Why classify information?

[Martin Weidmann]

Down the rabbit hole we go!  The evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle has been available since 1963.  It has been presented to you on this forum numerous times.  I've discussed it with you numerous times.  You know that evidence.  It is dishonest to suggest that this evidence hasn't been shown to you.  You can't claim there is "not a shred of evidence" that links Oswald to the rifle.  There is plenty of evidence.  Either the evidence links Oswald to this rifle or it is faked as the product of a conspiracy to frame him for the crime.  You can't have it every possible way when these are mutually exclusive concepts.  It isn't a lack of evidence of Oswald's ownership of a rifle that you are suggesting but that the evidence is suspect.  The evidence conclusively links Oswald to the rifle if it is genuine.  That evidence comes from a multitude of different sources.   Much of this evidence existed prior to the assassination.  Thus, if it was faked to frame Oswald for the crime, it was done as a product of a conspiracy to kill JFK.  If you are a proponent of this interpretation of events, then you are a CTer whether you are willing to admit it or not.  Why not come out of the closet and be honest for once?

The evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle has been available since 1963.  It has been presented to you on this forum numerous times.

Evasion!

I've discussed it with you numerous times.

No you haven't. You never discuss anything. You just hold speeches and dismiss anything you don't like.

You know that evidence.

Yes I do. That's why I know your claims are nothing more than hot air.

It is dishonest to suggest that this evidence hasn't been shown to you.

No. Of course the evidence has been shown to me. That's how I got to know what the evidence was. But you have never ever shown me anything in support of your bogus claims.

You can't claim there is "not a shred of evidence" that links Oswald to the rifle.  There is plenty of evidence.

Of course I can claim that. And as long as you don't prove me wrong and just keep saying "there's plenty of evidence" but not show it, I will continue to make that claim.

Either the evidence links Oswald to this rifle or it is faked as the product of a conspiracy to frame him for the crime.

Evidence doesn't have to be faked to frame somebody for a crime. Manipulated will do the trick as well!

You can't have it every possible way when these are mutually exclusive concepts.

And you can't just pick the option you like and disregard the rest. But I don't want to "have it every possible way". I want to have it the right way.

It isn't a lack of evidence of Oswald's ownership of a rifle that you are suggesting but that the evidence is suspect.  The evidence conclusively links Oswald to the rifle if it is genuine.  That evidence comes from a multitude of different sources.   Much of this evidence existed prior to the assassination.  Thus, if it was faked to frame Oswald for the crime, it was done as a product of a conspiracy to kill JFK.  If you are a proponent of this interpretation of events, then you are a CTer whether you are willing to admit it or not.  Why not come out of the closet and be honest for once?

Bla bla bla... If Oswald was indeed framed, there is indeed only one other possibility and that's a conspiracy. Unlike you, I don't care either way. If Oswald did it by himself, then so be it. And if there was a conspiracy, so be it. You desperately don't want to consider the possibility of a conspiracy, which is why you "Mr. I'm neutral", need Oswald to be the lone nut. I, on the other hand, couldn't care less. I just want to find out if the evidence against Oswald holds up under scrutiny.

That's why you are so desperate to color me a CT, because you know that the case against Oswald is an extremely weak circumstantial one that no way comes close to being beyond any doubt. That's also the reason why you just keep saying there's all this compelling evidence by never show it. Your song and dance act is fooling nobody. The weakness of your claims is exposed every time you claim there is conclusive evidence and then not show it. Which is just about all the time....

You have no right to even use the word honesty, because you clearly don't know what it means.

[Jack Nessan]

Pathetic.

No matter how often you refer to the rifle as Oswald's rifle, you've got not a shred of evidence of that being true. You also haven't got a shred of evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63 and you can't even prove that the rifle that was found on the 6th floor was actually fired that day or that it belonged to Oswald.

This is Mr. "I'm neutral" exposing his true nature. That's all.

Please let Martin be on the jury if I ever commit a crime.
Please let "Richard Smith" never ever be on a jury.

"No matter how often you refer to the rifle as Oswald's rifle, you've got not a shred of evidence of that being true. You also haven't got a shred of evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63 and you can't even prove that the rifle that was found on the 6th floor was actually fired that day or that it belonged to Oswald."

The rifle found on the 6th floor was matched to the shells found laying by the window and the bullet and bullet fragments found in the hospital and limo to the exclusion of all other rifles. Howard Brennan saw the rifle being discharged from that very window during the assassination. LHO told Postal Inspector Holmes he came down, resulting in the second floor encounter, to see what all the commotion was all about.

[Martin Weidmann]

"No matter how often you refer to the rifle as Oswald's rifle, you've got not a shred of evidence of that being true. You also haven't got a shred of evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63 and you can't even prove that the rifle that was found on the 6th floor was actually fired that day or that it belonged to Oswald."

The rifle found on the 6th floor was matched to the shells found laying by the window and the bullet and bullet fragments found in the hospital and limo to the exclusion of all other rifles. Howard Brennan saw the rifle being discharged from that very window during the assassination. LHO told Postal Inspector Holmes he came down, resulting in the second floor encounter, to see what all the commotion was all about.

So gullible. Nothing about this is anyway near conclusive.

Yes there were three shells found on the 6th floor, but how do they prove that the rifle was fired that day?
Bullet fragments allegedly found in the hospital and the limo can not be matched to a rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles and they never were. And whatever Brennan claims to have seen and whatever Oswald told Holmes (or not) is in no way proof that a particular rifle was fired.

I don't know where you get your information from, but it might be a good idea to find a different source, because what you have written is BS

[Richard Smith]

So gullible. Nothing about this is anyway near conclusive.

