Photographic experts for the HSCA said the rifle in the photos in the one found in the TSBD and that was used to murder JFK. Even if one wants to dismiss that conclusion it does show that he owned a high powered, albeit inexpensive, rifle. For what purpose? Why did he think he needs this type of rifle? He didn't do any hunting. So, what's the purpose for it?
I think that's significant.
The other significance for me is that it shows the radicalism and erratic nature of Oswald. He's holding up radical publications. He's posing in black, He has his pregnant wife photographing him. He signs one copy for his daughter? He has little money. He spends it on a rifle? A $20 rifle today would be about $160. For a poor person that's not an insignificant sum. These are all very odd actions.
There is no evidence that he was ordered to pose for the photos. I mean we can imagine all sorts of reasons for doing so; but we need some evidence, some corroboration for that speculation.
Photographic experts for the HSCA said the rifle in the photos in the one found in the TSBD and that was used to murder JFK. Although very weak sauce.
Even if one wants to dismiss that conclusion it does show that he owned a high powered, albeit inexpensive, rifle.Even without dismissing that conclusion it shows nothing in relation to ownership.
For what purpose?Question irrelevant unless you can support your premise that he owned it.
Why did he think he needs this type of rifle?See above, false premise.
He didn't do any hunting.Prove he didn't plan to go hunting.
So, what's the purpose for it?False premise, see above.
I think that's significant.Your thinking is not based on evidence so it's entirely irrelevant.
The other significanceThere can't be another as your first was unfounded.
for me is that it shows the radicalism and erratic nature of Oswald.Let's hope you can back up that claim...
He's holding up radical publications.So?
He's posing in black, So?
He has his pregnant wife photographing him.Apart from the pregnancy, there's no supporting evidence for your claim.
He signs one copy for his daughter?Inconclusive.
He has little money.So?
He spends it on a rifle?No supporting evidence.
A $20 rifle today would be about $160. For a poor person that's not an insignificant sum. These are all very odd actions.There's no supporting evidence for the purchase you imply.
There is no evidence that he was ordered to pose for the photos. There is no evidence that he wasn't ordered to pose for the photos.
I mean we can imagine all sorts of reasons for doing so;Or not doing so.
but we need some evidence, That would be nice!
some corroboration for that speculation.Unfortunately, all you have provided so far is speculation.
Glad I could correct your misconceptions.