Shooting the Carcano Rifles

[claviger]

Dave Emary
Chief Ballistic Scientist
Hornady Manufacturing Inc
Grand Island, Nebraska

SHOOTING THE 6
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/emary.html
____________________________________________________________

Shooting the 6.5 X 52 mm, 7.35 x 51mm Cartridges and the Carcano
Rifles,
an article by Dave Emary, Senior Ballistician of Hornady Manufacturing
____________________________________________________________

The 6.5 X 52 mm cartridge has taken a great deal of criticism as being
underpowered and anemic. From a ballistic standpoint this is a little
hard to justify. The Swedish 6.5 X 55 mm cartridge is considered an
outstanding cartridge yet it is only able to produce 100 fps more
velocity with a 156-grain bullet in the M96 rifle. The 6.5 X 55
requires a maximum average pressure of 55,000 psi and approximately 6
more grains of powder to produce this meager gain in performance. The .
30-30 Winchester, regarded as an adequate deer rifle and known to have
killed many moose and bear produces 2,220 fps in a 24” barrel with a
170 grain bullet. The 6.5 X 52 mm fires a bullet with a higher
ballistic coefficient, at a higher velocity, shoots flatter and has
far more penetration capability than the .30-30. From the standpoint
of a service rifle cartridge the 6.5 X 52 with its relatively low
operating pressure, coupled with its modest powder charge would result
in much less barrel throat erosion and wear. This would equate to
longer barrel life and decreased operating cost. In fact, much of what
was done in the Carcano rifle/ammunition system was aimed at long
barrel life, as will be shown later. From my point of view the 6.5 X
52 is a very efficient cartridge, offering adequate performance for
what it was intended.

The only fault that one might level against the 6.5 X 52 as a military
cartridge is that it had relatively humane terminal ballistics. The
very long, blunt nosed bullet coupled with the fast twist rate of the
gun resulted in a bullet that was very stable with a very high
resistance to tumbling. The cartridge was known to have inflicted many
“through and through” wounds, just leaving a small wound channel. The
bullet typically would not tumble inside its’ target unless it
encountered something hard such as bone. When it did tumble the
wounding effect is well known.
____________________________________________________________

The original 6.5 X 52 mm Carcano design used a gain twist barrel. The
gain twist results in a very slow initial twist in the barrel
progressively getting faster until the full twist rate is attained at
the muzzle. The slow initial twist results in substantially less
torque being imparted to the bullet during the highest loading phase
of the interior ballistic cycle. This results in significantly less
barrel wear in the throat. This coupled with the very deep rifling of
the barrel would result in barrels that would have a very long wear
and accuracy life. This in fact is the case. Many M91 model rifles
show signs of considerable amounts of ammunition being fired through
them, because of the crazed/frosted condition of the bore, yet still
show very strong rifling and shoot well with the proper size bullets.
The 7.35 X 51 mm Carcano rifles used a standard fixed twist barrel.

The Carcano bolt is the model of a simple, easy to field strip bolt.
It is about as fool proof as you can get for a common soldier. The
Carcano trigger has taken a considerable amount of criticism. The
trigger is basically a Mauser type two-stage trigger. In almost all
cases if you find the trigger rough or creepy simply polishing the
sear and trigger mating faces result in a very acceptable trigger for
a military rifle. For the most part I have found Carcano triggers have
less creep, are more crisp and lighter than the majority of Mauser
triggers I have encountered.

