Historian explains the mind of Conspiracy Nuts - CBS 1967

[Mitch Todd]

Which part of “tips the scales in the direction of” do you not understand?

I understand that figure of speech well enough to know that "this has to tilt the scales in the direction" does not change or modify the meaning of, "yes, indeed it is the same rifle."

[John Iacoletti]

Exactly, the HSCA provided conclusive proof that the backyard rifle was the same rifle that was sent to Oswald's PO box

 

We have Cecil Kirk’s scales and moon craters.

Who do you think you’re fooling? You can’t even prove that rifle was sent to that PO Box.

[John Iacoletti]

I understand that figure of speech well enough to know that "this has to tilt the scales in the direction" does not change or modify the meaning of, "yes, indeed it is the same rifle."

If you also think that one guy’s “tilt the scales” is conclusive, then you’re as phony as “Mytton’s” screen name.

[John Mytton]

We have Cecil Kirk’s scales and moon craters.

"Iacoletti" you've had over 40 years to find a photographic expert to refute the HSCA's visual evidence that the backyard rifle was the same rifle that Oswald ordered from Kleins and we're still waiting. YAWN!





JohnM

[Thomas Graves]

I understand that figure of speech well enough to know that "this has to tilt the scales in the direction" does not change or modify the meaning of, "yes, indeed it is the same rifle."

Fithian could have said something to the effect that the damage to the rifle's stock is so similar to the damage visible in the photographs as to indicate that it must be the same Carcano rifle.

But that, of course, would not be "good enough" for John Iacoletti.

If I had truly murdered someone and been arrested and  charged with same, I would be very grateful, indeed, if John Iacoletti could weasel his way through the voire dire process (especially if I was a flaming Leftist -- lol) and be appointed foreman of the jury at my trial, for it would be certain to end up, after weeks of deliberations, as a "hung jury" case, with just one juror refusing to find me guilty - John Iacoletti.

I can hear him yelling in the deliberation room now, "The prosecutor didn't prove jack spombleprofglidnoctobuns!  He made it all up!"

LOL

--  MWT 

[John Iacoletti]

"Iacoletti" you've had over 40 years to find a photographic expert to refute the HSCA's visual evidence that the backyard rifle was the same rifle that Oswald ordered from Kleins and we're still waiting. YAWN!

There’s nothing to refute. You have a “tip the scales in the direction of” from one guy out of 22.

Make that 23.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.
I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.

[John Iacoletti]

Fithian could have said something to the effect that the damage to the rifle's stock is so similar to the damage visible in the photographs as to indicate that it must be the same Carcano rifle.

He could have, but he didn’t.

If I had truly murdered someone and been arrested and  charged with same, I would be very grateful, indeed, if John Iacoletti could weasel his way through the voire dire process (especially if I was a flaming Leftist -- lol) and be appointed foreman of the jury at my trial, for it would be certain to end up, after weeks of deliberations, as a "hung jury" case, with just one juror refusing to find me guilty - John Iacoletti.

Blah, blah, blah, whine, whine, whine.

If all the prosecution had was ridiculous whiny rhetoric like this, the jury should acquit.

[John Mytton]

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.
I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.

Oops!

Sergeant KIRK. ...I might add, in all candor, with respect to the FBI, they did not have 133-A DeMohrenschildt. They did not have 133-A Stovall. They did not have 134 or did not recognize 134 as being first generation print.

JohnM