That's right, amended to "Identical" which fits to a T the HSCA photo panel description. I can't help that your so pedantic that no other word in the English language can be used to describe the same exact meaning for which the HSCA final summary came to the conclusion that "identical" was what the photo panel meant.
No, you either inadvertantly or intentionally conflated the panel's description of photos taken of the rifle being brought out of the TSBD on the day of the assassination with the backyard photos. The panel made no such conclusion about the backyard photos. As I already pointed out, the best they could say is that Cecil Kirk thought the scales were tipped in the direction of it being the same rifle. Not anywhere near "identical".
Since this has already been pointed out to you multiple times, you've gone from "mistaken" to "lying". Just like you lied about Frazier saying the bag was made out of heavy duty paper.
That is a big time falsehood. The evidence that has always been cited by LNers is presented by the WC, the HSCA and other evidence that has been made available that correct an erroneous conclusion reached by the HSCA of a second shooter that missed and evidence that corroborates the overall conclusion reached by the WC.
That's a copout from somebody who can't or won't actually articulate what evidence places Oswald firing a rifle at the motorcade.
Since you consider yourself a self-appointed defense lawyer for Oswald
No, that's your rhetoric to minimize the fact that you're making claims you can't support.
how about providing evidence that exonareates Oswald?
Because I never made the claim that Oswald is innocent. I'm pointing out that your case against him is weak, rhetorical, and nowhere near a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Your claim doesn't just win by default if I can't prove you wrong. That's another fallacy.
Just trying to create reasonable doubt by questioning everything that points to Oswald's culpability goes nowhere with NTers (if I could be permitted to speak for LNers in this instance).
I'm not "creating" anything. What little evidence that exists in this case is questionable, impeachable, arguable, or tainted in some way. I didn't make that happen.