A question about Oswald

[David Von Pein]

Oswald's rifle was positively the JFK murder weapon.....and yet Mr. Martin Weidmann (incredibly) thinks that my thinking the owner of that rifle is guilty of the murder is (somehow) a "massive leap of faith".*

Strange logic there indeed.

* Naturally, Martin will continue to argue that there's not an ounce of proof to show that LHO owned Rifle #C2766, and Martin will also no doubt contend that there is no proof at all that Rifle C2766 was the Kennedy murder weapon. But Martin will, of course, continue to be dead wrong in those two utterly absurd assertions (quite naturally).

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

[Martin Weidmann]

Oswald's rifle was positively the JFK murder weapon.....and yet Mr. Martin Weidmann (incredibly) thinks that my thinking the owner of that rifle is guilty of the murder is (somehow) a "massive leap of faith".*

Strange logic there indeed.

* Naturally, Martin will continue to argue that there's not an ounce of proof to show that LHO owned Rifle #C2766, and Martin will also no doubt contend that there is no proof at all that Rifle C2766 was the Kennedy murder weapon. But Martin will, of course, continue to be dead wrong in those two utterly absurd assertions (quite naturally).

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

Oswald's rifle was positively the JFK murder weapon.....and yet Mr. Martin Weidmann (incredibly) thinks that my thinking the owner of that rifle is guilty of the murder is (somehow) a "massive leap of faith".*

Actually, the first leap of faith is the flawed conclusion that Oswald owned a rifle to begin with. Things may be different in your delusional world, but filling out an order form in the name of somebody else (if that's what Oswald did) doesn't automatically result in ownership of the ordered item. And, btw, what makes you even think that if a person owns a rifle in March 1963, he must still own it in November 1963?

The second leap of faith is that the rifle found at the TSBD is the one Oswald allegedly owned. The last time anybody saw Oswald with a rifle was in the BY photos, taken in March 1963 and even those photos do not show the serial number of the rifle Oswald is holding. Besides, the only reference to the serial number of the rifle found at the TSBD is a handwritten addition on a microfilm copy of an unauthenticated internal order document, we now know as Waldmann 7
 
The third one is that the rifle found at the TSBD was actually fired on 11/22/63. Did they bother to check or is it just an assumption that the rifle was actually fired?

And the fourth (and most pathetic one) is that you seem to believe that an owner or former owner of a rifle must be automatically guilty of a crime that was committed with that rifle.

Strange logic there indeed.

Only for somebody like you, who clearly doesn't know the first thing about logic.

* Naturally, Martin will continue to argue that there's not an ounce of proof to show that LHO owned Rifle #C2766, 

Yes indeed, I will continue to argue that there isn't any proof to show that Oswald owned C 2766, simply because there isn't any. If there was, you and your ilk would have presented it a long time ago instead of jumping to all sorts of conclusions that are not supported by the actually available evidence.

You may possibly be able to show (but I doubt it) that Oswald filled out a Klein's order form and you may be able to show that he was photographed with a rifle, possibly perhaps even C 2766, in March 1963, but that still does not even begin to prove that he owned a rifle or even that particular rifle and still did on 11/22/63. For that, you need more leaps of faith, flawed conclusions and a massive number of assumptions that are based on wishful thinking.

Btw, since you seem to attach such great importance to Waldmann 7, can you provide a solid chain of custody for the microfilm where that document was copied from? The FBI took it with them on 11/23/63 and Waldmann didn't see it again until his WC testimony, several months later. So, what happened to it?

Also, I seriously wonder if you actually understand the difference between confirming the content of a document and actually authenticating the document itself. So, let's find out; who authenticated Waldmann 7? And while we're on this subject, do you agree that photocopied documents can be manipulated?

and Martin will also no doubt contend that there is no proof at all that Rifle C2766 was the Kennedy murder weapon.

And no, I do not contend that C 2766 was or was not the rifle used to kill Kennedy, because I simply do not know. All I do know is that there isn't any evidence that this rifle was actually fired on 11/22/63 and you can't provide any evidence to show otherwise. Perhaps you can tell me how you can kill somebody with a rifle if that rifle wasn't fired? Well....

You may want to give up your feeble attempts to predict what I will or will not argue, as you are not very good at it and your "predictions" make for pretty useless strawman.

But Martin will, of course, continue to be dead wrong in those two utterly absurd assertions (quite naturally).

Why don't you actually try to prove me wrong instead of just saying that I am (which is a meaningless opinion of a propagandist).? Well.....

