CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?

[Martin Weidmann]

...written by a third party who is throwing together all sorts of quotes from unnamed sources. And still there is no connection between the "quotes"

You’re the one speculating.

So you can't show me I am wrong. Got it! 

[Charles Collins]

So you can't show me I am wrong. Got it! 

I already have. Just read the article as written. An unbiased scientific survey would certainly show that.

 Any description of anyone’s interpretation could be called speculation by someone else. I have shown you this also.

[Martin Weidmann]

I already have. Just read the article as written. An unbiased scientific survey would certainly show that.

 Any description of anyone’s interpretation could be called speculation by someone else. I have shown you this also.

No. I am merely asking you how the two quotes show any kind of connection with the print on the index card, as you claim they do. That's not speculating.

I already have.

No you haven't. Saying that you have already shown it is a typical LN cop out used when they can not support their claims with actual evidence. But I'll play along; just tell me where you have done it, so I and others can look it up.

Just read the article as written. An unbiased scientific survey would certainly show that.

Yeah right. In this case "an unbiased scientific survey" = Jumping to conclusions you can't support with the available evidence.

Any description of anyone’s interpretation could be called speculation by someone else.

So now it's just your interpretation that tells you that the quoted investigator was actually talking about the print on an index card?

Why should I or anybody else accept your interpretation as being the correct one, when we know for a fact that Day didn't turn over the index card to the FBI until two days after the publication of the newspaper article. So, how the investigator could have been talking about the print on the index card is totally beyond me. Even more so as the FBI did not match the print on the index card to Oswald until after November 29th

[Charles Collins]

No. I am merely asking you how the two quotes show any kind of connection with the print on the index card, as you claim they do. That's not speculating.

I already have.

No you haven't. Saying that you have already shown it is a typical LN cop out used when they can not support their claims with actual evidence. But I'll play along; just tell me where you have done it, so I and others can look it up.

Just read the article as written. An unbiased scientific survey would certainly show that.

Yeah right. In this case "an unbiased scientific survey" = Jumping to conclusions you can't support with the available evidence.

Any description of anyone’s interpretation could be called speculation by someone else.

So now it's just your interpretation that tells you that the quoted investigator was actually talking about the print on an index card?

Why should I or anybody else accept your interpretation as being the correct one, when we know for a fact that Day didn't turn over the index card to the FBI until two days after the publication of the newspaper article. So, how the investigator could have been talking about the print on the index card is totally beyond me. Even more so as the FBI did not match the print on the index card to Oswald until after November 29th

So, how the investigator could have been talking about the print on the index card is totally beyond me.

The words were written by reporters who were there. They need no explanation from me. You elected to try to twist them into something that fits what you believe. I have shown you your mistake of not keeping the context. Apparently a lot of things are beyond you.

[Martin Weidmann]

So, how the investigator could have been talking about the print on the index card is totally beyond me.

The words were written by reporters who were there. They need no explanation from me. You elected to try to twist them into something that fits what you believe. I have shown you your mistake of not keeping the context. Apparently a lot of things are beyond you.

The words were written by reporters who were there.

Indeed, they wrote down what the investigators told them. And an investigator said they had Oswald's print. That was all he said.

You then turned it so that the investigator somehow was talking about the print on the index card, but you have no evidence for that, which is why you keep going on about the context when there actually is no context, since you can't even know for sure if the "informed sources" include the investigator who mentioned a print matching Oswald.

The first part;

Informed sources said the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24 year-old Communist sympathizer held the rifle which fired the lethal bullet as President Kennedy's motorcade neared the triple underpass.

just expresses the opinion of "informed sources". They used the words "held the rifle" but they could just as easily have said "we are pretty sure Oswald did it"

The second part;

We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said.

is just a comment made by an investigator being reproduced.

A reader, ignorant of the facts, might combine the two remarks and conclude they are linked, and it could well be that the writer of the article intended just that, but such a conclusion, and thus your position, is complete BS, because it ignores that the FBI did not match Oswald to the print on the index card until 5 days after the article was published.

