on them by having some of his stuff left there when Ruth transported Marina from New Orleans to Dallas in September of 1963.
he probably assumed that the guy wouldn't **** up his stuff or start throwing things around or dropping them?
Yeah, as a Quaker, I doubt Michael Paine was built that way, so he would avoid doing so if possible. But regardless, Oswald was imposing on the Paines by leaving his possessions in the Paine garage, and Michael did move Oswald's rifle as he saw fit to get it out of his way and finally under a bandsaw when it became an inconvenience for him to move around his own garage with that rifle in the way. Ruth Paine also said if she had known there was a weapon stored in her home, she would have asked Oswald to remove it.
Does that convince you that this argument is petty and lame and you're inventing reasons to question the integrity of the weapon or shall we keep going until we run out of nonsense?
It convinces me you don't even recall what the argument was about.
LET'S REVIEW HOW WE GOT HERE:
You stated the falsehood and exaggeration that:
... this shot has been recreated with the same gun on like 12 million documentary programs
When I pointed out the falsehood (same gun) and exaggeration (12m) by you, you introduced a straw man logical fallacy here:
So, just to be clear, you want to have a mathematical argument about how many times it has been successfully recreated vs. the failure rate of the manufacturer at that time on that model?
You then went for the Appeal to Ridicule logical fallacy, and argued that as an ex-marine, he would have used only a weapon that was sighted in:
Wow Hank you correctly pointed out that 12 million is an exaggeration. The fact that you did that really shows that you take this subject seriously and I respect and appreciate your attention to detail. ... He would clearly take a gun that he hadn't sighted in to kill the President, that's believable.
I pointed out there were witnesses who came forward to say they saw Oswald at a gun range the weekend prior to the assassination, AND regardless of whether he had sighted in the scope, he could have used the iron sights, AND it was his only weapon, and his only opportunity, so he either used the rifle as is, or lost that opportunity entirely.
You ignored all that logic and argument and instead doubled-down on the "Oswald didn't do it because he didn't sight it in and didn't take care of the weapon" argument here:
To me, the first thing that happens when an expert marksman buys a guy is that he sights it in and then takes care of it after that. I am done here, thanks.
I pointed out that 'Beggars can't be choosers', and if Oswald learned as late as the Wednesday before the assassination of his opportunity to assassinate the President, he didn't have an opportunity to sight it in or take better care of it over the preceding months, and therefore it meant using the weapon 'as is' or losing the opportunity entirely.
You then speculated on no evidence whatsoever that:
...maybe he liked to clean his gun before he shot it and being disassembled was part of that process? What's so wrong about a blanket?
I pointed out that the weapon had been stored that way for months (it was wrapped within the blanket when transported from New Orleans and not used by Oswald since - per the evidence), so it wasn't a matter of the gun being disassembled for cleaning, it was a matter of it being disassembled for transport and storage. I could also point out that Oswald had all but abandoned the rifle at the Paine garage; it wasn't in his possession most of the time (Oswald lived in a rooming house elsewhere); he typically only visited his wife on weekends; and there's no evidence he accessed the weapon between September and the night before the assassination; and the evidence indicates he only took the weapon back on the morning of the assassination.
I did point out it was disassembled, kept in another man's garage where he had little control over it for months prior to the assassination to destroy your argument that "...the first thing that happens when an expert marksman buys a guy is that he sights it in and then takes care of it after that."
Somewhere along the line, I also pointed out you were pretending to be a mind-reader, and trying to eliminate Oswald as the shooter based on what you think he would have done, rather than determining whether Oswald was the shooter based on what the evidence says he did do.
You ignored all that.
Clearly, Oswald wasn't taking care of the weapon as you argued he would or should. But that doesn't eliminate him as the shooter, or his rifle as the weapon used to kill the President whatsoever.
And now you try to turn the argument around, and pretend I've been "...inventing reasons to question the integrity of the weapon".
No, I never did that. I did point out that your argument that Oswald would only use a sighted-in weapon that was taken care of to assassinate the President had no basis in fact, as the weapon wasn't well cared for in the months preceding the assassination, and there's scant evidence he sighted it in. Regardless of all that, however, the weapon was determined in tests after the assassination to be as accurate as any then-current U.S.Military rifles in use at the time. And it was the one used to kill the President.
You don't even remember what your initial argument was. Or what arguments you advanced subsequent to that.
Or what facts I've been pointing out to repudiate your claims.
That's funny.
Hank