The materials used in the Carcano are excellent. These rifles were
made from special steels perfected by the Czechs, for which the
Italians paid royalties. If you have ever tried doing any work on a
Carcano receiver you will find out just how hard and tough the steel
is. The Carcano has also received a reputation as being a “weak”
design. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Italians made a
small run of Carcanos early in WW II chambered for 8 X 57 JS. The
Germans rechambered some Carcanos to 8 X 57 JS late in WW II. These
rifles were also proofed for this cartridge. The CIP minimum suggested
proof pressure for the 8 x 57 JS cartridge is 73,500 psi. I hardly
call this a weak action.
____________________________________________________________

The Italians apparently realized that a 300-meter battle zero was a
bit impractical and with the introduction of the M38 models went to a
200 meter battle zero. This zero results in a maximum height of
trajectory of 5.5” – 6.5” at a range of approximately 100 yards,
depending on barrel length. With this sight setting, by simply holding
on the middle of the torso, it would have been hard to miss the target
out to about 220 meters. The Carcano’s also used a unique sight
picture. The proper sight picture for regulated sights on a Carcano is
with the front sight in the very bottom of the rear sight groove. This
is how the Italian army manuals instructed that the sights be used.
Potentially, this would allow for two battle sight settings. The
normal use as mentioned above would be a 200 meter zero. Using the
Mauser sighting method, the front sight level with the rear sight,
would result in a zero of 330 – 350 meters. This is about the maximum
range practical for attempting to engage a target with iron sights.

I contend with the Carcano the Italians had a very intelligent
approach for a battle rifle. The fixed sights were basically fool
proof. The Italians must have realized with the M38 models that nearly
all small arms engagements occurred inside of 200 meters. The fixed
sights with a 200 meter zero would have been fool proof for a soldier
under stress, who was probably a poor judge of distance to begin with.
The soldier would have had to do nothing but point and shoot at the
middle of his enemy for ranges out to 220 – 230 meters. How much more
simple and effective could it have been made.
____________________________________________________________

6.5 x 52 mm

The Carcano rifles are capable of outstanding accuracy. With the
exception of a military issue type load in the short carbines they are
very pleasant to shoot from a recoil standpoint. Because of the above
mentioned sight picture for the Carcano, front sight in the bottom of
the rear sight notch, it is very important to have a consistent stock-
cheek weld for consistent accuracy. It is often very helpful to use a
carbide lamp or a sight black product to blacken the sights, which
improves contrast and sight picture.
____________________________________________________________

CONCLUSION:

The 6.5 X 52 is a very useful and capable cartridge. It served well as
a military cartridge for over 80 years. The 7.35 X 51 would have been
an even more effective military cartridge than the 6.5 X 52 had its
timing been different. It is interesting to note that the .308
Winchester / 7.62 X 51 mm NATO and the 7.35 X 51 mm are nearly the
same dimensions. Both the 6.5 and 7.35 cartridges are fun to shoot and
properly loaded capable of very good accuracy. The Carcano rifle is a
well made rifle that is by no means weak or poorly manufactured. They
are reliable and strong rifles that are fun to shoot and offer a
tremendous variety of types and markings for the collector. I will
admit that they are a rather utilitarian rifle as compared to some
others. However, they are probably one of the most efficient, cost
effective, user friendly battle rifles produced in their era. The
rifle, ammunition combination properly loaded is capable of accuracy
that will rival the most accurate of the Mauser chamberings.
____________________________________________________________

Carcano Homepage: Italian Military Rifles and Carbines
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/

[claviger]

Anthony,

Worst Pieces of Crap That Have Ever Been Issued: 1. Rifles - Page 4
http://www.military-quotes.com / forum / worst-pieces-crap-have-e...

Now that we've heard from a real ballistic expert I'm wondering who
the pretend expert is on this blog. Could "mmarsh" possibly be one of
your relatives? You two certainly think alike and have a very similar
communication style.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Jun 8, 7:38 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anthony,
>

> Worst Pieces of Crap That Have Ever Been Issued: 1. Rifles - Page 4http://www.military-quotes.com/ forum / worst-pieces-crap-have-e...

>
> Now that we've heard from a real ballistic expert I'm wondering who
> the pretend expert is on this blog. Could "mmarsh" possibly be one of
> your relatives? You two certainly think alike and have a very similar
> communication style.

