Exactly. There is proof that Klein's shipped the rifle. They produced a business record that indicates how and when they did so.
What is your evidence that Klein’s produced the existing Waldman 7 picture?
This is corroborated by the additional evidence in the case including that Oswald received a rifle in this timeframe,
What is your evidence that Oswald received a rifle in this timeframe (whatever that means)?
he is pictured holding the rifle,
No, he is pictured holding a rifle that cannot be uniquely identified.
the rifle left at the crime scene (his place of employment)
You don’t know when it was “left”. Or by whom.
the DPD indicate that Oswald's prints were found on that rifle.
What “prints”? A single partial palmprint turned up a week later on an index card.
No other rifle has ever been associated with Oswald in this timeframe.
Nor can this rifle be “associated with Oswald”.
There is no accounting for Oswald's rifle except as the one left at the TSBD.
“Oswald’s rifle”. LOL.
The contrarian brothers just say it ain't so.
Wrong again “Richard”. You just haven’t
proven it to be so. Claims aren’t proof.
By implication they must believe that there is some alternative explanation for this evidence to explain these circumstances. The burden of proof is now on them to explain away this evidence.
Wrong again, “Richard”. The burden of proof is
always on the one making the claim, not on anybody to “explain away” the claimant’s biased mischaracterization of the evidence or to prove whatever the claimant decides is implied by the dispute.
But they won't even articulate an explanation much less provide any support for that conclusion. It is complete lunacy.
“I’m automatically right unless you can prove me wrong”, take 99999.