Historian explains the mind of Conspiracy Nuts - CBS 1967

[John Iacoletti]

For example,  the HSCA photographic experts say the rifle in the BYP was the rifle found in the sniper's nest.

This is blatantly false. You don’t help your argument any by spreading misinformation.

[Mitch Todd]

This is blatantly false. You don’t help your argument any by spreading misinformation.

"the rifle in these photographs can be positively identified as the same rifle that is presently in the custody of the National Archives."
(Report of HSCA photographic panel, HSCA, VI Appendix D, PP 240)

This is from Kirk and McCamy's testimony:

"Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle"

"Sergeant KIRK. As a random pattern. You can expect this weapon, just as you can expect all those TV cameras, to receive certain amounts of damage when it is handled. If you were to examine those cameras, even though they are the same, you would not find dents and chips out of the surface in precisely the same area.
Just as the chances of a tire running over the same pieces of glass to cut the tread would be exactly the same. We have examined this chip out of the forestock and we have determined it is quite old, some attempt is made to sand it down, and it was finished the same color as the stock.
It was probably damaged in one of two ways. It received a shock on the top of the forestock that knocked off the chip, which means the top forestock has been replaced, or the stock was damaged as it was taken apart.
It is my opinion that this is unique and unto itself. As you can see here, we photographed the duplicate weapon that was purchased from the distributor of this rifle, the one who allegedly sent it to Dallas, which is photographed here on the top, and it does not show any of the damage that the second photograph does.
I have made a photographic enlargement of the chip out of the forestock.
We have here a United Press International photograph taken of the rifle being displayed outside of the homicide office in the Dallas police department headquarters. A photographic enlargement shows the same chip out of the stock in precisely the same location, going in the same direction, and same dimensions." [dropped the wrong quote in here, fixed]

[John Iacoletti]

Like so often happens in this case, the conclusion stated in the report doesn’t follow from the underlying hearings and exhibits. Read Cecil Kirk’s testimony again.

Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.

This is far from a positive identification to the exclusion of any other rifle.

And the panel report made it clear that Kirk was the only one on the 22 person panel to even go this far.

“the Panel's forensic photographic specialist considered this mark to be a random patterning sufficient to warrant a positive identification.”

[John Mytton]

Like so often happens in this case, the conclusion stated in the report doesn’t follow from the underlying hearings and exhibits. Read Cecil Kirk’s testimony again.

Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.

This is far from a positive identification to the exclusion of any other rifle.

And the panel report made it clear that Kirk was the only one on the 22 person panel to even go this far.

“the Panel's forensic photographic specialist considered this mark to be a random patterning sufficient to warrant a positive identification.”

Sorry "Iacoletti", but jumping on a slip of the tongue which is clarified in the same breath is oh so typical of a hardcore religious Kook!

Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.

JohnM

[Mitch Todd]

Like so often happens in this case, the conclusion stated in the report doesn’t follow from the underlying hearings and exhibits. Read Cecil Kirk’s testimony again.

Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.

This is far from a positive identification to the exclusion of any other rifle.

Let's do the remedial English here:

Steve Galbraith: "For example,  the HSCA photographic experts say the rifle in the BYP was the rifle found in the sniper's nest."

John Iacoletti: "This is blatantly false. You don’t help your argument any by spreading misinformation."

And here you quote Sgt Kirk, which ends with  "...yes, indeed it is the same rifle." Which part of "it is the same rifle" do you not understand?

Steve is correct. The HSCA photographic panel really did conclude that CE139 is the rifle found in the TSBD and the rifle seen in the backyard photos. If you want to quibble about how they got there, quibble away --but that doesn't change the fact that they got there in the first place.

[John Iacoletti]

Sorry "Iacoletti", but jumping on a slip of the tongue which is clarified in the same breath is oh so typical of a hardcore religious Kook!

“Slip of the tongue”. LOL.

[John Iacoletti]

And here you quote Sgt Kirk, which ends with  "...yes, indeed it is the same rifle." Which part of "it is the same rifle" do you not understand?

Which part of “tips the scales in the direction of” do you not understand?

[John Mytton]

For example,  the HSCA photographic experts say the rifle in the BYP was the rifle found in the sniper's nest. Were they wrong in their analysis? They could be. Experts can be wrong. But one has to show how and why. He can't. He just says they were wrong. He can't show where they were wrong. He knows he can't. But he just dismisses it.

Exactly, the HSCA provided conclusive proof that the backyard rifle was the same rifle that was sent to Oswald's PO box and here we are 40 years later and not one CT has presented any scientific evidence to contradict their findings.



JohnM