Why classify information?

[Jack Nessan]

So gullible. Nothing about this is anyway near conclusive.

Yes there were three shells found on the 6th floor, but how do they prove that the rifle was fired that day?
Bullet fragments allegedly found in the hospital and the limo can not be matched to a rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles and they never were. And whatever Brennan claims to have seen and whatever Oswald told Holmes (or not) is in no way proof that a particular rifle was fired.

I don't know where you get your information from, but it might be a good idea to find a different source, because what you have written is BS

Martin Weideman: 
"prove that the rifle that was found on the 6th floor was actually fired that day"

I thought everyone knew this about the rifle, shell casings, bullet and bullet fragments. I did not know anyone did not. That they were matched to the exclusion of all other rifles by the forensic experts. I stand corrected.

Do you believe the assassination took place earlier and was just staged to look like it took place on the 22nd?

The rifle found on the 6th floor was found to have had LHO's palm print on the barrel. The rifle that was used to assassinate JFK.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin Weideman: 
"prove that the rifle that was found on the 6th floor was actually fired that day"

I thought everyone knew this about the rifle, shell casings, bullet and bullet fragments. I did not know anyone did not. That they were matched to the exclusion of all other rifles by the forensic experts. I stand corrected.

Do you believe the assassination took place earlier and was just staged to look like it took place on the 22nd?

The rifle found on the 6th floor was found to have had LHO's palm print on the barrel. The rifle that was used to assassinate JFK.

Yes, you stand corrected about the claim that there was any kind of match, let alone to the exclusion of all other rifles. It just didn't happen. At best they could have matched the shells to the rifle, but that's it.

Do you believe the assassination took place earlier and was just staged to look like it took place on the 22nd?

What in the world are you babbling about?

The rifle found on the 6th floor was found to have had LHO's palm print on the barrel.

That's a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The rifle found at the TSBD was examined by the FBI lab in Washington within 24 hours after the crime. They found nothing, not even a trace of a print.

Then, about a week later, Lt Day suddenly produced an evidence card allegedly containing Oswald's palmprint, which he claimed  he had taken of the rifle on 11/22/63 and then kept it, without mentioning it to anyone for a whole week.

The rifle that was used to assassinate JFK.

And how do you know that the rifle found on the 6th floor was in fact the one used to assassinate JFK?

Bullets or bullet fragments can not be matched to any weapon and despite your claim they never were. Shells can be matched, but the fact that Fritz compromised the crime scene by picking up shells and then throwing them back, means that if the rifle was planted so could the shells be.

Now, before you get this wrong; I am not claiming that the rifle and shells were planted. I am merely saying that it is possible that they were, which, by itself, makes it impossible to claim with any kind of certainty that the rifle was actually used in the assassination.

[Richard Smith]

Martin Weideman: 
"prove that the rifle that was found on the 6th floor was actually fired that day"

I thought everyone knew this about the rifle, shell casings, bullet and bullet fragments. I did not know anyone did not. That they were matched to the exclusion of all other rifles by the forensic experts. I stand corrected.

Do you believe the assassination took place earlier and was just staged to look like it took place on the 22nd?

The rifle found on the 6th floor was found to have had LHO's palm print on the barrel. The rifle that was used to assassinate JFK.

You are dealing with a person who doesn't want to be convinced of an obvious fact supported by the evidence.  As you note, the shell casings came from Oswald's rifle.  They were found by the window from which witnesses confirm that they saw a rifle at the moment of the assassination.  Oswald's prints are on the boxes by that window.  His rifle is found on that floor.  He has no credible alibi for the moment of the assassination.  Instead he flees the scene, is involved in another murder less than an hour later, resists arrest and tries to kill more police officers when approached at the Texas Theatre, and lies to the DPD about his ownership of a rifle.  It is laughable for anyone to suggest the evidence against Oswald is lacking in any respect.  Martin just goes endlessly round and round down the same rabbit holes.   

[Richard Smith]

Explain to us what evidence is lacking from the record that would satisfy you of Oswald's ownership of the rifle found on the 6th floor.

Well. let's start with this; (1) show the original of Waldman 07 [the only document that links the MC rifle found at the TSBD to the Hidell order, with a handwritten serial number] and not just a photocopy and (2) name one person who actually saw Oswald with that particular rifle, or any other rifle for that matter, after April 1963.