Claviger, your expert singing the praises of the M/C rifle is a little
over-enthusiastic in his praise. Books on rifles written before the
assassination most always complained about the M/C. A few years back, in a
junk shop in Clovis, CA, I came across a WW-II era U.S. Army publication
written for soldiers and describing the weapons they would be likely to
encounter in combat. It called the M/C the worst rifle in use in the
world, and said one going into combat against those armed with M/C rifles
should feel lucky, or something like that. (Unfortunately, they wanted 40
bucks for the manual, and I didn't have the money.) Anyhow, researchers
such as Weisberg and Marsh collected quotes on the rifle--and the Army's
claims were not a fluke. No one outside the Oswald-did-it crowd considers
it a good rifle, although many consider it adequate.

To be fair, however, it appears the WW-II era problems with the rifle were
related more to its ammunition than to the rifle itself, and that the
rifle itself, when firing post WW-II ammunition, when properly sighted-in,
and when fired by someone who had practiced extensively with the rifle,
can be effective.

Of course, the rifle purportedly found in the TSBD was not properly
sighted-in, and Oswald had not practiced firing the rifle for months, if
ever. This suggests--presuming the rifle was the one that fired at least
two of the shots--that someone more practiced than Oswald did the firing.

[WhiskyJoe]

> Books on rifles written before the
> assassination most always complained about
> the M/C. A few years back, in a junk shop in
> Clovis, CA, I came across a WW-II era
> U.S. Army publication written for soldiers and
> describing the weapons they would be likely to
> encounter in combat. It called the M/C the
> worst rifle in use in the world, and said one
> going into combat against those armed with
> M/C rifles should feel lucky, or something
> like that.

And I saw a World War II Army film explaining to
troops going into combat that the German MG 42
machine gun was frightening, but not really an
effective machine gun. As long as the troops
kept their heads, they could generally defeat
troops using this machine gun.

In actual truth, the MG 42 machine gun was an
excellent and formidable weapon. Used up a lot
of ammunition in a hurry, took skill to aim
accurately, but was quite deadly and roar from
it was psychological effective, which is
important. Clearly the film to the troops
underrated it's effectiveness.

The makers of these films did not want the troops
to think the enemy had superior weapons and be
psyched out before going into battle. So, in
general, Allied films and manuals would not
err on the 'plus' side when describing enemy
weapons. The US films for the troops tended to
underrate German weapons and they probably did
the same with the Carcano rifles in the manuals.

> Of course, the rifle purportedly found in the
> TSBD was not properly sighted-in, and Oswald
> had not practiced firing the rifle for months,
> if ever. This suggests--presuming the rifle was
> the one that fired at least two of the
> shots--that someone more practiced than
> Oswald did the firing.

Scope taken off to check for fingerprints before
being tested. So it's impossible to tell if the
scope was adjusted correctly or not. Likely it
was not. But the iron sights were adjusted
correctly and Frazier was able to use them to
fire accurately 3 shot in 4.65 seconds. So Oswald
definitely had a rifle that was properly sighted
in. He need merely use the iron sights.

Since the bullets are purchased in boxes of
twenty and Oswald probably did not just throw
away bullets, he likely did get some practice,
although weeks or months earlier. He surely
did make at least 15 practice shots, maybe 35,
maybe 55. And surely extensive or recent
practice would not be needed for a target
less than 100 yards away.

**************************************************

A final point, the odds Oswald used a rifle that
was sighted in properly are way above 90%.
There are three possibilities:

1. The scope was adequately sighted. In which
case either used the scope or the iron sights.
In either case he used a properly sighted
rifle.

2. The scope was not adequately sighted, but
Oswald discovered this in his 15 practice shots.
So at Dealey Plaza, he used the iron sights.
In which case he used a properly sighted rifle.

3. The scope was not adequately sights. So
in his 15 practice shots, Oswald was not able
to hit anything. Nevertheless, Oswald elected
to go with the scope at Dealey Plaza.

