Parrot, what the WC has told you! That's what...
Your assertions are only attempts to escape scrutiny of your silly speculations.
BS... Scrutinize away! What's wrong with my statement that somebody being photographed holding a rifle does not have to be the owner of that rifle?
Well, genius.... Go on, tell me!
The rifle that Lee Oswald held in the Neely Street backyard photos is reasonably assumed to be owned by him.
You saying it's not (owned by him) is not evidence that Oswald did not own the rifle.
You need to provide proof that "someone else" owned "the rifle" that Lee Oswald held in the photo taken by Marina Oswald.
Something like:
-- So and so loaned the rifle to Lee Oswald so he could be photographed with it.
-- Lee Oswald found the rifle abandoned on the sidewalk and decided to have Marina take a photo of him with it before he put it back where he found it.
The fatal fault in your musings is that you invoke generalizations as superior to known facts. You ignore the most likely conclusion and provide another that is unsupported by any evidence. That's why you are a contrarian: Some might say a troll.
