Oswald's lies proves his guilt.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

You've hit the crux of the matter and the Catch-22 of CTer logic.  It isn't that the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle is deficient or lacking in any respect.  How could there even be any more evidence of such under the known circumstances?  But no amount of evidence can ever convince a CTer.  They effectively have adopted an impossible standard of proof on the topic which they then attempt to pawn off as doubt.  No legitimate historian has expressed any doubt whatsoever regarding Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  Internet cowboys like John I make ridiculous statements to discount all evidence like handwriting analysis not being a science.  This from the same guy who when asked how we know that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln if we applied his same kooky analysis to that case cited to Booth's handwritten diary.  I guess handwriting is dubious scientific only if you don't like the results.

My favorite (yes, it's a long list) is: "The backyard photos MUST be faked! They're too incriminating!! Nobody would implicate themselves like that!"

The very evidence that incriminates him is, to the conspiracy crowd, evidence of his innocence.

If we produce eight pieces, they demand nine. If we produce nine then they want 10. On and on and on it goes.

[John Iacoletti]

Matt, it wasn't just the conclusion of one handwriting expert.

Notice the sleight of hand going on here.  They conflate the order coupon and the envelope and don't say which handwriting they identified.  The envelope tells you nothing about what was ordered.  Neither does the money order found in Virginia.

Tim also left out this pertinent detail from Charles Scott's HSCA report:

"The envelope addressed to Kleins (item 30) was available only in the form of a microfilm enlargement. This is even less satisfactory than a photocopy as a basis for an opinion on handwriting."

[John Iacoletti]

They effectively have adopted an impossible standard of proof on the topic which they then attempt to pawn off as doubt.

No, there's doubt because your evidence is weak and tainted.  You've adopted a ridiculously low standard of proof for yourself to believe something is true.

  No legitimate historian has expressed any doubt whatsoever regarding Oswald's ownership of the rifle.

LOL.  Like "historians" are any more authoritative on matters of truth, science, and evidence than everyone else.

  Internet cowboys like John I make ridiculous statements to discount all evidence like handwriting analysis not being a science.

I take it you didn't bother to read the Pennsylvania Law Review article?  Please explain how this is scientific?  Is it repeatable, falsifiable, testable, and measurable?  Maybe we should get some historians to decide.  LOL.

  This from the same guy who when asked how we know that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln if we applied his same kooky analysis to that case cited to Booth's handwritten diary.

No clue what you're talking about.  Another one of Richard Smith's legendary made-up strawmen?  Are you still pretending that the evidence against Oswald is anything like the evidence against Booth?  Booth's handwriting is irrelevant.

[John Iacoletti]

Anyone who says there is "zero" evidence can't be taken seriously.  The evidence is well documented and conclusive of the matter.  Do you really want to go through all that again?

You have yet to "go through all that".  All you do is make a bunch of false statements and call it "evidence".

  The rifle was ordered in an alias associated with Oswald.

Associated how?  Via an ID card that nobody said a word about until after the Klein's order was "found"?

  It was sent to his PO Box.

No evidence of that.

  He is depicted holding it in the BY pictures.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

  His prints are on a rifle with the same serial number as the one shipped to him.

False.  One partial palmprint was found on an index card a week later.

There is no accounting for this rifle except as in the possession of Oswald

LOL.  Except you haven't actually shown that it was ever in the possession of Oswald.

That rifle is found in his place of work on the day that he carries a long package into the building. 

A package which the only two people who saw it, said was too short to hold that rifle.

No other rifle was found on 11.22 when Marina directed the police to the location where Oswald stored his rifle.  Good grief.

There's no evidence that Oswald "stored his rifle" there.

Good grief, indeed.  Your standard of proof is so weak that it even depends on false statements to prop it up.

[John Iacoletti]

I said there was zero evidence in regard to him receiving it. One wonders if your seeming blatant manipulation of my words is by design

Of course it is.  That's what "Richard Smith" does.  He can't tell the truth about anything.

[John Iacoletti]

My favorite (yes, it's a long list) is: "The backyard photos MUST be faked! They're too incriminating!! Nobody would implicate themselves like that!"

Please provide a link to anyone ever actually saying that.

How exactly are the backyard photos "incriminating"?

[Jerry Freeman]

How exactly are the backyard photos "incriminating"?

The photos are incriminating ...that was the whole idea.
They are fakes.
In the three pictures produced, the head, face, and expression are all the same...an impossibility.
It is also impossible for anyone to stand like the image produced in Life magazine without falling down [no one has ever duplicated that stance]
 His chin in the photo doesn't match the look and shape of Oswald's chin in any other photographs. You can even see a dividing line across his chin, where it looks like Oswald's head has been pasted on.
The Warren Commission as well as the HSCA [for unknown reasons] simply ignored these points.

An unofficial photo imaging study...

[Jack Trojan]

The photos are incriminating ...that was the whole idea.
They are fakes.
In the three pictures produced, the head, face, and expression are all the same...an impossibility.
It is also impossible for anyone to stand like the image produced in Life magazine without falling down [no one has ever duplicated that stance]
 His chin in the photo doesn't match the look and shape of Oswald's chin in any other photographs. You can even see a dividing line across his chin, where it looks like Oswald's head has been pasted on.
The Warren Commission as well as the HSCA [for unknown reasons] simply ignored these points.

An unofficial photo imaging study...

The BYPs are real, but they were also choreographed and edited as part of Oswald's sheep-dipping to be the designated patsy. Oswald knew he was the patsy, but he hoped that the plan involved an escape route out of the country. Turns out the CIA double-crossed him which he found out at the theater and later when Ruby offed him. He KNEW he was the patsy in the "Big Event". He said so. But what he didn't know was how desperate the CIA/FBI were back then and how they had nothing to lose and offing him was part of the plan.