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

[Martin Weidmann]

No, I don't. There is nothing to be taken out of context in this sentence; "We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said."


You are taking that sentence out of context of the rest of the article. The preceding sentence is:

Informed sources said the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24 year-old Communist sympathizer held the rifle which fired the lethal bullet as President Kennedy's motorcade neared the triple underpass.

Put the sentences in context with each other and the meaning is clear.

So you have on one hand "informed sources" who have an opinion about Oswald's guilt and and on the other hand you have an investigator claiming they have Oswald's print. Nowhere is there any kind of link between the rifle and the print.

Now, without speculating or conjecture, you show me where I am wrong by explaining how these statements "in context" mean they are talking about Oswald's print on an idex card.

[Charles Collins]

So you have on one hand "informed sources" who have an opinion about Oswald's guilt and and on the other hand you have an investigator claiming they have Oswald's print. Nowhere is there any kind of link between the rifle and the print.

Now, without speculating or conjecture, you show me where I am wrong by explaining how these statements "in context" mean they are talking about Oswald's print on an idex card.

Read them again. You are leaving out the word evidence.

[Martin Weidmann]

Read them again. You are leaving out the word evidence.

I don't have to read them again. It's a newspaper article, for crying out loud, written by a third party who is throwing together all sorts of quotes from unnamed sources. And still there is no connection between the "quotes"

You need to show me, without speculating or conjecture, that I am wrong by explaining how those statements "in context" mean they are talking about Oswald's print on an index card. Can you do that or can't you?

[Charles Collins]

I don't have to read them again. It's a newspaper article, for crying out, written by a third party who is throwing together all sorts of quotes from unnamed sources. And still there is no connection between the "quotes"

You need to show me, without speculating or conjecture, that I am wrong by explaining how those statements "in context" mean they are talking about Oswald's print on an idex card. Can you do that or can't you?

...written by a third party who is throwing together all sorts of quotes from unnamed sources. And still there is no connection between the "quotes"

You’re the one speculating.

[Martin Weidmann]

...written by a third party who is throwing together all sorts of quotes from unnamed sources. And still there is no connection between the "quotes"

You’re the one speculating.

So you can't show me I am wrong. Got it! 

[Charles Collins]

So you can't show me I am wrong. Got it! 

I already have. Just read the article as written. An unbiased scientific survey would certainly show that.

 Any description of anyone’s interpretation could be called speculation by someone else. I have shown you this also.

[Martin Weidmann]

I already have. Just read the article as written. An unbiased scientific survey would certainly show that.

 Any description of anyone’s interpretation could be called speculation by someone else. I have shown you this also.

No. I am merely asking you how the two quotes show any kind of connection with the print on the index card, as you claim they do. That's not speculating.

I already have.

No you haven't. Saying that you have already shown it is a typical LN cop out used when they can not support their claims with actual evidence. But I'll play along; just tell me where you have done it, so I and others can look it up.

Just read the article as written. An unbiased scientific survey would certainly show that.

Yeah right. In this case "an unbiased scientific survey" = Jumping to conclusions you can't support with the available evidence.

Any description of anyone’s interpretation could be called speculation by someone else.

So now it's just your interpretation that tells you that the quoted investigator was actually talking about the print on an index card?

Why should I or anybody else accept your interpretation as being the correct one, when we know for a fact that Day didn't turn over the index card to the FBI until two days after the publication of the newspaper article. So, how the investigator could have been talking about the print on the index card is totally beyond me. Even more so as the FBI did not match the print on the index card to Oswald until after November 29th

[Charles Collins]

No. I am merely asking you how the two quotes show any kind of connection with the print on the index card, as you claim they do. That's not speculating.

I already have.

No you haven't. Saying that you have already shown it is a typical LN cop out used when they can not support their claims with actual evidence. But I'll play along; just tell me where you have done it, so I and others can look it up.

Just read the article as written. An unbiased scientific survey would certainly show that.

Yeah right. In this case "an unbiased scientific survey" = Jumping to conclusions you can't support with the available evidence.

Any description of anyone’s interpretation could be called speculation by someone else.

So now it's just your interpretation that tells you that the quoted investigator was actually talking about the print on an index card?

Why should I or anybody else accept your interpretation as being the correct one, when we know for a fact that Day didn't turn over the index card to the FBI until two days after the publication of the newspaper article. So, how the investigator could have been talking about the print on the index card is totally beyond me. Even more so as the FBI did not match the print on the index card to Oswald until after November 29th

So, how the investigator could have been talking about the print on the index card is totally beyond me.

The words were written by reporters who were there. They need no explanation from me. You elected to try to twist them into something that fits what you believe. I have shown you your mistake of not keeping the context. Apparently a lot of things are beyond you.