JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2018, 06:03:29 PM ---So, the experts don't agree.... Go figure!
--- End quote ---
Martin, I suspect that you haven't given it a proper reading. You should make an effort to do so. Here it is again:
(239) In the Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photographs identified as 133A Stovall,133A de Mohrenschildt, and CE-134, that same gouge is quite visible and can be measured and compared with the gouge on the questioned rifle . They are identical in every respect.
(240) Based upon this system of identification, the rifle in these photographs can be positively identified as the same rifle that is presently in the custody of the National Archives . Finally, it should be noted that although an FBI expert declined to make a positive identification of the rifle in question based upon this gouge mark, this expert did not have access to all of the same quality photographic prints that were available to the Panel. For example, the 133A de Mohrenschildt and 133A Stovall prints, both of which are of high quality, were obtained and reviewed by the committee in 1977 and 1978 respectively. This was the first time that these materials were analyzed . In addition, positive identification of the rifle was based upon an examination of CE-134, a very good enlargement (from the original negative) of CE-133A.* The FBI's expert in 1964, however, apparently did not consider this photograph in reaching his conclusion .
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk6/assass.htm
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on March 14, 2018, 06:19:06 PM ---Martin, I suspect that you haven't given it a proper reading. You should make an effort to do so. Here it is again:
(239) In the Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photographs identified as 133A Stovall,133A de Mohrenschildt, and CE-134, that same gouge is quite visible and can be measured and compared with the gouge on the questioned rifle . They are identical in every respect.
(240) Based upon this system of identification, the rifle in these photographs can be positively identified as the same rifle that is presently in the custody of the National Archives . Finally, it should be noted that although an FBI expert declined to make a positive identification of the rifle in question based upon this gouge mark, this expert did not have access to all of the same quality photographic prints that were available to the Panel. For example, the 133A de Mohrenschildt and 133A Stovall prints, both of which are of high quality, were obtained and reviewed by the committee in 1977 and 1978 respectively. This was the first time that these materials were analyzed . In addition, positive identification of the rifle was based upon an examination of CE-134, a very good enlargement (from the original negative) of CE-133A.* The FBI's expert in 1964, however, apparently did not consider this photograph in reaching his conclusion .
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk6/assass.htm
--- End quote ---
I have read it, Tim
You've got the panel's experts going further than the FBI expert was willing to go and they explain it by basically saying they had better material to work with. |That may be, but it is still one expert declining to make a positive identification and another making one. So, they are not in agreement. Obviously if you prefer the opinion of the one over the other, that's fine, but that doesn't alter the basic fact that the experts are not in agreement.
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2018, 07:35:15 PM ---I have read it, Tim
You've got the panel's experts going further than the FBI expert was willing to go and they explain it by basically saying they had better material to work with. |That may be, but it is still one expert declining to make a positive identification and another making one. So, they are not in agreement. Obviously if you prefer the opinion of the one over the other, that's fine, but that doesn't alter the basic fact that the experts are not in agreement.
--- End quote ---
They are not in disagreement. It's not me preferring the opinion of the one over the other. Shaneyfelt did not have access to all of the same quality photographic prints that were available to the Panel. You can't rightly just acknowledge that and then dismiss it.
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on March 14, 2018, 07:48:16 PM ---
They are not in disagreement. It's not me preferring the opinion of the one over the other. Shaneyfelt did not have access to all of the same quality photographic prints that were available to the Panel. You can't rightly just acknowledge that and then dismiss it.
--- End quote ---
I don't dismiss anything. They are only not in disagreement if you assume that Shaneyfelt would have reached the same conclusion if he had the same prints.
The problem is that you can only assume that and the fact of the matter is that the record shows that Shaneyfelt declined to make a positive identification.
Wesley Johnson:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2018, 06:00:19 PM ---Oh, I know the photo has been tested. I just don't agree with your over exaggerated claim that it was "found to be authentic"
the documentation linking it to Oswald
What documentation is linking what to Oswald?
--- End quote ---
Martin do you want me to name all of the people that have tested the photo? I will if you want, but I think you are already aware of some of them. Why don't you tell me who and how it is disputed.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version