I was just watching "Unsolved History" show JFK Conspiracy Education
John Blubaugh
and duplicate the JFK assassination. The rifles jammed five times in
21 firing attempts and the expert deemed it to be "a very inferior
weapon." It is true that the few times he was able to get the rifles
to fire three times, he hit the targets. But with all of those jams on
weapons that were made to work as well as they possibly could is that
a success or a failure? I believe this means that the odds of LHO
making the shots in the eight to nine second time frame is very low
indeed considering that his MC was not reburbished.
JB
Coondog
Perhaps all of the dry working of the bolt action that pissed off his
wife made Oswald an expert on operating the Carcano. Dave Emary
didn't seem to have trouble working the action of his Carcano.
Bill Clarke
Jason Burke
Sooo. About one in four shots jammed according to obviously rigged data.
I don't want to waste my time with you on mathematics, but how do you
get a "very low indeed" probability of popping out three shots
successfully? Especially since tests were run with LHO's rifle? Or did
you forget that part?
bigdog
That means that 16 times out of 21, the rifle did not jam. Based on
that, the odds were better than 3 to 1 in Oswald's favor that the
weapon wouldn't jam. Is that what you call low odds?
Chuck Schuyler
JB,
The large limo fragments are a ballistic match to Oswald's Carcano. So
is CE399.
Whether you believe other shots were fired by a hit team(s) yet to be
identified, or whether you believe his rifle was good or bad,
frequently jammed and/or was inaccurate, Oswald's rifle fired those
shots on 11//2//63. In fact, whether you believe Oswald even fired the
shots, his rifle was used by someone to kill Kennedy. It's really that
simple.
As you are a card-carrying member of The Hobby, I guess I shouldn't be
too surprised that you seem to have a hard time grasping this simple
concept.
Keep speaking "Truth-to-Power," JB. You're closing in the the killers!
John Blubaugh
Obviously, the expert they picked for the show had LOTS of trouble
with three different refurbished MCs.
JB
John Blubaugh
I get that because LHO's MC was not refurbished but was in the same shape
as it was when it arrived. It would seem to me that the shots by an expert
working the gun would indicate that an expert would duplicate the shots
only about 5% of the time. Since LHO's weapon was inferior to these models
that were made to work as well as they possible could, I assume his
percentage "if" he could even hit the target would be in the 1% to 2%
range. A miracle indeed.
JB
Anthony Marsh
And yet you still call it an excellent weapon. I'd like to see you issuing
automatic rifles to your troops and explain to them that they only jam
after every third round.
John Blubaugh
You aren't getting it. Oswald's weapon was not reburbished. It would
have jammed much more often. Perhaps twice as often or more. Now
figure the odds of LHO getting his three shots off.
JB
Bud
> On 2/27/2011 3:36 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 10:34 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> This show used three refurbished MCs with new scopes attached to try
> >> and duplicate the JFK assassination. The rifles jammed five times in
> >> 21 firing attempts and the expert deemed it to be "a very inferior
> >> weapon." It is true that the few times he was able to get the rifles
> >> to fire three times, he hit the targets. But with all of those jams on
> >> weapons that were made to work as well as they possibly could is that
> >> a success or a failure? I believe this means that the odds of LHO
> >> making the shots in the eight to nine second time frame is very low
> >> indeed considering that his MC was not reburbished.
>
> >> JB
>
> > That means that 16 times out of 21, the rifle did not jam. Based on
> > that, the odds were better than 3 to 1 in Oswald's favor that the
> > weapon wouldn't jam. Is that what you call low odds?
>
> And yet you still call it an excellent weapon.
Did he?
> I'd like to see you issuing
> automatic rifles to your troops and explain to them that they only jam
> after every third round.
