[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Garry Puffer Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Wow, seems you guys would rather have a root canal that admit you're wrong. Classy.

Oh, so that's what you meant. Sorry, not ready to do that yet. I need to examine the issue a bit more, and I admitted that Shaneyfelt's testimony was troublesome. To take the arguments of a WC defender without examining what other people have said about it is, I have learned, not a good idea. I could be wrong in this small side issue, but I'm not yet convinced.

OK. Fair enough.

Quote:Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the ....I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration. I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.

This rather strongly reminds me of the fiber testimony. In both cases, the testimony does nothing more than merely support that the WCR might be right... yet cannot be used to prove the critics wrong.

In both cases, despite the strong bias to find the rifles to be the same, or the fibers to have come from the blanket - the Warren Commission was unable to elicit what they truly wanted to have on the record. And that failure allowed critics to point to issues that have yet never been resolved.