Clearly, by any rational determination,
Possibility 3 is the least likely.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yeah, perfectly sighted in for 200 yards or 200 meters.
Not for 88 yards or 120 feet.

[claviger]

On Jun 8, 5:08 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 7:38 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Anthony,
>

> > Worst Pieces of Crap That Have Ever Been Issued: 1. Rifles - Page 4http://www.military-quotes.com/forum / worst-pieces-crap-have-e...

Pat,

Here are some more expert opinions:

GUNS Magazine Annuals
http://www.gunsmagazine.com/Features/0807ITALY/F0807Italy.html
John Sheehan: How Did Such A Good Rifle Get Such A Bad Reputation?

6.5x52
http://www.chuckhawks.com/mannlicher-carcano_rifle.htm

Article: Those curious Carcanos: underappreciated for no real ...
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-35688773_ITM

[claviger]

Pat,

Carcanos being fired on YouTube:

YouTube - 1941 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano (91/38) M1938 at 420 yards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1ayL8RXJTs

YouTube - JFK 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano rifle myths
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOQ2oebB2M

carcano vs melon
http://en.kendincos.net/video-hdnjtpvp-carcano-vs-melon.html

[Anthony Marsh]

Experts? Is this anything like your claim that Donahue was an expert?
Or Weitzman?

[Coondog]

On Jun 9, 10:55 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 5:08 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 7:38 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Anthony,
>

> > > Worst Pieces of Crap That Have Ever Been Issued: 1. Rifles - Page 4http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/ worst-pieces-crap-have-e...

> GUNS Magazine Annualshttp://www.gunsmagazine.com/Features/0807ITALY/F0807Italy.html

> John Sheehan: How Did Such A Good Rifle Get Such A Bad Reputation?
>

> 6.5x52http://www.chuckhawks.com/mannlicher-carcano_rifle.htm
>
> Article: Those curious Carcanos: underappreciated for no real ...http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-35688773_ITM- Hide quoted text -

I don’t think Dave Emary’s opinion should be taken lightly.
Bill Clarke

[WhiskyJoe]

> Yeah, perfectly sighted in for 200 yards or
> 200 meters. Not for 88 yards or 120 feet.

That is 200 meters, about 218 yards.
And yes, in general, that is not perfectly
sighted for a target 88 yards away, since
that will tend to cause the rifle to miss
5 inches high.

Unless, the target is moving almost directly away,
at 9 MPH, and one is firing down at a 13 degree
angle, which will cause one to miss 5 inches low.
In which cause, the rifle will be perfectly
sighted after all. Which was the case at
Dealey Plaza. By a fluke of history, the
Carcano sights provided the perfect lead for
the target at z312. And a fairly good lead for
the target at z222, within a couple of inches.

[Anthony Marsh]

Your thought process is known as rationalization.

[claviger]

Anthony,

> Yeah, perfectly sighted in for 200 yards or 200 meters.
> Not for 88 yards or 120 feet.

Apparently the following information is too technical for you to
comprehend. What it says is the Carcano engineers changed the fixed sights
to a shorter range based on actual combat experience. To hit any man size
shape within 220 meters all the soldier had to do was aim at the middle of
the enemy body profile. This simple approach would compensate for
trajectory arc and produce more hits on target in the heat of combat.

[Coondog]

On Jun 10, 3:00 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anthony,
>
> > Yeah, perfectly sighted in for 200 yards or 200 meters.
> > Not for 88 yards or 120 feet.
>
> Apparently the following information is too technical for you to
> comprehend.

Marsh seems to have particular trouble understanding ballistics and
marksmanship in general. I fear this trouble will remain until hell
freezes over.

I’ve pointed out this muzzle to 230 meter battle sight to him several
times now but he still doesn’t catch on.

Bill Clarke

[claviger]

On Jun 9, 9:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 6/9/2010 1:55 PM, claviger wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 5:08 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM>  wrote:
> >> On Jun 8, 7:38 am, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> Anthony,
>

> >>> Worst Pieces of Crap That Have Ever Been Issued: 1. Rifles - Page 4http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/ worst-pieces-crap-have-e...