Would you stand if front of someone trying to kill you hoping for a
jam?
bigdog
This has been pointed out the JB many times but for some reason he seems
compelled to come back to the quality of the rifle as an issue. Regardless
of how good a weapon it was, we know it got the job done on 11/22/63, so
what difference does it make what the jam rate was. I didn't jam on
11/22/63 which is all that matters. Oswald got off three shots in a short
time frame and had loaded a fourth into the breech.
bigdog
So what? Oswald didn't have trouble with it on 11/22/63 since the
ballistic matching of the bullets prove that he got he shots off.
bigdog
Some really creative arithmetic there, JB. The weapon only jammed 5 times
in 21 attempts and the shooter hit the target on the other 16. How does
that equate to only a 5% success rate. How does one consider a 1 or 2 per
cent success rate a miracle unless they've lowered the bar for what
constitutes a miracle. A long shot, but hardly a miracle. It doesn't
matter what the jam rate was for the MC because the the ballistics
matching indicated Oswald's MC fired the shots on 11/22/63 to the
exclusion of all other weapons. We have plenty of other evidence that it
was Oswald who fired Oswald's rifle.
bigdog
You aren't getting it. Oswald's weapon didn't jam on 11/22/63. We know
that because it is the only rifle in the world that could have fired the
recovered bullets. Your whole argument is that the rifle couldn't have
done what we know it did do. The odds are easy to figure. They are 100%
that Oswald got off three shots.
Jason Burke
For a former professional bridge player, you total incomprehension of
statistics (that YOU brought up,) simply amazes me.
cdddraftsman
"I'd like to see you issuing automatic rifles to your troops and
explain to them that they only jam after every third round"
Possible explanations :
* Rifles that have been neglected for any length of time (the WW2
Italian Army wasn't known for it's military prowess of the individual
soldier or general for that matter) can't be expected to ever work
again as good as they did upon issuance.
Q : BTW what exactely does one do to "refurbish" a MC Rifle ?
A : Disassemble the gun, oil the working parts, replace two springs
and/or just find a owner who knows how to fire a rifle ....
mag30th :
^ 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, 6 shots in 5.1 seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4c5Zr7hzzA
Or just find a owner who's 80ish and knows how to fire a rifle ....
^ Dr. Lattimer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qevLWsg6EyA
Very impressive "indeed" !
The Great JFK Assassination Tragedy Conspiracy Hoax and Deception
Continues ....
Now back to your regularly scheduled paranoia ....
:-)
tl
cdddraftsman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Think .... "cosmic :-) relevence :-(" .... Bigdog ....
Use JB's patented "lower the bar" so it's under the threshold trick
and you got yourself a "brand new" looking JFK Conspiracy
question ....
:-) Paste 'smiley face' here (-:
Which is actually an "old one" thats been "refurbished" by excluding
47+ years of responsible research ....
:-( Paste 'sad face' here )-:
tl
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't think what you say here is true. The WC used this same form of
reasoning.
JB
Jason Burke
Well, gee. Maybe it WAS a miracle that three shots were made without a
jam. But as the ballistics (remember them?) and other evidence shows, it
did get off three shots.
Might as well argue that the world is flat.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
It proves someone got at least one shot off. It doesn't prove that
Oswald did. It doesn't prove that all of the shots came from his MC.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
5 of 21 on newly refurbished MCs. A treatment that LHO's MC never had.
So, perhaps he double the number of jams. No, your tests do not
indicate that. They indicate the large fragments matched the MC. That
doesn't mean another weapon was not used too. It doesn't prove that
three shots were fired with the MC either.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why do you continue saying something that is a blatant lie? Yes, the
biggest fragments matched LHO's MC. How many shots provided that same?
One? Two? Three? There is no proof for that at all. The rest of the
fragments found could have come from any weapon.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
As you might guess, I made my living with those percentages. You are
the one in error, not me. 5 of 21 shots jammed with newly refurbished
MCs. LHO's MC never had that treatment. It could have jammed two or
three times as often and it probably did.
JB
Anthony Marsh
We know it jammed because of the dented lip.
bigdog
Perhaps you are making a scientific wild assed guess.
> No, your tests do not
> indicate that. They indicate the large fragments matched the MC. That
> doesn't mean another weapon was not used too.
That is very true. The problem you have is there are no bullets from
any other weapon.
> It doesn't prove that
> three shots were fired with the MC either.
>
Very well. We only have positive evidence that two shots were fired from
Oswald's rifle. We do have 3 spent shells found at the place where a
witness saw a shooter and those shells were fired by Oswald's rifle. It is
theoretically possible and somewhat far fetched that one of the spent
shells had been fired on another day and that Oswald had simply left it in
the chamber. But a CT always needs to reach for the least likely
explaination possible to keep his boat afloat, so it doesn't surprise me
that you have done so here.
bigdog
> reasoning.