Yes there were three shells found on the 6th floor, but how do they prove that the rifle was fired that day?
Bullet fragments allegedly found in the hospital and the limo can not be matched to a rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles and they never were. And whatever Brennan claims to have seen and whatever Oswald told Holmes (or not) is in no way proof that a particular rifle was fired.

I don't know where you get your information from, but it might be a good idea to find a different source, because what you have written is BS

How about this?  Explain to us what evidence is lacking from the record that would satisfy you of Oswald's ownership of the rifle found on the 6th floor.  I can't think of anything lacking from the evidence but maybe you know something that others do not.  What reasonable evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle should we have that we do not have?  Or are you suggesting that it is simply impossible to prove this to you? 

[Martin Weidmann]

How about this?  Explain to us what evidence is lacking from the record that would satisfy you of Oswald's ownership of the rifle found on the 6th floor.  I can't think of anything lacking from the evidence but maybe you know something that others do not.  What reasonable evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle should we have that we do not have?  Or are you suggesting that it is simply impossible to prove this to you?

Explain to us what evidence is lacking from the record that would satisfy you of Oswald's ownership of the rifle found on the 6th floor.

Well. let's start with this; (1) show the original of Waldman 07 [the only document that links the MC rifle found at the TSBD to the Hidell order, with a handwritten serial number] and not just a photocopy and (2) name one person who actually saw Oswald with that particular rifle, or any other rifle for that matter, after April 1963.

I can't think of anything lacking from the evidence

Of course you can't. Your bar is so low that a couple of photocopies, three photos, the opinion of a FBI handwriting expert and a massive assumption are enough for you.

What reasonable evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle should we have that we do not have?

All that you have is the assumption that the rifle found at the TSBD was owned by Oswald. What you don't have is a shred of evidence to even show that Oswald had (let alone owned) any rifle during the eight months prior to the assassination.

[Jack Nessan]

So gullible. Nothing about this is anyway near conclusive.

Yes there were three shells found on the 6th floor, but how do they prove that the rifle was fired that day?
Bullet fragments allegedly found in the hospital and the limo can not be matched to a rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles and they never were. And whatever Brennan claims to have seen and whatever Oswald told Holmes (or not) is in no way proof that a particular rifle was fired.

I don't know where you get your information from, but it might be a good idea to find a different source, because what you have written is BS

Martin Weideman: 
"prove that the rifle that was found on the 6th floor was actually fired that day"

I thought everyone knew this about the rifle, shell casings, bullet and bullet fragments. I did not know anyone did not. That they were matched to the exclusion of all other rifles by the forensic experts. I stand corrected.

Do you believe the assassination took place earlier and was just staged to look like it took place on the 22nd?

The rifle found on the 6th floor was found to have had LHO's palm print on the barrel. The rifle that was used to assassinate JFK.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin Weideman: 
"prove that the rifle that was found on the 6th floor was actually fired that day"

I thought everyone knew this about the rifle, shell casings, bullet and bullet fragments. I did not know anyone did not. That they were matched to the exclusion of all other rifles by the forensic experts. I stand corrected.

Do you believe the assassination took place earlier and was just staged to look like it took place on the 22nd?

The rifle found on the 6th floor was found to have had LHO's palm print on the barrel. The rifle that was used to assassinate JFK.

Yes, you stand corrected about the claim that there was any kind of match, let alone to the exclusion of all other rifles. It just didn't happen. At best they could have matched the shells to the rifle, but that's it.

Do you believe the assassination took place earlier and was just staged to look like it took place on the 22nd?

What in the world are you babbling about?

The rifle found on the 6th floor was found to have had LHO's palm print on the barrel.

That's a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The rifle found at the TSBD was examined by the FBI lab in Washington within 24 hours after the crime. They found nothing, not even a trace of a print.

Then, about a week later, Lt Day suddenly produced an evidence card allegedly containing Oswald's palmprint, which he claimed  he had taken of the rifle on 11/22/63 and then kept it, without mentioning it to anyone for a whole week.

The rifle that was used to assassinate JFK.

And how do you know that the rifle found on the 6th floor was in fact the one used to assassinate JFK?

Bullets or bullet fragments can not be matched to any weapon and despite your claim they never were. Shells can be matched, but the fact that Fritz compromised the crime scene by picking up shells and then throwing them back, means that if the rifle was planted so could the shells be.

Now, before you get this wrong; I am not claiming that the rifle and shells were planted. I am merely saying that it is possible that they were, which, by itself, makes it impossible to claim with any kind of certainty that the rifle was actually used in the assassination.

[Richard Smith]

Martin Weideman: 
"prove that the rifle that was found on the 6th floor was actually fired that day"

I thought everyone knew this about the rifle, shell casings, bullet and bullet fragments. I did not know anyone did not. That they were matched to the exclusion of all other rifles by the forensic experts. I stand corrected.

Do you believe the assassination took place earlier and was just staged to look like it took place on the 22nd?

The rifle found on the 6th floor was found to have had LHO's palm print on the barrel. The rifle that was used to assassinate JFK.

You are dealing with a person who doesn't want to be convinced of an obvious fact supported by the evidence.  As you note, the shell casings came from Oswald's rifle.  They were found by the window from which witnesses confirm that they saw a rifle at the moment of the assassination.  Oswald's prints are on the boxes by that window.  His rifle is found on that floor.  He has no credible alibi for the moment of the assassination.  Instead he flees the scene, is involved in another murder less than an hour later, resists arrest and tries to kill more police officers when approached at the Texas Theatre, and lies to the DPD about his ownership of a rifle.  It is laughable for anyone to suggest the evidence against Oswald is lacking in any respect.  Martin just goes endlessly round and round down the same rabbit holes.