Don't know about Weitzman but Donahue was definitely an expert based on
experience as a hunter, competition marksman, practicing gunsmith, gun
shop owner, trial work as an expert witness, and formal education from
George Washington University in Forensic Science.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/10/2010 6:00 PM, claviger wrote:
> Anthony,
>
>> Yeah, perfectly sighted in for 200 yards or 200 meters.
>> Not for 88 yards or 120 feet.
>
> Apparently the following information is too technical for you to
> comprehend. What it says is the Carcano engineers changed the fixed sights
> to a shorter range based on actual combat experience. To hit any man size
> shape within 220 meters all the soldier had to do was aim at the middle of
> the enemy body profile. This simple approach would compensate for
> trajectory arc and produce more hits on target in the heat of combat.
> ____________________________________________________________
>
>
> The Italians apparently realized that a 300-meter battle zero was a bit
> impractical and with the introduction of the M38 models went to a 200
> meter battle zero. This zero results in a maximum height of trajectory of

> 5.5? ? 6.5? at a range of approximately 100 yards, depending on

> barrel length. With this sight setting, by simply holding on the middle of
> the torso, it would have been hard to miss the target out to about 220

> meters. The Carcano?s also used a unique sight picture. The proper sight

> picture for regulated sights on a Carcano is with the front sight in the
> very bottom of the rear sight groove. This is how the Italian army manuals
> instructed that the sights be used. Potentially, this would allow for two
> battle sight settings. The normal use as mentioned above would be a 200
> meter zero. Using the Mauser sighting method, the front sight level with

> the rear sight, would result in a zero of 330 ? 350 meters. This is

> about the maximum range practical for attempting to engage a target with
> iron sights."
>
> I contend with the Carcano the Italians had a very intelligent approach
> for a battle rifle. The fixed sights were basically fool proof. The
> Italians must have realized with the M38 models that nearly all small arms
> engagements occurred inside of 200 meters. The fixed sights with a 200
> meter zero would have been fool proof for a soldier under stress, who was
> probably a poor judge of distance to begin with. The soldier would have
> had to do nothing but point and shoot at the middle of his enemy for

> ranges out to 220 ? 230 meters. How much more simple and effective could

> it have been made.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>

Apples and oranges. The shooter in Dealey Plaza could not aim for the
middle of the body profile. What is suggested would work fine for soldiers
trained to fire rifles having a high curved trajectory with sights set at
200 meters. Totally appropriate. That is not how Oswald was trained.
Oswald was trained on an M-1 which has a very flat trajectory and
adjustable sights. Apples and oranges.

[WhiskyJoe]

> I contend with the Carcano the Italians had
> a very intelligent approach for a battle
> rifle. The fixed sights were basically fool
> proof. The Italians must have realized with
> the M38 models that nearly all small arms
> engagements occurred inside of 200 meters.
> The fixed sights with a 200 meter zero would
> have been fool proof for a soldier under
> stress, who was probably a poor judge of
> distance to begin with. The soldier would
> have had to do nothing but point and shoot
> at the middle of his enemy for ranges out to
> 220 – 230 meters. How much more simple and
> effective could it have been made.

This is all correct. The classical case of
where adjustable sights did not work well
was the Battle of Beersheba in 1917 where
the British made the last successful British
cavalry attack in history, a few generations
after this should have been impossible. This
was a surprising result because Turkish troops
were often effective, as at Gallipoli.

In this battle, the British launched a desperate,
ill advised cavalry attack because they had to
capture the town's water wells in a hurry.
While for over the last sixty years cavalry
charges like this got shot to pieces, this one
succeeded. A British officer was perplex by this,
formed a theory and checked the captured rifles.
Sure enough, over 75% of the rifles adjustable
sights were set for 400 meters or more.
Most troops, even with adjustable sights,
are inaccurate at 400 meters or more.