[Richard Smith]

Oswald's rifle was positively the JFK murder weapon.....and yet Mr. Martin Weidmann (incredibly) thinks that my thinking the owner of that rifle is guilty of the murder is (somehow) a "massive leap of faith".*

Actually, the first leap of faith is the flawed conclusion that Oswald owned a rifle to begin with. Things may be different in your delusional world, but filling out an order form (if that's what Oswald did) doesn't automatically result in ownership of the ordered item. And, btw, what makes you even think that if a person owns a rifle in March 1963, he must still own it in November 1963?

The second one leap of faith is that the rifle found at the TSBD is the one Oswald allegedly owned.
The third one is that the rifle found at the TSBD was actually fired on 11/22/63

And the fourth (and most pathetic one) is that you seem to believe that an owner or former owner of a rifle must be automatically guilty of a crime that was committed with that rifle.

Oswald is pictured holding the rifle.  His print was found on the rifle.  Klein's confirmed that the rifle found in the TSBD is the same one sent to Oswald's PO Box via a matching serial number.   Oswald's own wife confirms that he possessed a rifle in this timeframe.  There is no accounting for that rifle EXCEPT as the one found in TSBD.  What happened to it if it was a different rifle from the one found?  Martin doesn't have a clue.  He doesn't even care.  It's impossible to understand how there could be more evidence that links Oswald to the rifle found on the 6th floor than exists.  But in the contrarian fantasy world, it takes a "leap of faith" to link Oswald to this rifle.  How would any criminal ever be linked to a gun using this insane standard of proof?  It couldn't be done absent a time machine.  It's unreal.  Apply endlessly to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt.  In contrast, every contrarian alternative is entertained no matter how absurd or lacking in support.  But Martin is just a neutral arbiter of the facts.   Just ask him. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Oswald is pictured holding the rifle.  His print was found on the rifle.  Klein's confirmed that the rifle found in the TSBD is the same one sent to Oswald's PO Box via a matching serial number.   Oswald's own wife confirms that he possessed a rifle in this timeframe.  There is no accounting for that rifle EXCEPT as the one found in TSBD.  What happened to it if it was a different rifle from the one found?  Martin doesn't have a clue.  He doesn't even care.  It's impossible to understand how there could be more evidence that links Oswald to the rifle found on the 6th floor than exists.  But in the contrarian fantasy world, it takes a "leap of faith" to link Oswald to this rifle.  How would any criminal ever be linked to a gun using this insane standard of proof?  It couldn't be done absent a time machine.  It's unreal.  Apply endlessly to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt.  In contrast, every contrarian alternative is entertained no matter how absurd or lacking in support.  But Martin is just a neutral arbiter of the facts.   Just ask him.

Oswald is pictured holding the rifle.

No, he is photgraphed holding a rifle (of which the serial number can not be seen). There is a difference. At least to normal reasonable people there is.

His print was found on the rifle.

No it wasn't. The FBI examined the rifle within 24 hours after the murder and found no prints or even residue of a print that was lifted. Day didn't produce an evidence card with a print (allegedly taken from the rifle) until a week later and after Oswald was killed.

Klein's confirmed that the rifle found in the TSBD is the same one sent to Oswald's PO Box via a matching serial number. 

Klein's confirmed no such thing

Oswald's own wife confirms that he possessed a rifle in this timeframe.

In March 1963, you mean?.... WOW that's powerful evidence that he owned C2766 in November 1963..... Pffff  Not really.

There is no accounting for that rifle EXCEPT as the one found in TSBD.  What happened to it if it was a different rifle from the one found?

Really? The last time anybody saw Oswald holding a rifle was in March 1963. Since then he went to New Orleans and Mexico. The only one who would know what happened to the rifle, he was photographed with, it would be Oswald. Everybody else can only speculate.

It's impossible to understand how there could be more evidence that links Oswald to the rifle found on the 6th floor than exists.

That's not the only thing you clearly do not understand

How would any criminal ever be linked to a gun using this insane standard of proof?

Criminals don't always have to be linked to a weapon. Alex Murdaugh was convicted of a double murder despite the two weapons used ever being found. They convincingly used circumstantial and direct evidence to place him at the scene of the crime. So, it's not an "insame standard of proof".

But Martin is just a neutral arbiter of the facts.

Indeed and that's something you can't handle.

[John Iacoletti]

For the life of me, I do not understand why LNs are always desperately making claims that are not supported by the evidence as well as massive leaps of faith.

Because that’s all they’ve got. That and false bravado.

