How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD

[John Iacoletti]

I would love to have Oswald in the hot seat at court. At the end of it, I would pin the bag, the rifle, the revolver, the bullet, the fragments, the shell casings, the documents, proving Oswald's ownership of the weapons, and the eye witness testimonies, right to little old Oswaldovich's head. And after the defense, blew all the smoke and put up all the mirrors, the jury would see that they had zero, physical, or ballistic evidence to support their defense. It is hilarious.

You know what's hilarious?  Your ego.

[John Iacoletti]

Martin I could go on but I'm sure you see the point. All of these things require men on the ground plotting and manipulating everything. It would have taken a small army to get it done. And all of them would have had to keep their mouths shut. And these conspirators would have had to do this all unseen by anyone in Dallas. It is ridiculous to even ponder.   

I agree.  Most of the stuff that people like you and Richard make up to illustrate what you think a conspiracy would have to do is ridiculous nonsense.

It doesn't take any of that ridiculous nonsense to pin it on somebody after the fact.

[Wesley Johnson]

You know what's hilarious?  Your ego.

You don't know me, so your statement is asinine. What is really hilarious, is people like you on here that claim they believe there was a conspiracy and not secure enough to even name which conspiracy. All you guys have is, to try and dispute the evidence that exists incriminating Ozzie and claim that there is no evidence. Remarkable. You rail on and on about there is no evidence, and yet, you try so hard to dispute that which you claim does not exist. It borders on irrationality and insanity. I seriously think some of you should seek therapy.

[John Iacoletti]

Not just a rifle. It was the rifle.

(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

Bull-pucky.

That conclusion is not supported by the actual testimony.

Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.

Sgt. Kirk based his unique identification of the rifle in the photo on his view that tire tracks and moon craters are unique.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

And they didn't know that Shanelyfelt didn't consider CE-134 (which was a WC exhibit after all), they just presumed it.

And CE-134 was made from a negative that is one of those pieces of evidence that wound up "missing".  Go figure.

[John Iacoletti]

You don't know me, so your statement is asinine. What is really hilarious, is people like you on here that claim they believe there was a conspiracy and not secure enough to even name which conspiracy.

When have I ever claimed that I believe there was a conspiracy?

All you guys have is, to try and dispute the evidence that exists incriminating Ozzie and claim that there is no evidence.

You have yet to actually enumerate any of this "evidence that exists incriminating Ozzie".  You just keep insisting that it does.

Remarkable. You rail on and on about there is no evidence, and yet, you try so hard to dispute that which you claim does not exist. It borders on irrationality and insanity. I seriously think some of you should seek therapy.

Such hypocrisy.  You don't know any of us, so your statement is asinine.

[John Mytton]

When have I ever claimed that I believe there was a conspiracy?

Weidmann tries the exact same trick in some sort of bizarre attempt to appear neutral, why do you people bother?



JohnM