Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[Martin Weidmann]

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?

[Martin Weidmann]

How about; Marina lied when she admitted taking one photograph?

How about providing proof that Marina Oswald lied about taking the backyard photograph of Lee Oswald holding a rifle?

You asked what other conclusion there could be, and I gave you one. Deal with it.

You are not providing any proof to support your conclusion, except for conjecture and assumptions.

Why don't you prove that she didn't lie, when the record clearly shows she told numerous other lies....

[Ross Lidell]

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 and 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 you claim that he did own a rifle and your "he was photographed with it" 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's a common LN error!

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?

What's wrong with my statement that somebody being photographed holding a rifle does not have to be the owner of that rifle?

It's a generalization.  It does not provide proof that Lee Oswald did not own the rifle he held in the Neely Street backyard photo.

Speaking generally about generalizations: A man walking a small child in the park is not necessarily the father of the boy or girl just because he/she calls him "daddy".

The man's insistence that he was the father of the child would not be acceptable proof for you.

A birth certificate would not be acceptable proof for you.

A DNA test certificate would not be acceptable proof for you.

You being present at the conception (and the birth) would not be acceptable proof for you.

Nothing would be acceptable proof for you... because you are a contrarian.

[Martin Weidmann]

What's wrong with my statement that somebody being photographed holding a rifle does not have to be the owner of that rifle?

It's a generalization.  It does not provide proof that Lee Oswald did not own the rifle he held in the Neely Street backyard photo.

No it isn't a generalization. It is a simple straight forward statement of fact. Being photographed with an object does not automatically mean you own that object. A three year old can tell you that. You just don't want to go there, because once you admit this is true, your pet theory that it was Oswald's rifle falls apart.

And nobody needs to provide proof that Oswald did not own the rifle, as nobody has actually ever provided any proof that it was his rifle in the first place!

Speaking generally about generalizations: Someone walking a small child in the park is not necessarily the father of the boy or girl just because he/she calls him "daddy".

A birth certificate would not be acceptable proof for you.

A DNA test certificate would not be acceptable proof for you.

Being present at the conception (and the birth) would not be acceptable proof for you.

Nothing would be acceptable proof for you... because you are a contrarian.

For a moment I thought you were starting to get it, but then you started rambling on about birth certificates etc.... which only tells me that you have no sound argument to make.

You simply can not prove that the rifle Oswald is holding in the BY photos is actually a rifle he owned.

Don't get me wrong, I would love it if your crazy notion was actually true because there is a beautiful Lamborghini parked down the street.... Now where's my camera?

[Jerry Freeman]

How about; Marina lied when she admitted taking one photograph?

How about providing proof that Marina Oswald lied about taking the backyard photograph of Lee Oswald holding a rifle?

Ross Lidell...What in hell is wrong with you? Did you develop Craniumvirus?
During her testimony...Marina 1. Stated that she took one picture with it.
 2. Could not operate that camera when asked to demonstrate how she took that picture.

[Ross Lidell]

No it isn't a generalization. It is a simple straight forward statement of fact. Being photographed with an object does not automatically mean you own that object. A three year old can tell you that. You just don't want to go there, because once you admit this is true, your pet theory that it was Oswald's rifle falls apart.

And nobody needs to provide proof that Oswald did not own the rifle, as nobody has actually ever provided any proof that it was his rifle in the first place!

For a moment I thought you were starting to get it, but then you started rambling on about birth certificates etc.... which only tells me that you have no sound argument to make.

You simply can not prove that the rifle Oswald is holding in the BY photos is actually a rifle he owned.

Don't get me wrong, I would love it if your crazy notion was actually true because there is a beautiful Lamborghini parked down the street.... Now where's my camera?

A generalization is a statement that seems to be true in most situations or for most people, but that may not be completely true in all cases.

The fact that Oswald is not holding a visible and readable receipt of purchase for the rifle (in the photograph) does not prove he does not own the rifle. Is that the sort of evidence that would convince you Oswald owned the rifle he held in the photograph taken by Marina Oswald?

Think about this example: A photograph of Dorothy Hamill wearing skates when she won the Olympic Gold medal at the Winter Olympics (1976) in Innsbruck Austria does not prove she owned the skates. However, 99.99% of people would consider she owned the skates she was wearing in the photograph. Of course there would be some nut, somewhere, who would insist that she does not (did not) own the skates. Why some nut would make that assertion is for psychiatrists to explain.

[Ross Lidell]

Ross Lidell...What in hell is wrong with you? Did you develop Craniumvirus?
During her testimony...Marina 1. Stated that she took one picture with it.
 2. Could not operate that camera when asked to demonstrate how she took that picture.

What's wrong with YOU.

Ever heard of a human being being confused under stress?

Marina Oswald testified (under oath) that she took the photograph of Lee Oswald holding the rifle.

When she took the photograph, Lee Oswald was present to instruct her in how to operate the camera. He likely positioned the camera in her hands and even placed her finger on the shutter button. Unfortunately Lee Oswald could not attend the Warren Commission hearing to assist Marina in demonstrating how she took the photograph.

[Martin Weidmann]

A generalization is a statement that seems to be true in most situations or for most people, but that may not be completely true in all cases.

The fact that Oswald is not holding a visible and readable receipt of purchase for the rifle (in the photograph) does not prove he does not own the rifle. Is that the sort of evidence that would convince you Oswald owned the rifle he held in the photograph taken by Marina Oswald.

Oh boy.... here he goes again.

No proof for it not being his rifle is needed, since (and I think I have mentioned this before) the mere fact that he was photographed holding a rifle does not prove that he owns the rifle. Your assumption that it is his rifle is just that.... an assumption!

Btw... I now have a photograph of myself with a brand new Lamborghini. Following your "logic" I must be the owner of that car, so if you are interested, I can give you a good deal. Come to think of it, I also have photographs of myself in front of the Eiffel tower and on London Bridge.... Would you be interested?

Think about this example: A photograph of Dorothy Hamill wearing skates when she won the Olympic Gold medal at the Winter Olympics (1976) in Innsbruck Austria does not prove she owned the skates. However, 99.99% of people would consider she owned the skates she was wearing in the photograph. Of course there would be some nut, somewhere, who would insist that she does not (did not) own the skates. Why some nut would make that assertion is for psychiatrists to explain.

Your desperation is showing as that is a pathetic example. Although, to some extend, you seem to be on the right track. The photograph by itself does indeed not prove she owned the skates 

And you are right, it is a fair and reasonable assumption that they were indeed her skates, as she was wearing them, which is of course where your example goes off the rails as Oswald was wearing a shirt (probably he owned it) and holding a rifle, that could have been owned by somebody else.

Now, how about the Lamborghini... Interested?