Why does a photocopy of the document cast any doubt on its authenticity?  Waldman himself confirmed it came from Klein's records.  Was he part of the conspiracy?  That is weak rabbit hole nonsense even from you.  There is absolutely no reason to doubt that this document is authentic.  What it tells us is that a specific rifle was sent to the PO Box belonging to Oswald and the serial number confirms that it is the same rifle found at TSBD.  Fired bullet casings from that rifle were found by the window from which witnesses saw a rifle at the moment of the assassination.  There is no doubt that this rifle belonged to Oswald and that it was used to assassinate JFK. 

[Paul May]

The b/y photos by themselves prove Oswald owned and possessed the murder weapon found at the scene of the crime. This is 58 year old documented evidence. The conspiracy crowd can no longer dispute this evidence, yet they try. Why? No idea.

[Martin Weidmann]

You are dealing with a person who doesn't want to be convinced of an obvious fact supported by the evidence.  As you note, the shell casings came from Oswald's rifle.  They were found by the window from which witnesses confirm that they saw a rifle at the moment of the assassination.  Oswald's prints are on the boxes by that window.  His rifle is found on that floor.  He has no credible alibi for the moment of the assassination.  Instead he flees the scene, is involved in another murder less than an hour later, resists arrest and tries to kill more police officers when approached at the Texas Theatre, and lies to the DPD about his ownership of a rifle.  It is laughable for anyone to suggest the evidence against Oswald is lacking in any respect.  Martin just goes endlessly round and round down the same rabbit holes.

Bla bla bla... When are you going to stop reciting your superficial take on the evidence and become a bit more curious?

Wait... I forgot for a second that I am talking to Richard "Mr. Neutral" Smith. Forget I asked.....

Why does a photocopy of the document cast any doubt on its authenticity?  Waldman himself confirmed it came from Klein's records.  Was he part of the conspiracy?  That is weak rabbit hole nonsense even from you.  There is absolutely no reason to doubt that this document is authentic.  What it tells us is that a specific rifle was sent to the PO Box belonging to Oswald and the serial number confirms that it is the same rifle found at TSBD.  Fired bullet casings from that rifle were found by the window from which witnesses saw a rifle at the moment of the assassination.  There is no doubt that this rifle belonged to Oswald and that it was used to assassinate JFK. 

Why does a photocopy of the document cast any doubt on its authenticity?

Why am I not surprised you are asking such a pathetically stupid question.

Waldman himself confirmed it came from Klein's records.

No. Waldman confirmed that the document was an internal Klein's document, but he never saw the original of this particular document. All he did and could do, some 6 months after the assassination, was that the "order blank" form was a document used. What he could not do is confirm that the handwritten content of the document was authentic.

There is absolutely no reason to doubt that this document is authentic.

BS.. If photocopies are deemed to be authentic, why does the FBI have a special questioned documents department? Or are you merely saying that only this photocopy is authentic? And if you are, on what do you base that opinion?

What it tells us is that a specific rifle was sent to the PO Box belonging to Oswald and the serial number confirms that it is the same rifle found at TSBD.

It tells us no such thing.

Fired bullet casings from that rifle were found by the window from which witnesses saw a rifle at the moment of the assassination.

Are those the ones Fritz picked up, or the ones he threw down in the sniper's nest?

There is no doubt that this rifle belonged to Oswald and that it was used to assassinate JFK. 

There most certainly isn't any doubt about the fact that you are (or at least pretend to be) a gullible fool.

Btw you asked me to explain what evidence is lacking from the record that would satisfy me of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.
I gave you two examples. As expected you dismissed out of hand the first one (no surprise there) but you completely ignore the second one. Why is that?

The b/y photos by themselves prove Oswald owned and possessed the murder weapon found at the scene of the crime. This is 58 year old documented evidence. The conspiracy crowd can no longer dispute this evidence, yet they try. Why? No idea.

Paul, you really disappoint me. The BY photos do not prove ownership of any rifle, let alone a rifle found at the crime scene.
I was once photographed holding a rifle, which belonged to a friend. By your "logic" I would now be the owner of that rifle, right? Well, if that's the case, what if I let myself be photographed next to an expensive car, does that car become my property?

If the answers to both my questions is "no", then please explain why the answer would be "yes" in Oswald's case?

[Paul May]

And you actually believe yours is a cogent response knowing the totality of the evidence against Oswald. This is why after 58 years you conspiracy folks have no case for conspiracy. You’re never honest about the known evidence. So, who owns the rifle being held by Oswald in the b/y photos?