Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[Ross Lidell]

Oh boy.... here he goes again.

No proof for it not being his rifle is needed, since (and I think I have mentioned this before) the mere fact that he was photographed holding a rifle does not prove that he owns the rifle. Your assumption that it is his rifle is just that.... an assumption!

Btw... I now have a photograph of myself with a brand new Lamborghini. Following your "logic" I must be the owner of that car, so if you are interested, I can give you a good deal. Come to think of it, I also have photographs of myself in front of the Eiffel tower and on London Bridge.... Would you be interested?

Your desperation is showing as that is a pathetic example. Although, to some extend, you seem to be on the right track. The photograph by itself does indeed not prove she owned the skates 

And you are right, it is a fair and reasonable assumption that they were indeed her skates, as she was wearing them, which is of course where your example goes off the rails as Oswald was wearing a shirt (probably he owned it) and holding a rifle, that could have been owned by somebody else.

Now, how about the Lamborghini... Interested?

And you are right, it is a fair and reasonable assumption that they were indeed her skates, as she was wearing them, which is of course where your example goes off the rails as Oswald was wearing a shirt (probably he owned it) and holding a rifle, that could have been owned by somebody else.

Huh?

How do you know Lee Oswald owned the shirt he was wearing? To be consistent: You would have to demand proof that he owned the shirt he was wearing.

The rifle "could have been owned by somebody else".

Unless you can suggest a credible alternate owner of the rifle that Oswald held in the backyard photo, your assertion that it's not owned by him has no merit.

[Martin Weidmann]

And you are right, it is a fair and reasonable assumption that they were indeed her skates, as she was wearing them, which is of course where your example goes off the rails as Oswald was wearing a shirt (probably he owned it) and holding a rifle, that could have been owned by somebody else.

Huh?

How do you know Lee Oswald owned the shirt he was wearing? To be consistent: You would have to demand proof that he owned the shirt he was wearing.

The rifle "could have been owned by somebody else".

Unless you can suggest a credible alternate owner of the rifle that Oswald held in the backyard photo, your assertion is that it's not owned by him is nonsense.

Unless you can suggest a credible alternate owner of the rifle that Oswald held in the backyard photo, your assertion is that it's not owned by him is nonsense.

Brilliant... there is the classic "I am right unless you can prove me wrong (which you never can)" crap!

The mere fact that the possibility exists that somebody else owned the rifle Oswald was holding in the BY photo means that you can never ever claim, based on the photo alone, that he owned the rifle he was holding in the photo's....

But that's probably way over your head............

You know what... you just keep on mistakenly believing that the BY photo proves that Oswald owned the rifle he was holding and I'll have something funny to tell my friends when the lockdown is over.

[Jerry Freeman]

Ever heard of a human being being confused under stress?

You are referring to Marina? Perhaps she was under stress when she stated that Lee would take his rifle to the airport and practice shooting? You are completely hopeless as I mentioned earlier. You just want to argue...citing nothing helpful or logical.

[Ross Lidell]

Unless you can suggest a credible alternate owner of the rifle that Oswald held in the backyard photo, your assertion is that it's not owned by him is nonsense.

Brilliant... there is the classic "I am right unless you can prove me wrong (which you never can)" crap!

The mere fact that the possibility exists that somebody else owned the rifle Oswald was holding in the BY photo means that you can never ever claim, based on the photo alone, that he owned the rifle he was holding in the photo's....

But that's probably way over your head............

The possibility that someone else owned the rifle Lee Oswald held in the Neely Street Dallas backyard photograph is minuscule. The DEFAULT likelihood is that Lee Oswald owned the rifle he was holding. Is this way over your head?

If you believe that Lee Oswald did not own the rifle he was holding... provide the identity of the owner. Otherwise you are just "contraionising".

[Ross Lidell]

You are referring to Marina? Perhaps she was under stress when she stated that Lee would take his rifle to the airport and practice shooting? You are completely hopeless as I mentioned earlier. You just want to argue...citing nothing helpful or logical.

Citation please for Marina Oswald's statement re Lee Oswald / Airport / Practice shooting.

You ignore the possibility that Lee Oswald might have told a lie to Marina. Alternately, you cannot seem to understand that human beings are not perfect in their actions and verbal communications.

You are completely hopeless as I mentioned earlier.

Unjustified ad hominem attack that reeks of desperation.

