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

[Colin Crow]

Here we are 19 pages in and not one CT has provided any evidence or at least supplied a plausible narrative of how C2766 ended up on the 6th floor?
Surely after half a Century at least somebody or someone who knows somebody would come forward and say that the rifle was planted?
But the fact is that after half a Century nobody has ever come forward and said that anything and that means absolutely anything was planted or manufactured.
So what are we left with after all this time?, no Police Officers, document alterers, handwriting forgers, collectors for the handwriting originals for reference, photo alterers, Postal workers, film sfx experts, Kleins employees, Crescent Firearms employees, FBI agents, CIA agents, KGB agents etc, etc, has ever come forward and admitted that they planted/manufactured evidence or knows someone who planted/manufactured evidence.

JohnM

The assassin (or an accomplice) left it there.

[Martin Weidmann]

Your "translations" are your typical nonsensical attacks on a person.

You have shown us time and time again that one cannot reason with someone who is unreasonable. That is why I don't care to engage in an argument.  And it makes no difference to me what your opinions are.

You only call me unreasonable because you don't have the arguments to make your case. Typical LN strategy.

And it makes no difference to me what your opinions are.

Translation: No matter what you or anybody else says, I don't have an open mind and will never be convinced that I am wrong

[Martin Weidmann]

So what it boils down to is that you believe Aynesworth just because you believe him.  Even though there is no contemporary corroboration whatsoever.  What's worse is that even if Anyesworth is 100% accurate, that still doesn't mean that Fritz actually ever said that to Wade.  There's a reason that hearsay isn't admissible.

No only is this pure assumption, but it's a classist assumption.

So what it boils down to is that you believe Aynesworth just because you believe him.

Exactly right, but I doubt Charles will ever be prepared to see it that way.

To him, Anyesworth must seem to be a person who can't possibly get anything wrong, no matter how much time has passed. His belief in this man is apparantly so strong that he is willing to ignore the testimony of Laytona and Day which, combined, show there is no way anybody could have told Wade about a matching palmprint on the rifle on 11/22/63

[Denis Pointing]

So what it boils down to is that you believe Aynesworth just because you believe him.

Exactly right, but I doubt Charles will ever be prepared to see it that way.

To him, Anyesworth must seem to be a person who can't possibly get anything wrong, no matter how much time has passed. His belief in this man is apparantly so strong that he is willing to ignore the testimony of Laytona and Day which, combined, show there is no way anybody could have told Wade about a matching palmprint on the rifle on 11/22/63

Hi Martin, this isn't a courtroom, all members are trying to do, need to do, is provide credible reasons why he/she does or does not accept certain evidence and witness statements. Surely, in making such an assessment a witnesses reputation must go a long way in evaluating that credibility. I can understand why many don't accept the statements of certain police officers for example, it's because they believe their reputation or credibility is lacking. But, there are some, both for and against Oswald, whose reputation only strengthens their creds. I would certainly place Aynsworth withing this category, the mans a very highly respected journalist whose inside knowledge of the case far exceeds most others, to my knowledge, in his long career he's never been shown to have lied or deliberately misled. I don't believe Charles believes Aynesworth "just because he believes him" as you put it. I think Charles has evaluated Aynesworth's reputation, determined his credibility to be strong and has posted accordingly. As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided? Personally, I don't believe it is.

[Charles Collins]

So what it boils down to is that you believe Aynesworth just because you believe him.

Exactly right, but I doubt Charles will ever be prepared to see it that way.

To him, Anyesworth must seem to be a person who can't possibly get anything wrong, no matter how much time has passed. His belief in this man is apparantly so strong that he is willing to ignore the testimony of Laytona and Day which, combined, show there is no way anybody could have told Wade about a matching palmprint on the rifle on 11/22/63

That is your opinion. It’s unreasonable.

I brought the newspaper article up to counter the claim that “no one mentioned the palm print until after Oswald was dead,” and “there’s no good reason to believe that it existed before Oswald’s death.” The top police officials were aware of it, the district attorney was told of it, and someone leaked it to the newspaper reporters who put it on the front page.

Your denials of everything that doesn’t support your theories are unreasonable and makes you look ridiculous. To think that the WC got everything wrong is absurd. Yet you lamely attempt to shoot down every aspect with your unreasonable opinions. I asked and was told that there is no common ground on which both sides agree. What is the point of arguing with that nonsense?

[Charles Collins]

Hi Martin, this isn't a courtroom, all members are trying to do, need to do, is provide credible reasons why he/she does or does not accept certain evidence and witness statements. Surely, in making such an assessment a witnesses reputation must go a long way in evaluating that credibility. I can understand why many don't accept the statements of certain police officers for example, it's because they believe their reputation or credibility is lacking. But, there are some, both for and against Oswald, whose reputation only strengthens their creds. I would certainly place Aynsworth withing this category, the mans a very highly respected journalist whose inside knowledge of the case far exceeds most others, to my knowledge, in his long career he's never been shown to have lied or deliberately misled. I don't believe Charles believes Aynesworth "just because he believes him" as you put it. I think Charles has evaluated Aynesworth's reputation, determined his credibility to be strong and has posted accordingly. As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided? Personally, I don't believe it is.

Well said, thank you.

[Martin Weidmann]

Hi Martin, this isn't a courtroom, all members are trying to do, need to do, is provide credible reasons why he/she does or does not accept certain evidence and witness statements. Surely, in making such an assessment a witnesses reputation must go a long way in evaluating that credibility. I can understand why many don't accept the statements of certain police officers for example, it's because they believe their reputation or credibility is lacking. But, there are some, both for and against Oswald, whose reputation only strengthens their creds. I would certainly place Aynsworth withing this category, the mans a very highly respected journalist whose inside knowledge of the case far exceeds most others, to my knowledge, he's never been shown to have lied or deliberately misled. I don't believe Charles believes Aynesworth "just because he believes him" as you put it. I think Charles has evaluated Aynesworth's reputation, determined his credibility to be strong and has posted accordingly. As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided? Personally, I believe it isn't.

Hi Denis,

Fair points.

As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided?

My argument is not that Aynsworth lacks credibility, because he certainly doesn't.

But Charles's trust in him is in this particular case indeed misguided because, regardless of what Aynsworth remembers or has written in his notes, the combined sworn WC testimony of Latona and Day shows conclusively that Wade could not have been told on 11/22/63 about a palmprint found on the rifle matching to Oswald because an index card with that palmprint on it did not surfice until 11/26/63 and was not examined (by Latona) until 11/29/63. I believe Aynsworth would be the first to see and accept this conflict with his memory.

Even the WC lawyer Eisenberg, who took Latona's testimony, was aware there had been "inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?". Aynsworth simply wrote down what Henry Wade told him from memory and used that in his book. But that doesn't automatically mean the information he obtained from Wade was completely correct and the Latona and Day testimony shows conclusively it couldn't have been.

So my argument is not with Aynsworth. My argument is with Charles who is using Aynsworth's book and notes as somehow proof that what Wade claimed is true, despite the fact that hard evidence shows it couldn't have been.