>
Yes they did. They believed what the evidence told them. You should
try it some time.
bigdog
Do you really want to believe that the tiny unidentifiable fragments came
from a different rifle than the large identifiable fragments even though
they had the same metallic make up? Just how desperate are you?
bigdog
> On Feb 27, 11:54 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 6:28 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 12:26 pm, Coondog <billcla...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 26, 9:34 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > This show used three refurbished MCs with new scopes attached to try
> > > > > and duplicate the JFK assassination. The rifles jammed five times in
> > > > > 21 firing attempts and the expert deemed it to be "a very inferior
> > > > > weapon." It is true that the few times he was able to get the rifles
> > > > > to fire three times, he hit the targets. But with all of those jams on
> > > > > weapons that were made to work as well as they possibly could is that
> > > > > a success or a failure? I believe this means that the odds of LHO
> > > > > making the shots in the eight to nine second time frame is very low
> > > > > indeed considering that his MC was not reburbished.
>
> > > > > JB
>
> > > > Perhaps all of the dry working of the bolt action that pissed off his
> > > > wife made Oswald an expert on operating the Carcano. Dave Emary
> > > > didn't seem to have trouble working the action of his Carcano.
>
> > > > Bill Clarke
>
> > > Obviously, the expert they picked for the show had LOTS of trouble
> > > with three different refurbished MCs.
>
> > So what? Oswald didn't have trouble with it on 11/22/63 since the
> > ballistic matching of the bullets prove that he got he shots off.
>
> It proves someone got at least one shot off. It doesn't prove that
> Oswald did. It doesn't prove that all of the shots came from his MC.
>
That is true. There are two questions here. Did Oswald's rifle fire the
shots? Did Oswald fire the rifle? You want to argue the first point
despite the fact the recovered bullets prove that it did. If you would
just concede on that point, we could move on to the more relevant question
of whether Oswald fired Oswald's rifle.
Anthony Marsh
His rifle jamming calls into question the myth that the rifle was fired
three times within 5.6 seconds.
Anthony Marsh
The fact that the rifle jammed on 11/22/63 caused the grassy knoll
shooter to take the insurance shot which revealed the conspiracy.
Anthony Marsh
We know it was incapable of doing the job and that is why they needed to
have a second rifle there.
John Blubaugh
>
The ballistics do not show that three shots were fired. The large
fragments were from LHO's MC. The smaller fragments cannot be tied to that
weapon. There may have been shots fired into the limo that didn't come
from LHO's MC.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
I just get tired of you stating things as absolute facts that simple
are not.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
There is no evidence that more than one shot was fired with LHO's
weapon. There is no evidence that LHO fired that shot.
JB
John Blubaugh
> > biggest fragments matched LHO's MC. How many shots provided that same?
> > One? Two? Three? There is no proof for that at all. The rest of the
> > fragments found could have come from any weapon.
>
> Do you really want to believe that the tiny unidentifiable fragments came
> from a different rifle than the large identifiable fragments even though
> they had the same metallic make up? Just how desperate are you?
There is no proof that they have the same metallic makeup. That has
been thoroughly debunked.
JB
Anthony Marsh
He is confusing the issue. There were two large fragments found in the
limo. One was the nose portion which had lead core consistent with the
WCC ammo. The base fragment was only the jacket. No lead core to
chemically compare to the WCC. No one tried to compare the jacket copper.
Proving that the tiniest fragments are consistent with WCC ammo does not
prove which rifle fired them.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, Oswald's rifle fired three shots from the sniper's nest.
We only have one recovered bullet, not several. Some claim it was
planted and not fired during the assassination.
> despite the fact the recovered bullets prove that it did. If you would
> just concede on that point, we could move on to the more relevant question
> of whether Oswald fired Oswald's rifle.
>
The acoustical evidence proves that there were three shots fired from
the sniper's nest. If you would just concede on that point, we could
move on to the more relevant question of who fired the rifle.
Anthony Marsh
Quantify what you think "same" means. Do you mean exactly the same
levels of antimony in the bullet lead? Something like
755-755-755-755-755 ppm? Is that what you mean by "same"?
Or do you mean similar? "Similar" is a different word which does not
mean the same thing as "same."
