Very insightful that the contrarian brothers believe it is a loaded question to ask whether the evidence linking Oswald to the rifle is genuine or not. It is a loaded question to them because they want to have it both ways. Suggesting there is doubt that Oswald ordered and was sent a specific rifle (as the documentation confirms) but implicitly recognizing the absurdity that all this evidence is the product of fakery. So they want to have it both ways. Expressing doubt as to the evidence but without the corresponding logical obligation of owning the consequences of the evidence being faked. It is a dishonest and intellectually lazy approach to the case. Crooked John asks "what prints". He clearly know what prints are being discussed and by asking such a stupid question implies that he believes that Oswald's prints on the rifle must be the product of fakery or lies. But then he will deny that. And round and round we go down the rabbit hole.
I presented a simple premise. If the evidence linking Oswald to the rifle is genuine, then it presents a convincing case that he ordered and then was sent a MC rifle with a specific serial number. The same one found on the 6th floor. You don't have to accept the logical inference from that conclusion that Oswald was the assassin as Martin erroneously suggests to avoid answering but is impossible to square accepting the evidence that Oswald was sent a MC rifle as being genuine with any doubt about his possession of this rifle. If Oswald filled out the order form and Klein's sent a MC rifle to his PO Box as the documentation confirms, then it seems pretty obvious that the rifle is linked directly to Oswald. Consistent with photos and prints linking him to that same rifle. So you have to make a decision here to be honest. Is the documentation and evidence linking Oswald to the rifle genuine or forged? If genuine, then the MC rifle is conclusively linked to Oswald. Only if you are contending it is faked can you logically argue that there is no link to Oswald. But dishonest contrarians want to have it both ways. Which is why they believe it is a loaded question to own the consequences of their dishonest approach and are dancing like circus monkeys here to explain why they won't answer a very basic question.
Very insightful that the contrarian brothers believe it is a loaded question to ask whether the evidence linking Oswald to the rifle is genuine or not. Again, and for the final time, the question you asked is a black & white / yes or no type of question that leaves no room for variables. By asking the question that way and then add on (as you did) the predetermined conclusion that if the answer is yes it automatically means Oswald was guilty is intellectually dishonest.
Suggesting there is doubt that Oswald ordered and was sent a specific rifle (as the documentation confirms) but implicitly recognizing the absurdity that all this evidence is the product of fakery. More dishonesty. The documentation confirms no such thing. All the documentation really is, is a photocopy of a (now missing) micro film showing a handwritten order form and money order in the name of Hidell and a copy of a Klein's internal processing form with a serial number for a rifle hand written on it. Everything else is window dressing that either derives from these documents or can not be shown to have a direct connection to them! To argue that these documents confirm that Oswald ordered and was sent a specific rifle is just not true. And no, that doesn't automatically mean that "all this evidence is the product of fakery" because even if they are authentic, those documents simply do not prove that Oswald was sent and possessed a rifle.
Crooked John asks "what prints". He clearly know what prints are being discussed and by asking such a stupid question implies that he believes that Oswald's prints on the rifle must be the product of fakery or lies. More misrepresentation and distortion of the facts. The FBI could not find any prints on the rifle on 11/23/63! All there really is, is a piece of paper with a print on it that we are told belonged to Oswald. That piece of paper suddenly surfaced a week after the murder and only after Oswald was killed and it was obvious there would never be a trial. Nobody claims the print itself is the product of fakery, as there is no way to make such a determination without any kind of close examination, but as to the alleged relationship of the print on that paper with the rifle all you have is the incredible claim by Lt Day that he took the print of the rifle on 11/22/63 but for some unknown reason withheld it and told nobody about it for a week.
If the evidence linking Oswald to the rifle is genuine, then it presents a convincing case that he ordered and then was sent a MC rifle with a specific serial number. The same one found on the 6th floor.
<>
If Oswald filled out the order form and Klein's sent a MC rifle to his PO Box as the documentation confirms, then it seems pretty obvious that the rifle is linked directly to Oswald. Consistent with photos and prints linking him to that same rifle. So you have to make a decision here to be honest. Is the documentation and evidence linking Oswald to the rifle genuine or forged? And there it is, for all to see, the explanation of the loaded question! Richard does not simply ask you if you feel the order form and other Klein's documentation are authentic. No, he also connects to that his conclusion (which he erroneously considers the only possibility) that it automatically means that Oswald was sent a rifle which he subsequently possessed. And even that is not enough for Richard. He then lines up, like dominoes, that the rifle (1) is the same one that was found on the 6th floor (2) and the same one as seen in the BY photos and (3) the same one that had Oswald's print on it. Once he has done that he loads the question even further by basically saying that if you don't agree with that you are being dishonest.
So, if you conceed that Oswald filled out the order form the dominoes start falling and you end up with Oswald being the lone gunman, which is exactly where Richard wants you to arrive at. The audacity to claim that his question is not loaded is mind boggling!
If genuine, then the MC rifle is conclusively linked to Oswald. Only if you are contending it is faked can you logically argue that there is no link to Oswald. But dishonest contrarians want to have it both ways. There is no such thing as "both ways". It's a purposely oversimplication of a far more complex issue with all sorts of variables which Richard "black or white" Smith simply does not want to discuss or even consider.
