How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD

[Wesley Johnson]

You seem to be complaining more about the way CTs operate then you are answering simple questions. Why is that?

I do believe the evidence that linked Oswald to the rifle and all of the other hard, physical, ballistic evidence.

Of course you do, but such a blanket statement doesn't tell me much and you seem unable or unwilling to explain in more detail what you are talking about. I really would like to know what you consider to be "hard, physical, ballistic evidence". For me, solid (physical and/or ballistic) evidence is conclusive, persuasive and able to hold up to close scrutiny.

I think I have a good idea why you are so reluctant to answer my simple straight forward question, but I'll ask it again anyway;

What exactly do you think it means that Oswald was photographed with a rifle and a revolver in late March 1963?

A straight forward answer will do. I already know how you feel about CTs

Very simple Martin. I believe the photo shows Oswald was in possession of a rifle and revolver. The original thread was how he got the job. So, do you believe how I stated he got the job at the TSBD. And if you are going to try and say the photo was faked you will have a hard time. That photo has been tested every way possible and found to be authentic. Your turn. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Very simple Martin. I believe the photo shows Oswald was in possession of a rifle and revolver. The original thread was how he got the job. So, do you believe how I stated he got the job at the TSBD. And if you are going to try and say the photo was faked you will have a hard time. That photo has been tested every way possible and found to be authentic. Your turn. 

I believe the photo shows Oswald was in possession of a rifle and revolver.

Fine... but did he own those weapons or was he just holding them?

The original thread was how he got the job. So, do you believe how I stated he got the job at the TSBD.

Most threads do not stay on topic. I have already answered your question and I am not in the habit of repeating myself.

And if you are going to try and say the photo was faked you will have a hard time. 

I am on record as saying that I believe the BY photos are most likely authentic, although I do have my doubts about who really took them and for what purpose.

That photo has been tested every way possible and found to be authentic.

No it hasn't.

[Tim Nickerson]

Very simple Martin. I believe the photo shows Oswald was in possession of a rifle and revolver.

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

[Wesley Johnson]

I believe the photo shows Oswald was in possession of a rifle and revolver.

Fine... but did he own those weapons or was he just holding them?

The original thread was how he got the job. So, do you believe how I stated he got the job at the TSBD.

Most threads do not stay on topic. I have already answered your question and I am not in the habit of repeating myself.

And if you are going to try and say the photo was faked you will have a hard time. 

I am on record as saying that I believe the BY photos are most likely authentic, although I do have my doubts about who really took them and for what purpose.

That photo has been tested every way possible and found to be authentic.

No it hasn't.

Yes it has. No, the photo does not show ownership, but with the documentation linking it to Oswald it is damning evidence for sure. If you don't believe the photo has been tested explain.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes it has. No, the photo does not show ownership, but with the documentation linking it to Oswald it is damning evidence for sure. If you don't believe the photo has been tested explain.

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?

[Martin Weidmann]

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

So, the experts don't agree.... Go figure!

[Tim Nickerson]

So, the experts don't agree.... Go figure!

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]

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

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.