So the troops set the sights for long range,
began firing at long range, mostly missing.
By the time the cavalry closed to the ranges
they should start getting lots of hits,
in the excitement of the moment, they forgot
to adjust the sights, causing the bullets to
go over the heads of the cavalry.

With Carcano rifles, this would not have
happened. The sights were not adjustable.
If they tried shooting at long ranges, they
would miss with the sights set improperly,
but they would have missed anyway. By the time
the cavalry closed to under 200 meters, they
would have gotten a lot of hits and the attack
would have failed.

Troops can get tired, have insufficient sleep,
thirsty, hungry, over stressed and hurried.
Having non adjustable sights is just one less
thing that can go wrong. They would probably
waste ammunition at over 230 meters anyway.
It's good to have good sights for when
decisive combat usually takes place, at
under 200 meters.

[Coondog]

> adjustable sights. Apples and oranges.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Horse apples perhaps. The 30-06 sighted in at 200 meters would be
around 2 inches high at 100 meters. Emary says the M/C sighted in at
200 meters will be 5.5 to 6.6 inches high at 100 meters, depending on
barrel length. I doubt the 4.5 inch max difference is going to change
the world with a rifle that shoots a 3 inch group if lucky and a 5
inch group if you aren’t lucky. This is with all due respect to the
Colonel’s fine article on the benefits of a flat trajectory which of
course is true.

You’ve told me that Oswald couldn’t familiarize himself with his rifle
(No, he couldn't, considering that even you couldn't figure it out) so
I assume he would have been unable to adjust his sights for a 100
meter shot, so much for the adjustable sights.

You trained with the M-1 just as you’d train with the M/C. A battle
sight that allows you to hit the target from muzzle to the limit of
the battle sight, depending on the weapon.

Bill Clarke

[claviger]

Anthony,

> Apples and oranges. The shooter in Dealey Plaza could not aim for the
> middle of the body profile. What is suggested would work fine for soldiers
> trained to fire rifles having a high curved trajectory with sights set at
> 200 meters. Totally appropriate. That is not how Oswald was trained.
> Oswald was trained on an M-1 which has a very flat trajectory and
> adjustable sights. Apples and oranges.

That is where short range makes a big difference. With his 4x power scope
he could aim for the middle of that enlarged target. As for training, we
do know from Marina that he spent time and effort learning to fire the
Carcano. Close range helps the less professional shooter. The bullet arc
for the Carcano didn't reach maximum height until a longer distance past
where the last shot took place.

[Anthony Marsh]

With Oswald's rifle this DID happen, because his model and ammo produced
a very high midrange trajectory, just as illustrated by Whelan.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/11/2010 2:06 PM, claviger wrote:
> Anthony,
>> Apples and oranges. The shooter in Dealey Plaza could not aim for the
>> middle of the body profile. What is suggested would work fine for soldiers
>> trained to fire rifles having a high curved trajectory with sights set at
>> 200 meters. Totally appropriate. That is not how Oswald was trained.
>> Oswald was trained on an M-1 which has a very flat trajectory and
>> adjustable sights. Apples and oranges.
>
> That is where short range makes a big difference. With his 4x power scope
> he could aim for the middle of that enlarged target. As for training, we

He could not even SEE the middle of his target. It was below the top of
the back seat. He could only see the shoulders and up.

> do know from Marina that he spent time and effort learning to fire the
> Carcano. Close range helps the less professional shooter. The bullet arc

Not much practice. Not much ammunition and not much access. Marina ONLY
saw him dry firing, which does not help him learn about the high curved
trajectory.

> for the Carcano didn't reach maximum height until a longer distance past
> where the last shot took place.
>
>

You have no facts to back up your guess. 265 yards is pretty damn close
to the midpoint for either 200 yards or 200 meters.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you think that 2 inches is exactly the same as 6 inches. That
explains a lot. You flunked math. That's why you didn't go to college.

