JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 672)


RICHARD VAN NOORD SAID:

David:

I was a WELL OILED gun. Get over it. And the interior of the bag showed no abrasion marks from the gun.

The paper bag is doubtful AT BEST. You saying "it wasn't oozing oil" or "why should there be abrasions?" doesn't change the facts, David.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Richard,

Why don't you go about the impossible task of proving that there HAD to be oil stains on that paper bag if Oswald's rifle had been inside that bag.

That should put some mileage on your sneakers, especially since you can never, ever "prove" such a thing.

This "oil" argument kinda reminds me (in a similar way) of the argument I heard somebody make a few years ago about the paper bus transfer found in Oswald's pocket.

The conspiracy kook asked the question: Why are there no creases or folds of any kind in that bus transfer after having been supposedly handled by Oswald on November 22?



The kook went on to make the bold claim -- That's just impossible for there NOT to be any kind of marks or folds or a single crease in that transfer! Therefore, it MUST have been PLANTED! It's not a real transfer given to Oswald by McWatters! It's obvious!

There's a parallel to the "oil stain" argument here, as I am sure you can detect.

In other words, a kook makes a bold claim that something is "Utterly impossible because I say it is!", and then it's up to the lone-assassin believers to go about proving that the conspiracy claim is wrong.

Backward thinking there, in my view.

YOU go about showing that there HAS TO BE OIL IN A PAPER BAG THAT CARRIES A RIFLE 100% OF THE TIME.

If you cannot prove that, you're not in a very good position to say, definitively, that Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle would have HAD to leave oil residue on that bag in the Sniper's Nest in November 1963....are you?

David Von Pein
October 14, 2007