Anthony Marsh
And you have no bullet for your missed shot. Show me that bullet. By
your logic this proves that there was no third shot.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry, but it has not been debunked. It was determined that the NAA
testing cannot prove with 100% certainty that fragments came from the
same bullet, but the evidence is still probative. The metallic makeup
was the same. We can believe that the small fragments and the
identifiable large fragments are parts of the same bullet or we can
believe that only the large fragments from one bullet ended up on the
floor of the limo and only the small fragments from a second bullet
ended up on the floor of the limo and by a remarkable coincidence,
they had the same metallic make up. What were you saying earlier about
miracles?
Chuck Schuyler
>
> - Show quoted text -
How did the insurance shooter know Oswald's rifle jammed?
Coondog
I won't go through this with you again but there can be other causes
of a dented lip besides a jam.
Bill Clarke
bigdog
I don't know which of Marsh's concepts is wackier, the insurance shooter
on the GK or the deliberate miss fired from the TSBD. That's it. The
insurance shooter on the GK was there in case the guy in the TSBD
deliberately missed. Those conspirators sure thought of everything didn't
they?
Jason Burke
Cell phone?
Makes as much sense as anything else.
Anthony Marsh
That is not what he knew. He knew that something had gone wrong in the
TSBD because there was a pause of 5 seconds after the first couple of
shots from the sniper's nest. For all he knew someone could have grabbed
the rifle away from the other shooter. Whatever went wrong if he didn't
fire his insurance shot the target would get away alive.
Anthony Marsh
Probative is the wrong word.
Maybe interesting.
Do you understand the legal difference between match and consistent
with? The chemical composition of the lead was SIMILAR, not the SAME.
> was the same. We can believe that the small fragments and the
> identifiable large fragments are parts of the same bullet or we can
> believe that only the large fragments from one bullet ended up on the
> floor of the limo and only the small fragments from a second bullet
> ended up on the floor of the limo and by a remarkable coincidence,
> they had the same metallic make up. What were you saying earlier about
> miracles?
>
Yes, you are free to think that ALL the fragments they found came from
the same bullet. But the FBI was not able and the HSCA was not able to
prove that. You'd need to lay out and document your theory.
SAME is the wrong word.
Anthony Marsh
Go ahead, name them. Demonstrate them. I asked you to demonstrate your
method before and you couldn't. FAIL.
> Bill Clarke
>
Coondog
FAIL this Marsh. I've named them before. It isn't my fault you don't
have any experience firing bolt action rifles.
Bill Clarke
Jean Davison
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4d6dd60f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Tony,
Here's one such method from an old thread you participated in.
QUOTE:
Jan 11 2006, 11:54 pm
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk, alt.assassination.jfk
From: "Dr. Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net>
Date: 12 Jan 2006 00:54:41 -0500
Local: Wed, Jan 11 2006 11:54 pm
Subject: Re: Jean
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original |
Report this message | Find messages by this author
Todd,
The ejector pin is seated on the bottom left. When the shell is ejected,
it has rearward momentum and a right hand ejection. This causes the shell
to hit the bolt brake, denting the casing where it hits the on the brake.
I videotaped this and it is on my site.
Chad
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136916280....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Tony,
> Yes, so I say. Roughly every 3rd or 4th fired and ejected shell had a
> dented lip. It wans't a scientific test, it was just something I noticed.
> I don't know what casued it.
> The rifle does sometimes jam, rarely, but not when ejecting a shell, only
> reloading a fresh one.
> Todd
UNQUOTE
Jean
Coondog
wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> > Tony,
> > Yes, so I say. Roughly every 3rd or 4th fired and ejected shell had a
> > dented lip. It wans't a scientific test, it was just something I noticed.
> > I don't know what casued it.
> > The rifle does sometimes jam, rarely, but not when ejecting a shell, only
> > reloading a fresh one.
> > Todd
>
> UNQUOTE
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nice try Jean but I doubt it will do any good with Marsh. I described
how the ejector pin could cause this to Marsh long ago but of course
he rejected it because this blows his theory that he knows Oswald's
rifle jammed because they found a spent case with a dented lip. I
have seen this occur myself.
Thanks.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
The ejector pin does not dent the lip.
You can't demonstrate how your method dents the lip.
Anthony Marsh
Cute, but Chad is not the guy I was replying to now. Chad has dropped
out and can no longer be questioned on this matter.
I don't know how to phrase this delicately but I would caution against
taking Chad's word as absolute proof of anything when we saw how his
fudged his back wound tests.
