Historian explains the mind of Conspiracy Nuts - CBS 1967

[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

[Mitch Todd]

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

I understand that figure of speech well enough to know that "this has to tilt the scales in the direction" does not change or modify the meaning of, "yes, indeed it is the same rifle."