Page 196 doesn’t say anything remotely similar to this. This is on page 66.
But Kirk’s “tips the scales” testimony and the “moon crater” justification on page 106 (with only Kirk’s name on it) belies the claim the this was a conclusion of the entire panel. For other matters, such as opinions on what Zapruder frames indicated bullet strikes, the panel voted, and the report indicated what the vote counts were.
But in the end it doesn’t really matter, because there is no actual analysis provided that shows that the rifle in the CE 133* photos can be uniquely identified and how.
Paragraph 196, not page 196. Congressional stuff tends to be numbered by paragraph, and I find it more useful in hunting a particular word, phrase or sentence. I didn't feel like escaping the paragraph symbol and used an old typing class standby. Page, I think, is still abbreviated with a lower-case p, pp if its multiple pages.
That being said, you need to explain to the rest of the world as to what you would accept as proper
analysis .
And, Steve Galbraith is still right. The photo panel did determine that CE139 was the rifle in the BY photos and the rifle removed from the TSBD.
I suspect that what you wrote wasn't quite what you'd intended to get across, but you're too proud to admit to dropping such a clunker.
[Edit] There were HSCA staffers who dissented to the views expressed in the reports of the various panels. The Committee allowed them to publish their objections as appendices to the panels' reports, and even to testify. Cyril Wecht and Robert Groden immediately come to mind here. If any other FPP member had an objection to McCamy and Kirk, then we should see it in the record.