Todd was very close to the correct answer, but left a false impression
by not being clear. It is impossible to dent the lip of a fresh round.
What he meant was that when trying to reload to put a fresh round in the
chamber, the previous cartridge does not eject correctly and gets jammed
against the mouth of the chamber. His jams never occurred when loading
in a live round. Same with the CBS tests.
I know that rifles are not really your thing and you are probably afraid
to even hold a rifle, much less fire one. But maybe you should talk to a
real live firearms expert who has.
Jean Davison
I don't know how to phrase this delicately but I'm not interested
in your snide comments about Chad.
> Todd was very close to the correct answer, but left a false impression by
> not being clear.
He was perfectly clear.
>It is impossible to dent the lip of a fresh round.
He didn't say he dented fresh rounds.
> What he meant was that when trying to reload to put a fresh round in the
> chamber, the previous cartridge does not eject correctly and gets jammed
> against the mouth of the chamber. His jams never occurred when loading in
> a live round. Same with the CBS tests.
"What he meant was"?? Please. He clearly stated that the jams
were not associated with the dents. Jams happened rarely, on loading.
Dents happened every 3rd or 4th shot, on ejecting. Two different things.
> I know that rifles are not really your thing and you are probably afraid
> to even hold a rifle, much less fire one. But maybe you should talk to a
> real live firearms expert who has.
>
You know zip about my experience with rifles. The real live
experts on the HSCA's Firearms Panel concluded that "the dent on the mouth
of the CE 543 cartridge case was produced when the cartridge case was
ejected from the rifle." Which is what Todd said and what Chad said.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0191a.htm
Photo of a dented test round:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0197a.htm
Now where's your quote from a real live firearms expert, Mr.
Marsh?
Jean
Anthony Marsh
No, he wasn't. He said he didn't understand the cause.
>> It is impossible to dent the lip of a fresh round.
>
> He didn't say he dented fresh rounds.
>
>> What he meant was that when trying to reload to put a fresh round in the
>> chamber, the previous cartridge does not eject correctly and gets jammed
>> against the mouth of the chamber. His jams never occurred when loading in
>> a live round. Same with the CBS tests.
>
> "What he meant was"?? Please. He clearly stated that the jams were not
> associated with the dents. Jams happened rarely, on loading. Dents
> happened every 3rd or 4th shot, on ejecting. Two different things.
>
>> I know that rifles are not really your thing and you are probably afraid
>> to even hold a rifle, much less fire one. But maybe you should talk to a
>> real live firearms expert who has.
>>
>
> You know zip about my experience with rifles. The real live experts on
Then tell everyone about your extensive tests with a Mannlicher-Carcano.
> the HSCA's Firearms Panel concluded that "the dent on the mouth of the
> CE 543 cartridge case was produced when the cartridge case was ejected
> from the rifle." Which is what Todd said and what Chad said.
>
"When" does not explain "how."
The discussion is about how it happens.
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0191a.htm
>
>
> Photo of a dented test round:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0197a.htm
>
>
Which does not explain how it got dented.
Maybe you can demonstrate this for us with your extensive tests with a
Mannlicher-Carcano.
> Now where's your quote from a real live firearms expert, Mr.
> Marsh?
> Jean
Which one? Which quote do you want?
Jean Davison
> On 3/4/2011 10:37 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:4d71...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >> On 3/3/2011 4:02 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
>
Nice sidestep!
>
>
>
> >> It is impossible to dent the lip of a fresh round.
>
> > He didn't say he dented fresh rounds.
>
> >> What he meant was that when trying to reload to put a fresh round in the
> >> chamber, the previous cartridge does not eject correctly and gets jammed
> >> against the mouth of the chamber. His jams never occurred when loading in
> >> a live round. Same with the CBS tests.
>
> > "What he meant was"?? Please. He clearly stated that the jams were not
> > associated with the dents. Jams happened rarely, on loading. Dents
> > happened every 3rd or 4th shot, on ejecting. Two different things.
>
> >> I know that rifles are not really your thing and you are probably afraid
> >> to even hold a rifle, much less fire one. But maybe you should talk to a
> >> real live firearms expert who has.
>
> > You know zip about my experience with rifles. The real live experts on
>
> Then tell everyone about your extensive tests with a Mannlicher-Carcano.
"Adventures in Creative Misreading" by A. Marsh.