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald's rifle was positively the JFK murder weapon.....and yet Mr. Martin Weidmann (incredibly) thinks that my thinking the owner of that rifle is guilty of the murder is (somehow) a "massive leap of faith".*

Strange logic there indeed.

It is a leap of faith. There’s nothing positive about it. The fragments removed from JFK’s head were too tiny to identify what weapon fired the bullet or bullets they came from.

* Naturally, Martin will continue to argue that there's not an ounce of proof to show that LHO owned Rifle #C2766, and Martin will also no doubt contend that there is no proof at all that Rifle C2766 was the Kennedy murder weapon. But Martin will, of course, continue to be dead wrong in those two utterly absurd assertions (quite naturally).

Naturally, your only “proof” is unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of two block-written letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon (from microfilm that is now "missing") for a similar but not identical rifle.

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald is pictured holding the rifle.

You forgot to actually demonstrate that this is “the rifle”.

His print was found on the rifle. 

No, his partial print was found on an index card a week later.

Klein's confirmed that the rifle found in the TSBD is the same one sent to Oswald's PO Box via a matching serial number.

No, they “confirmed” that a copy of a document from microfilm that is now “missing” has “C2766” handwritten in and the letters “PP” are circled.

Oswald's own wife confirms that he possessed a rifle in this timeframe.

No, she claimed that he possessed some kind of rifle months earlier.

There is no accounting for that rifle EXCEPT as the one found in TSBD. 

Translation: “I can’t prove it’s the same rifle, therefore I will just assume that it is unless you can prove it isn’t.”

What happened to it if it was a different rifle from the one found?

Argument from ignorance.

Martin doesn't have a clue.  He doesn't even care.  It's impossible to understand how there could be more evidence that links Oswald to the rifle found on the 6th floor than exists. 

Not impossible at all. You just want your speculation and handwaving to be considered “evidence”, because it’s all you have.

But in the contrarian fantasy world, it takes a "leap of faith" to link Oswald to this rifle.  How would any criminal ever be linked to a gun using this insane standard of proof?

Through conclusive, authenticatible evidence, not rhetoric and wishful thinking.

[Richard Smith]

Oswald is pictured holding the rifle.

No, he is photgraphed holding a rifle (of which the serial number can not be seen). There is a difference. At least to normal reasonable people there is.

His print was found on the rifle.

No it wasn't. The FBI examined the rifle within 24 hours after the murder and found no prints or even residue of a print that was lifted. Day didn't produce an evidence card with a print (allegedly taken from the rifle) until a week later and after Oswald was killed.

[

What happened to this rifle that Oswald is shown holding?  His own wife confirmed it was his rifle and that he later kept it in the Paine's garage.  If it was a DIFFERENT rifle from the one found in in the TSBD, then what happened to Oswald's rifle?  Why did he lie to the DPD and tell them that he didn't own any rifle?  Let me guess.  You don't have a clue or care.  It is just "possible" it could be some other rifle even though all the evidence and circumstances are to the contrary and there is zero evidence that Oswald owned any other rifle in this timeframe.  It is also "possible" that the DPD lied about Oswald's explanation of the rifle.  But you are not alleging a conspiracy.  Just that all the evidence was fabricated to frame Oswald.  Wow.

And you really are basing your silly claim that no print was found on the rifle by citing to that fact that Day found Oswald's print on the rifle?  What difference does it make that the "evidence card" wasn't produced until a week later?  HA HA HA.   That is the height of stupidity.  Even if true, and you haven't proven that, how does this mean Oswald's print wasn't found on the rifle?  Imagine the astounding stupidity of citing the evidence card that confirms Oswald's print was found on the rifle to suggest that Oswald's print wasn't found on the rifle.  It's breathtaking in absurdity and twisted logic.  I can't believe you are for real. 

I've asked before, but you are suggesting that Day or someone fabricated this "evidence card."  That would mean a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime.  But there is more.  You are also suggesting that this was done AFTER Oswald was already dead and there would be no trial.  Why would Day and whomever else was involved need to risk their careers, reputations, and commit a crime to frame Oswald AFTER he was dead and there would be no trial?  The DPD was already satisfied with his guilt.  There was no reason to fabricate any more evidence.  It is insane to believe that is what happened.  There is also absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Day fabricated and lied about this.  You suggest that we are supposed to accept as a fact this because it allegedly took a "week" produce the card.  Produce it to whom?  The investigation was in process.  How do you even know that Day didn't produce or mention this to someone during that week?  You don't.  But again, EVEN if he didn't mention it to anyone else for a week, that doesn't mean it is fabricated.  Good grief.  You should be embarrassed to peddle this nonsense.