How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD

[Tim Nickerson]

I have read it, Tim

You've got the panel's experts going further than the FBI expert was willing to go and they explain it by basically saying they had better material to work with. |That may be, but it is still one expert declining to make a positive identification and another making one. So, they are not in agreement. Obviously if you prefer the opinion of the one over the other, that's fine, but that doesn't alter the basic fact that the experts are not in agreement.

They are not in disagreement. It's not me preferring the opinion of the one over the other. Shaneyfelt did not have access to all of the same quality photographic prints that were available to the Panel. You can't rightly just acknowledge that and then dismiss it.

[Martin Weidmann]

They are not in disagreement. It's not me preferring the opinion of the one over the other. Shaneyfelt did not have access to all of the same quality photographic prints that were available to the Panel. You can't rightly just acknowledge that and then dismiss it.

I don't dismiss anything. They are only not in disagreement if you assume that Shaneyfelt would have reached the same conclusion if he had the same prints.

The problem is that you can only assume that and the fact of the matter is that the record shows that Shaneyfelt declined to make a positive identification.

[Wesley Johnson]

Oh, I know the photo has been tested. I just don't agree with your over exaggerated claim that it was "found to be authentic"

the documentation linking it to Oswald

What documentation is linking what to Oswald?

Martin do you want me to name all of the people that have tested the photo? I will if you want, but I think you are already aware of some of them. Why don't you tell me who and how it is disputed.

[Wesley Johnson]

Not just a rifle. It was the rifle.

(239) In the Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photographs identified as 133A Stovall,133A de Mohrenschildt, and CE-134, that same gouge is quite visible and can be measured and compared with the gouge on the questioned rifle . They are identical in every respect.

(240) Based upon this system of identification, the rifle in these photographs can be positively identified as the same rifle that is presently in the custody of the National Archives . Finally, it should be noted that although an FBI expert declined to make a positive identification of the rifle in question based upon this gouge mark, this expert did not have access to all of the same quality photographic prints that were available to the Panel. For example, the 133A de Mohrenschildt and 133A Stovall prints, both of which are of high quality, were obtained and reviewed by the committee in 1977 and 1978 respectively. This was the first time that these materials were analyzed . In addition, positive identification of the rifle was based upon an examination of CE-134, a very good enlargement (from the original negative) of CE-133A.* The FBI's expert in 1964, however, apparently did not consider this photograph in reaching his conclusion .
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk6/assass.htm

Thanks Tim. I know it is the rifle. I was just talking about the authenticity of the photo. The rifle in the photo is also the same rifle they found on the 6th floor. You know how it goes with these guys. One hundred experts could verify something and one non-expert could say something different and the CT's would claim the one as "evidence of a conspiracy".

[Martin Weidmann]

Thanks Tim. I know it is the rifle. I was just talking about the authenticity of the photo. The rifle in the photo is also the same rifle they found on the 6th floor. You know how it goes with these guys. One hundred experts could verify something and one non-expert could say something different and the CT's would claim the one as "evidence of a conspiracy".

One hundred experts could verify something and one non-expert could say something different and the CT's would claim the one as "evidence of a conspiracy".

Another OTT statement!

What exactly did one hundred experts verify and are you calling an FBI expert a "non-expert"?

The rifle in the photo is also the same rifle they found on the 6th floor.

Is it? And you know this, how?

[Wesley Johnson]

One hundred experts could verify something and one non-expert could say something different and the CT's would claim the one as "evidence of a conspiracy".

Another OTT statement!

What exactly did one hundred experts verify and are you calling an FBI expert a "non-expert"?

The rifle in the photo is also the same rifle they found on the 6th floor.

Is it? And you know this, how?

You are not dense Martin. It was just an over the top illustration. You'll get over it. Now why don't you tell me how you know it is not the rifle. Or are you still walking that fence?

[Wesley Johnson]

Cite this "damning" evidence.

What's the matter Rob? No one posting on your threads? I think you know full well what documentation I am referring to. Now why don't you name any physical, or ballistic evidence that points to a different shooter than Oswald. Should be easy for you. Have anything? A bullet? A print maybe? Oh, what, nothing to offer? 

[Martin Weidmann]

You are not dense Martin. It was just an over the top illustration. You'll get over it. Now why don't you tell me how you know it is not the rifle. Or are you still walking that fence?

I don't know if it is the rifle that was found at the TSBD or not.

It may well be, but I think we will disagree about what it means if it is indeed the same rifle.