>
> > the HSCA's Firearms Panel concluded that "the dent on the mouth of the
> > CE 543 cartridge case was produced when the cartridge case was ejected
> > from the rifle." Which is what Todd said and what Chad said.
>
> "When" does not explain "how."
> The discussion is about how it happens.
"When" is "not when the rifle jams on reloading," but "during
ejection of the empty shell."
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/...
>
> > Photo of a dented test round:
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/...
>
> Which does not explain how it got dented.
> Maybe you can demonstrate this for us with your extensive tests with a
> Mannlicher-Carcano.
>
> > Now where's your quote from a real live firearms expert, Mr.
> > Marsh?
> > Jean
>
> Which one? Which quote do you want?
Anything supporting your claim: "We know it jammed because
of the dented lip."
Jean
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Coondog
Can you not read? It didn't say the ejector pin dented the lip. The
case striking the bolt brake causes the dent. The ejector pin is what
propels the case to the right to strike the bolt brake.
If you had any shooting expeerience you wouldn't need a
demonstration. You would have experienced this yourself. I have.
Did you have to "google" to learn what an ejector pin is?
Bill Clarke
Coondog
> On 3/3/2011 4:02 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Well, that "real live firearms expert" sure as hell wouldn't be you.
Rifles are my thing Marsh and I love to shoot them. Back when I was
handloading I shot a lot. This is where I saw dented case lips when the
rifle didn't jam. I guess this was a conspiracy by the government to
prove you wrong.
Bill Clarke
Coondog
Yes, a beautiful dance step perfected by Marsh, the Marsh Side Step
Shuffle. I look to see Marsh on "Dancing With the Stars" one of these
days.
No, nothing more than Marsh's opinion which doesn't count for much.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
And I said exactly the same thing. But he did not explain precisely the
process. Neither did you. I did.
bigdog
> On Mar 6, 9:37 am, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 10:07 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > No, he wasn't. He said he didn't understand the cause.
>
> > Nice sidestep!
>
> Yes, a beautiful dance step perfected by Marsh, the Marsh Side Step
> Shuffle. I look to see Marsh on "Dancing With the Stars" one of these
> days.
>
The problem is I don't think he could find a partner who could keep up
unless it is Blubaugh.
Jean Davison
No. Todd corrected you on this in the same thread:
QUOTE:
>>>>>
[You wrote:]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk, alt.assassination.jfk
From: Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net>
Date: 11 Jan 2006 12:02:15 -0500
Local: Wed, Jan 11 2006 11:02 am
Subject: Re: Jean
aeffects wrote:
> hypothetical nonsense -- no proof just, wallah -- if I post it, it's
> true..... or maybe McAdams stepped on the cartridges, you do shoot with
> him, right? ....come on man roflmfao
Impossible. The dent can not be caused that way. It happens when the
empty cartridge gets jammed back into the rifle by mistake.
[Todd replied to you:]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk, alt.assassination.jfk
From: "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com>
Date: 11 Jan 2006 15:31:55 -0500
Local: Wed, Jan 11 2006 2:31 pm
Subject: Re: Jean
Tony,
In my case I can assure you that it was not happening on any noticible
jamming.
Todd
>>>>>>
UNQUOTE
Posts 49 and 50 here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_frm/thread/d3d6007d1cf89236/64aeb6b2bb15fd96?q=jammed+dent+group:alt.assassination.jfk+insubject:Jean
>>>
>>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/...
>>>
>>>> Photo of a dented test round:
>>>
>>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/...
>>>
>>> Which does not explain how it got dented.
>>> Maybe you can demonstrate this for us with your extensive tests with a
>>> Mannlicher-Carcano.
>>>
>>>> Now where's your quote from a real live firearms expert, Mr.
>>>> Marsh?
>>>> Jean
>>>
>>> Which one? Which quote do you want?
>>
>> Anything supporting your claim: "We know it jammed because
>> of the dented lip."
>>
So, no quote? Any evidence at all to support that statement?
Jean
Anthony Marsh
So you claim. PROVE it. Show me. Demonstrate this happening. Post it on
YouTube.
> If you had any shooting expeerience you wouldn't need a
> demonstration. You would have experienced this yourself. I have.
> Did you have to "google" to learn what an ejector pin is?
>
I have had a lot of experience shooting and it has happened to me
several times and I know why.
> Bill Clarke
>
>