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

[Thomas Graves]

All the newspaper article shows is that an unnamed "investigator" was feeding misinformation to the press before Oswald's death.

Iacoletti,

What makes you assume it was misinformation?

-- MWT 

[John Iacoletti]

Iacoletti,

What makes you assume it was misinformation?

Already discussed in the preceding posts, which you apparently didn't bother to read. 

Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these pictures or not?
Mr. DAY. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not positively identify them.

If somebody told a reporter prior to Oswald's death that "We've got a print that matches Oswald's" on the rifle then it was misinformation.

[John Iacoletti]

And what stated reason of mine are you referring to?

You're accepting a 50-year-old recollection of Aynesworth as being a precise word-for-word quote of Henry Wade on a particular day (with no corroborating evidence) and rejecting (rightly so) Howard Brennan's 20-year-old recollection of seeing the president's head explode.

I have presented the words of several people who were there. Your opinion of them makes no difference to me.

What "several people"?  You're ignoring what Wade himself said in 1964 (along with Day and Latona) in favor of something Aynesworth claimed 50 years later that Wade said that Fritz said on November 22, 1963.  There's no record of Fritz ever mentioning this alleged print directly.

[Thomas Graves]

Already discussed in the preceding posts, which you apparently didn't bother to read. 

Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these pictures or not?
Mr. DAY. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not positively identify them.

If somebody told a reporter prior to Oswald's death that "We've got a print that matches Oswald's" on the rifle then it was misinformation.

Iacoletti,

A bit of hyperbole on reporters' or the unnamed investigator's part, then?

Fair enough.

Thanks for the clarification.

-- MWT 

PS  Yet, regarding your doubt that Aynesworth remembered correctly many years later what Wade had said that Fritz had said, iirc YOU rely on a 54 year-old recollection (and from behind), in your ... gasp ... belief ... that Gloria Holt was really Gloria Calvery, and that Sharon Simmons was really ... uhh ... Karen Westbrook!

LOL

[Martin Weidmann]

You can believe whatever you want to believe as to whether or not it is referring to the palm print. I really don't care.

Translation: No matter what you or anybody else says, I don't have an open mind and will never be convinced that I am wrong

I have presented the words of several people who were there. Your opinion of them makes no difference to me.

Translation: No matter what you or anybody else says, I don't have an open mind and will never be convinced that I am wrong

[Martin Weidmann]

All the article shows is that an unnamed "investigator" was feeding misinformation to the press before Oswald's death.

Indeed. Even the WC was aware of it....

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, as I understand it, on November 23, therefore, the FBI had not succeeded in making an identification of a fingerprint or palmprint on the rifle, but several days later by virtue of the receipt of this lift, which did not come with the weapon originally, the FBI did succeed in identifying a print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which may explain any inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?
Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.

[Charles Collins]

Translation: No matter what you or anybody else says, I don't have an open mind and will never be convinced that I am wrong

Translation: No matter what you or anybody else says, I don't have an open mind and will never be convinced that I am wrong

Your "translations" are your typical nonsensical attacks on a person.

You have shown us time and time again that one cannot reason with someone who is unreasonable. That is why I don't care to engage in an argument.  And it makes no difference to me what your opinions are.

[John Iacoletti]

PS  Yet, regarding your doubt that Aynesworth remembered correctly many years later what Wade had said that Fritz had said, iirc YOU rely on a 54 year-old recollection (and from behind), in your ... gasp ... belief ... that Gloria Holt was really Gloria Calvery, and that Sharon Simmons was really ... uhh ... Karen Westbrook!

The difference is that you have no testimony from anybody who was there to the contrary.  All you have is your interpretation of blurry images and your assumptions.