> the world with a rifle that shoots a 3 inch group if lucky and a 5
> inch group if you aren’t lucky. This is with all due respect to the
> Colonel’s fine article on the benefits of a flat trajectory which of
> course is true.
>
> You’ve told me that Oswald couldn’t familiarize himself with his rifle
> (No, he couldn't, considering that even you couldn't figure it out) so
> I assume he would have been unable to adjust his sights for a 100
> meter shot, so much for the adjustable sights.
>
> You trained with the M-1 just as you’d train with the M/C. A battle
> sight that allows you to hit the target from muzzle to the limit of
> the battle sight, depending on the weapon.
>

You seem to forget that the M-1 has adjustable iron sights and we have
the record of Oswald adjusting them at the range, but his
Mannlicher-Carcano model had FIXED iron sights which he could not adjust.

> Bill Clarke
>

[Coondog]

That you think I believe 2 inches is the same as 6 inches says much
about your thinking. It is the 4 inch difference that I say is
relatively insignificant to your belief that it is apples and
oranges. I also believe this is due to you reading much but doing
little. I did in fact graduate from college and received a commission
in the U.S. Army the same day I received my diploma. How about you?

> > the world with a rifle that shoots a 3 inch group if lucky and a 5
> > inch group if you aren’t lucky.  This is with all due respect to the
> > Colonel’s fine article on the benefits of a flat trajectory which of
> > course is true.
>
> > You’ve told me that Oswald couldn’t familiarize himself with his rifle
> > (No, he couldn't, considering that even you couldn't figure it out) so
> > I assume he would have been unable to adjust his sights for a 100
> > meter shot, so much for the adjustable sights.
>
> > You trained with the M-1 just as you’d train with the M/C.  A battle
> > sight that allows you to hit the target from muzzle to the limit of
> > the battle sight, depending on the weapon.
>
> You seem to forget that the M-1 has adjustable iron sights and we have
> the record of Oswald adjusting them at the range, but his
> Mannlicher-Carcano model had FIXED iron sights which he could not adjust.

Are you under the silly impression that a soldier adjusts his sights
for range every time a new target pops up at a different range? Do
you understand battle sight or battle zero? I didn’t think so.

Bill Clarke

[Coondog]

Confused again I see. Be advised, Marsh, that 265 yards pretty damn
well exceeds both 200 yards and 200 meters. Therefore, it cannot be
and can not be pretty damn close to the mid-point or mid-range for 200
yards or 200 meters.
And you claim I flunked math! Snicker.
Bill Clarke

[WhiskyJoe]

> You seem to forget that the M-1 has adjustable
> iron sights and we have the record of Oswald
> adjusting them at the range, but his
> Mannlicher-Carcano model had FIXED iron
> sights which he could not adjust.

And that was ideal for Oswald.

The limousine is moving. It moves two feet
between the time the bullet is fired and the
bullet reaches the limousine. That means that
at Oswald's angle, he will miss 4.5 inches
low.

But, using Dave Emary's Ballistic Coefficient
of 0.275, one can calculate that at 88 yards,
Oswald's rifle will miss 5.5 inches high.
Which works out almost perfectly for Oswald.
He should, in theory, miss only 1 inch high
and 1.5 inches to the left, at JFK's head
at z312.

This was unfortunate for JFK. Shooting at a
target which moves 24 inches by the time the
bullet gets there, with a rifle that shoots
high by 5.5 inches, one may tend to miss
anywhere in-between 0 and 29 inches,
depending on the angle. But because the angle
was almost perfect for Oswald, he would only
tend to miss by under 2 inches.

