(a) Straw man argument. I didn't say LHO dropped the rifle, I said the rifle was dropped between some boxes. I never specified by whom.
Then who dropped it and how do you know who dropped it? You used the wrong fallacy, this is not even close to a Straw Man argument...
No, you tried to put words into my mouth, claiming I said something I didn't. The strawman argument is yours.
(b) The weapon wasn't exactly well-hidden. Oswald (or whomever) could have put it in an outgoing box destined for shipment to himself and it would never have been found in the Depository, correct? Instead it was found on the northwest side of the building immediately next to the stairwell that leads to an escape. Oswald (or whomever used it, but most likely Oswald) would have carried the weapon to the stairwell to facilitate his escape (he didn't know how quickly the cops would respond, and indeed, one of them [Officer Baker] was inside the building within about 40-60 seconds of the assassination). Once he reached the stairwell, the rifle (which could have been used to shoot one officer) was abandoned amongst some boxes. Having served its purpose, there was no need to take care of it any longer. The shooter would have simply dropped it amongst some boxes with one and shoved another box over it with the other. He would not have taken care to place it gingerly anywhere -- the goal at that point (whether the shooter is Oswald or someone else intent on framing Oswald) is to get out of the building as quickly as possible. Every second of delay adds to his chance of discovery. So I don't need to show proof the rifle was dropped. You would need to show evidence it wasn't, contrary to all the reasonable reconstructions of the event.
Wow, this is entertaining but nothing factual.
It's entirely factual. Tell me what, specifically, is wrong.
Tell us why it's not your responsibility to account for the damage to the rifle. Are you suggesting it was planted with a defective scope? If not, what exactly are you suggesting? Or don't you know? I think you're suggesting a shooter (specifically Oswald) could not have performed the assassination with the scope in that condition. You'd be wrong for a variety of reasons, not least because the scope isn't even necessary to the performance of the assassination. The iron sights are perfectly adequate. I made four of six shots using the iron sights on a 1917 (WWI) Mannlicher-Carcano on July 5th, 2015 at 100 yards, after a few minutes of walk-through with a ex-military gun buff. I had never fired a weapon before in my life.
The other reason we know that weapon was used (and that if the scope was used in the assassination it wasn't damaged) was the ballistics evidence indicates that weapon was used. The ballistic evidence includes six items that link the weapon to the shooting (three shells recovered at the window; two fragments recovered from the limo; one bullet recovered at Parkland). All six items were linked ballistically to the rifle found in the Depository to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
(c) The weapon had an out of alignment telescopic sight. That is consistent with it being dropped. It is inconsistent with it being handled carefully.
A weapon with an out of alignment telescopic sight being consistent with it being dropped is like frontal lobotomy being consistent with a headache. Both are correct but are not necessarily linked unless you can provide that one caused the other. All you have done is provided a guess.
I disagree with your analogy. And since nobody was up there filming after the assassin left the window, we'll just have to guess. You have mine. What's your best guess as to why the scope was out of alignment when tested?
The ball has to be moved with facts and not with speculation, you have not provided anything that pushes your claim. Do you wish to include something that has merit?
Reasonable speculation has merit. See this post from another thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9311653&postcount=23
Heck, we are talking about a rifle that was never even tested for recent firings when in the hands of the Dallas Police or FBI.
I've seen that claim in conspiracy books for DECADES. Curiously, not one conspiracy book I've read ever names this test or tells us how it's performed.
Enlighten us about this test for recent firings of a firearm... how exactly does that test work? What's that test called?
Or read the thread (and its predecessor threads) and learn what points not to bring up.
Hank