Unless he was psychic, there is no way the investigator who made the remark about the print could have known on the 24th that it was Oswald's print on the index card as that wasn't determined until the 29th. QED he couldn't have been talking about the print on the index card!

This is not rocket science so why don't you get it?

[Charles Collins]

The words were written by reporters who were there.

Indeed, they wrote down what the investigators told them. And an investigator said they had Oswald's print. That was all he said.

You then turned it so that the investigator somehow was talking about the print on the index card, but you have no evidence for that, which is why you keep going on about the context when there actually is no context, since you can't even know for sure if the "informed sources" include the investigator who mentioned a print matching Oswald.

The first part;

Informed sources said the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24 year-old Communist sympathizer held the rifle which fired the lethal bullet as President Kennedy's motorcade neared the triple underpass.

just expresses the opinion of "informed sources". They used the words "held the rifle" but they could just as easily have said "we are pretty sure Oswald did it"

The second part;

We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said.

is just a comment made by an investigator being reproduced.

A reader, ignorant of the facts, might combine the two remarks and conclude they are linked, and it could well be that the writer of the article intended just that, but such a conclusion, and thus your position, is complete BS, because it ignores that the FBI did not match Oswald to the print on the index card until 5 days after the article was published.

Unless he was psychic, there is no way the investigator who made the remark about the print could have known on the 24th that it was Oswald's print on the index card as that wasn't determined until the 29th. QED he couldn't have been talking about the print on the index card!

This is not rocket science so why don't you get it?

Unless he was psychic, there is no way the investigator who made the remark about the print could have known on the 24th that it was Oswald's print on the index card as that wasn't determined until the 29th. QED he couldn't have been talking about the print on the index card!


No need for psychic abilities. Wade said he was told on 11/22/63  that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's. The informed sources were apparently basing their statement on a tentative expert analysis (which was only tentative because it was interrupted before being finalized) that was confirmed by independent experts days later.

Again my point is to show that the palm print was mentioned to others before Oswald's death. This isn't rocket science. Why don't you get it?

[Martin Weidmann]

Unless he was psychic, there is no way the investigator who made the remark about the print could have known on the 24th that it was Oswald's print on the index card as that wasn't determined until the 29th. QED he couldn't have been talking about the print on the index card!


No need for psychic abilities. Wade said he was told on 11/22/63  that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's. The informed sources were apparently basing their statement on a tentative expert analysis (which was only tentative because it was interrupted before being finalized) that was confirmed by independent experts days later.

Again my point is to show that the palm print was mentioned to others before Oswald's death. This isn't rocket science. Why don't you get it?

Wade said he was told on 11/22/63  that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's

Now you are changing the subject back to Wade.....

Where did Wade say that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's?

They had no print match on 11/22/63 to Oswald or anybody else!


The informed sources were apparently basing their statement on a tentative expert analysis (which was only tentative because it was interrupted before being finalized) that was confirmed by independent experts days later.

BS there was no such thing as a tentative expert analysis.

Again my point is to show that the palm print was mentioned to others before Oswald's death.

Sure it is, yet you have no evidence to support such a claim so you are making stuff up as you go along....

[Charles Collins]

Wade said he was told on 11/22/63  that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's

Now you are changing the subject back to Wade.....

Where did Wade say that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's?

Thry had no print match on 11-22-63 to Oswald or anybody else!


The informed sources were apparently basing their statement on a tentative expert analysis (which was only tentative because it was interrupted before being finalized) that was confirmed by independent experts days later.

BS there was no such thing as a tentative expert analysis.

Again my point is to show that the palm print was mentioned to others before Oswald's death.

Sure it is, yet you have no evidence to support such a claim so you are making stuff up as you go along....

Where did Wade say that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's?

Direct quote of Wade in “Witness to History” by Hugh Aynesworth page 77. - “They had a palm print on the gun, for example, and an expert who tentatively identified it [as Oswald’s].”