[John Iacoletti]

The possibility that someone else owned the rifle Lee Oswald held in the Neely Street Dallas backyard photograph is minuscule. The DEFAULT likelihood is that Lee Oswald owned the rifle he was holding. Is this way over your head?

Well, let’s see. What are these possibilities based on? The only evidence you’ve presented that Oswald owned the rifle in the photo is that you think it’s a “reasonable assumption”. Same goes for the Imperial Reflex camera.

If you believe that Lee Oswald did not own the rifle he was holding...

Martin never said that. This is a rather transparent attempt to shift the burden of proof.

[Ross Lidell]

Well, let’s see. What are these possibilities based on? The only evidence you’ve presented that Oswald owned the rifle in the photo is that you think it’s a “reasonable assumption”. Same goes for the Imperial Reflex camera.

Martin never said that. This is a rather transparent attempt to shift the burden of proof.

The only evidence you’ve presented that Oswald owned the rifle in the photo is that you think it’s a “reasonable assumption”. Same goes for the Imperial Reflex camera.

No! Even without the documentation related to the Hidell (Oswald's alias) rifle purchase from Kleins: It's Lee Oswald's rifle in the "backyard" photograph.

Marina Oswald is interviewed in the 1964 CBS program "November 22nd and The Warren Report" speaking about her husband's (Lee Oswald's) rifle. My goodness she was pretty!!!

Eddie Barker (KRLD TV): "Did you ever see the rifle?".

Marina Oswald: "Yes. But I, you know I fear, fear to take this rifle. I see it in the corner, I never done touch his rifle".

Marina took the photograph with Lee Oswald holding a rifle. You know the rifle... "contrarians". The rifle Marina Oswald:

-- "saw in the corner"

-- "never done touch"

Only a nutcase contrarian would think the rifle Lee Oswald held in the backyard photograph was not "his rifle".

[Martin Weidmann]

The possibility that someone else owned the rifle Lee Oswald held in the Neely Street Dallas backyard photograph is minuscule. The DEFAULT likelihood is that Lee Oswald owned the rifle he was holding. Is this way over your head?

If you believe that Lee Oswald did not own the rifle he was holding... provide the identity of the owner. Otherwise you are just "contraionising".

The possibility that someone else owned the rifle Lee Oswald held in the Neely Street Dallas backyard photograph is minuscule. The DEFAULT likelihood is that Lee Oswald owned the rifle he was holding. 

This is just about the most idiotic thing you have said so far. All it does is expose your confirmation bias. Your so-called "default likelihood" is nothing more than a Salem-like presumption of guilt unless proven innocent.

The only evidence you’ve presented that Oswald owned the rifle in the photo is that you think it’s a “reasonable assumption”. Same goes for the Imperial Reflex camera.

No! Even without the documentation related to the Hidell (Oswald's alias) rifle purchase from Kleins: It's Lee Oswald's rifle in the "backyard" photograph.

Even more pathetic. John is correct. All you have only presented as "proof" that Oswald owned the rifle is the BY photo. The documentation from Klein's (which is highly questionable itself) doesn't enter into it, as there is not a shred of evidence that the rifle Oswald is holding in the BY photo is the same one as the rifle ordered at Klein's by Hidell.

So all you really have is your own misguided opinion that "it's Lee Oswald's rifle in the "backyard" photograph". You are acting like a three year old who keeps saying the same thing over and over again, hoping it might become the truth.

Marina Oswald is interviewed in the 1964 CBS program "November 22nd and The Warren Report" speaking about her husband's (Lee Oswald's) rifle. My goodness she was pretty!!!

Eddie Barker (WFAA TV): "Did you ever see the rifle?".

Marina: "Yes. But I, you know I fear, fear to take this rifle. I see it in the corner, I never done touch his rifle".

Marina took the photograph with Lee Oswald holding a rifle. You know the rifle... "contrarians". The rifle Marina Oswald:

-- "saw in the corner"

-- "never done touch"

Only a nutcase contrarian would think the rifle Lee Oswald held in the backyard photograph was not "his rifle".

Thanks for showing us just how basic and shallow your "logic" is.

We already know there was a rifle at Neely Street, at some point in time, because Oswald was photographed with it. So, Marina seeing a rifle "in the corner" that she did not want to touch tells us nothing about the ownership of the rifle. All it tells us is that a rifle was there, but we already knew that.

All this shows once again is that you can't argue with stupid....... but thanks for the laugh!