The rifle that Lee Oswald held in the Neely Street backyard photos is reasonably assumed to be owned by him.
You saying it's not (owned by him) is not evidence that Oswald did not own the rifle.
You need to provide proof that "someone else" owned "the rifle" that Lee Oswald held in the photo taken by Marina Oswald.
Something like:
-- So and so loaned the rifle to Lee Oswald so he could be photographed with it.
-- Lee Oswald found the rifle abandoned on the sidewalk and decided to have Marina take a photo of him with it before he put it back where he found it.
The fatal fault in your musings is that you invoke generalizations as superior to known facts. You ignore the most likely conclusion and provide another that is unsupported by any evidence. That's why you are a contrarian: some might say a troll.
The rifle that Lee Oswald held in the Neely Street backyard photos is reasonably assumed to be owned by him.Reasonably assumed? Are you kidding?... You can not base an affirmative opinion on an assumption!
You saying it's not (owned by him) is not evidence that Oswald did not own the rifle.
You need to provide proof that "someone else" owned "the rifle" that Lee Oswald held in the photo taken by Marina Oswald. That's a strawman! First of all, I did not say Oswald didn't own a rifle. I asked you to explain your claim that he did own a rifle and your "he was photographed with it" answer simply doesn't cut it. Secondly, since I never claimed anything I also do not need to provide proof for what I didn't say.
Besides, even when somebody does not provide the proof you want, it still doesn't mean your opinion is the right one. That belief is a common LN error!
Sure, it is possible that it was his own rifle he was holding in the photograph, but for rational people a mere photograph does not provide sufficient proof of such ownership. And that's what you don't (want to) get!
The fatal fault in your musings is that you invoke generalizations as superior to known facts. You ignore the most likely conclusion and provide another that is unsupported by any evidence. That's why you are a contrarian: some might say a troll.Again, the most likely conclusion is always going to be what you want it to be. There are no known facts other than that Oswald was photographed holding a rifle. Everything else is conjecture that is not supported by evidence. Calling me a contrarian isn't going to change that.
And since you failed completely to answer my question, I'll ask it again. What's wrong with my statement that somebody being photographed holding a rifle does not have to be the owner of that rifle?
