CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?

[John Mytton]

I didn't say anybody lied.  Try again.  You can either prove your claims are true or you cannot.

P.S. you still haven't said what "fresh fibers" means.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he Just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed. These I removed and put on a glass microscope slide, and marked this particular slide "No. 2," because this little group of fibers--little tuft of fibers, appeared to be fresh.
The fibers on the rest of the gun were either adhering to a greasy, oily deposit or jammed into a crevice and were very dirty and apparently very old.
You can look at a fiber and tell whether it has been beaten around or exposed much. These appeared to be fairly fresh.
Mr. EISENBERG. "These" being the ones that you found in the butt plate crevice?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; adhering to this small jagged edge.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

1) Did Day prove that the print known as CE639 came from the rifle known as CE 139?  No, he just claimed it.

2) Did the FBI prove that the print known as CE639 came from the rifle known as CE 139?  No, Hoover just claimed it.

3) Did the HSCA photography panel(PP) conclude that the rifle in the backyard photos was uniquely identifiable as CE 139.  No.  And they didn't even claim that.

4) Did Scalice have any way of knowing in 1993 what the origin and provenance of these "new photos" was?  No.

5) Did anybody at any time even make a claim that fibers from the CE 139 rifle came specifically from Oswald's "arrest shirt".  No.

6) Is "Mytton" FOS?  Resoundingly, yes.

- Day didn't follow the procedure of photographing the alleged partial palmprint before lifting it or covering it with cellophane as he did with the trigger guard prints

- Day claimed that traces of this print remained, but there were no traces, even though the rifle was covered with fingerprint powder

- Day said that he didn't follow the standard procedure because Curry told him to stop all work in order to hand over the evidence to the FBI, but this order from Curry occurred right before midnight and Day was working on the prints 3 hours earlier

- Day didn't hand over this evidence to the FBI along with the rifle, or even tell agent Drain of its existence.

- This print wasn't mentioned by Fritz, Curry, Wade until after Oswald was dead, even though they spoke to the press about the existence of fingerprints.  There is no mention of this print in any document until November 26.  Latona didn't know about it until it arrived in Washington on the 29th.

- Drain didn't think it was authentic.

- The WC questioned whether it was authentic.

- Hoover's memo claimed matching "irregularities" on the rifle barrel, but there exists no report or details what matched, or who matched them or how, or when.

- This is what "Mytton" calls "rock hard scientific evidence".   

[John Mytton]

1) Did Day prove that the print known as CE639 came from the rifle known as CE 139?  No, he just claimed it.

Here on the 22nd at about 6:15, Lt. Day can be seen holding CE 139 and the gouge can be clearly made out on the Forestock. Are you claiming that he could have taken Oswald's prints from another rifle?

- Day didn't follow the procedure

Boo hoo, how does that change Day's testimony or the physical evidence or anything?

- Hoover's memo claimed matching "irregularities" on the rifle barrel, but there exists no report or details what matched, or who matched them or how, or when.

Sorry John, Hoover provided a memo and matching evidence which shows the precise location of a number of corresponding anomalies. The rifle still exists and the Palmprint still exists so your reasoning that this powerful evidence is somehow just a claim is nonsensical. If you or the CT community feels this strongly re this deception then why don't you do something about it and provide an expert scientific refutation or would you rather just flap your gums and rely on voodoo?



And this is the best you got, you're not very good at this, are you John.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Oswald ordered the rifle.



Oswald possessed the rifle.



Oswald's rifle was found at Oswald's work with Oswald's prints.





Btw getting back to the thread topic, when is a CT going to provide evidence that C2766 was planted, surely after half a century at least one of you has figured it out?

JohnM

[Richard Smith]

What bizarre juvenile game are you playing?

Was Day telling the truth when he testified to the following?

Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.

JohnM

Like Inspector Clouseau, John I's motto is:  "I believe everything and I believe nothing.  I suspect everyone and I suspect no one."    The evidence against Oswald is always deemed suspect for some unspecified reason but then he denies he is claiming it is the product of lies and fakery.  It just is.  Take his word for it. 

[Gary Craig]

Like Inspector Clouseau, John I's motto is:  "I believe everything and I believe nothing.  I suspect everyone and I suspect no one."    The evidence against Oswald is always deemed suspect for some unspecified reason but then he denies he is claiming it is the product of lies and fakery.  It just is.  Take his word for it.

"The evidence against Oswald is always deemed suspect for some unspecified reason"

 

The defendant was denied legal representation, was murdered (lynched) while in police custody and the charges against

him (a prosecutor's pre-trial brief) were rubber stamped by the WC as the facts of the case.

It was the equivalent of a Soviet 'show trial' except Ozzie was killed before hand rather than immediately after.

[Richard Smith]

"The evidence against Oswald is always deemed suspect for some unspecified reason"

 

The defendant was denied legal representation, was murdered (lynched) while in police custody and the charges against

him (a prosecutor's pre-trial brief) were rubber stamped by the WC as the facts of the case.

It was the equivalent of a Soviet 'show trial' except Ozzie was killed before hand rather than immediately after.

Take it up with Jack Ruby.  The fact that Oswald was killed has no bearing whatsoever on the evidence against him or how it can all be dismissed as suspect without someone lying or faking the evidence.  If someone says they found Oswald's prints on the rifle, how can that not be the case without some lie or fakery?  Either his prints are on the rifle or they are not.  If they are not, then the person who says they found them is lying.  To suggest otherwise is to defy logic and simply be a dishonest contrarian.

[Michael Clark]

Take it up with Jack Ruby.

————————————————-

Jack Ruby does not post on this forum.

 The fact that Oswald was killed has no bearing whatsoever on the evidence against him

—————————————————

Well, it kind of does, since he never had a chance to defend himself. His defense may have been that he didn’t bring the gun to work; that the gun was, for 28 hours, identified as a Mauser ..., and things like that.

  Either his prints are on the rifle or they are not.  If they are not, then the person who says they found them is lying.  To suggest otherwise is to defy logic and simply be a dishonest contrarian.

—————————————————-

Someone like the Mayor of Dallas, Earle Cabell, perhaps, who was a CIA agent and brother of Deputy Director of the CIA, Charles Cabell, and whose brother suddenly died 4 months later, might be lying.