One of the most important books in this case is free and online!

[John Mytton]

McCamy never said he considered the rifle uniquely identifiable. There’s a reason for that.

McCamy never said he considered the rifle uniquely identifiable. There’s a reason for that.

Huh? Why would McCamy need to repeat what Kirk just spent considerable time explaining, he simply adds that the particular chip on the rifle in the backyard photo was in the same place as the one in evidence.

"to ascertain that indeed this particular chip was in the right place."

So essentially a random sized chip in a random place by definition becomes a distinguishingly unique feature.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Huh? Why would McCamy need to repeat what Kirk just spent considerable time explaining, he simply adds that the particular chip on the rifle in the backyard photo was in the same place as the one in evidence.

"to ascertain that indeed this particular chip was in the right place."

So essentially a random sized chip in a random place by definition becomes a distinguishingly unique feature.

JohnM

They just assumed that only this particular rifle had that particular chip, or did they check all the MC rifles to make sure?

[John Iacoletti]

Repeating "LOL" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, ad infinitum, doesn't make your weak rebuttals any more true and in fact your obsession of "Laughing Out Loud" at every misperceived injustice, does your CT community no favours. So indeed do keep it up because it makes my job a hellava lot easier.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And I’m not part of your imagined “CT community”. Nice try though.

Btw, incidentally for someone who is constantly Laughing Out Loud, you don't exactly come across as a guy that has a sense of humour, just sayin'.

You’re just not funny. At least not when you’re trying to be. Just sayin’.

[John Mytton]

it makes my job a hellava lot easier.

You have a job?

As for the LOL replies, they are the best way to deal with all the BS LNs come up with. As our recent encounter clearly shows there's just no way to have a reasonable adult conversation with a fanatic like you. So, John should continue to call you and your ilk out and if he gets under your skin - as he clearly does - all the more power to him.

You have a job?

Yes, the CIA pays me well.

As for the LOL replies, they are the best way to deal with all the BS LNs come up with.

Thanks John.

As our recent encounter clearly shows there's just no way to have a reasonable adult conversation with a fanatic like you.

Yet you still reply to almost every one of my posts, is it to show the Forum how much of an Adult you are?

So, John should continue to call you and your ilk out and if he gets under your skin - as he clearly does - all the more power to him.

I thought we were here to debate the evidence?

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Huh? Why would McCamy need to repeat what Kirk just spent considerable time explaining, he simply adds that the particular chip on the rifle in the backyard photo was in the same place as the one in evidence.

This is not ambiguous to anyone without an agenda to read things that aren’t there:

“the Panel's forensic photographic specialist considered this mark to be a random patterning sufficient to warrant a positive identification.”

That’s Cecil Kirk. It’s not anybody else.

So essentially a random sized chip in a random place by definition becomes a distinguishingly unique feature.

Because it tilts the scales. Because moon craters. Because wishful thinking.

[John Iacoletti]

I thought we were here to debate the evidence?

Bleating “he was photographed with his rifle” over and over again is not “debating the evidence”.

[John Mytton]

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And I’m not part of your imagined “CT community”. Nice try though.

You’re just not funny. At least not when you’re trying to be. Just sayin’.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Thanks for clarifying your belief of what constitutes as evidence.

And I’m not part of your imagined “CT community”.

Ok, whatever.

You’re just not funny.

When did I claim to be funny?

JohnM