[claviger]

On Jun 11, 9:57 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 6/11/2010 2:06 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> > Anthony,
> >> Apples and oranges. The shooter in Dealey Plaza could not aim for the
> >> middle of the body profile. What is suggested would work fine for soldiers
> >> trained to fire rifles having a high curved trajectory with sights set at
> >> 200 meters. Totally appropriate. That is not how Oswald was trained.
> >> Oswald was trained on an M-1 which has a very flat trajectory and
> >> adjustable sights. Apples and oranges.
> > That is where short range makes a big difference. With his 4x power scope
> > he could aim for the middle of that enlarged target. As for training, we
> He could not even SEE the middle of his target. It was below the top of
> the back seat. He could only see the shoulders and up.

The middle of the target he could see 4 times magnified was the neck.
The first wound was near that center point.

> > do know from Marina that he spent time and effort learning to fire the
> > Carcano. Close range helps the less professional shooter. The bullet arc
> Not much practice. Not much ammunition and not much access. Marina ONLY
> saw him dry firing, which does not help him learn about the high curved
> trajectory.

Maybe he didn't need to learn it at short range.

> > for the Carcano didn't reach maximum height until a longer distance past
> > where the last shot took place.
> You have no facts to back up your guess. 265 yards is pretty damn close
> to the midpoint for either 200 yards or 200 meters.

The last shot took place only 40% down range of 200 meters.

265 ft = 81 meters = .40 (200 m) ...... [81 is 40% of 200]

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/12/2010 12:14 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Jun 11, 9:57 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 6/11/2010 2:06 PM, claviger wrote:
>>
>>> Anthony,
>>>> Apples and oranges. The shooter in Dealey Plaza could not aim for the
>>>> middle of the body profile. What is suggested would work fine for soldiers
>>>> trained to fire rifles having a high curved trajectory with sights set at
>>>> 200 meters. Totally appropriate. That is not how Oswald was trained.
>>>> Oswald was trained on an M-1 which has a very flat trajectory and
>>>> adjustable sights. Apples and oranges.
>>> That is where short range makes a big difference. With his 4x power scope
>>> he could aim for the middle of that enlarged target. As for training, we
>> He could not even SEE the middle of his target. It was below the top of
>> the back seat. He could only see the shoulders and up.
> The middle of the target he could see 4 times magnified was the neck.
> The first wound was near that center point.
>

So you think the shooter was aiming for the neck? Is that how Marines
are taught or does that reveal that it wasn't a Marine who did the shooting?

>>> do know from Marina that he spent time and effort learning to fire the
>>> Carcano. Close range helps the less professional shooter. The bullet arc
>> Not much practice. Not much ammunition and not much access. Marina ONLY
>> saw him dry firing, which does not help him learn about the high curved
>> trajectory.
> Maybe he didn't need to learn it at short range.
>

Maybe you aren't paying attention.

>>> for the Carcano didn't reach maximum height until a longer distance past
>>> where the last shot took place.
>> You have no facts to back up your guess. 265 yards is pretty damn close
>> to the midpoint for either 200 yards or 200 meters.
> The last shot took place only 40% down range of 200 meters.
>
> 265 ft = 81 meters = .40 (200 m) ...... [81 is 40% of 200]
>
>

Which is very close to the midrange height crossover.
You think a difference of 1/2 inch is significant versus 6 inches?

[Anthony Marsh]

265 FEET, the distance the WC claimed for a shot at Z-313.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you think that shooting 4 inches high is accurate?

[Coondog]

But you said YARDS. Please be clear.

Bill Clarke

[Coondog]

I think with a rifle that could have been shooting a 3 inch to 5 inch
group the 4 inches you mentioned becomes rather irrelevant.

Of course I don’t consider a rifle shooting a 5 inch group accurate to
begin with. I can cover 3 rounds of my 22-250 with a dime at 100 yards.
That is accurate.

Bill Clarke

[claviger]

On Jun 12, 5:00 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 6/12/2010 12:14 PM, claviger wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 11, 9:57 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:
> >> On 6/11/2010 2:06 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> >>> Anthony,
> >>>> Apples and oranges. The shooter in Dealey Plaza could not aim for the
> >>>> middle of the body profile. What is suggested would work fine for soldiers
> >>>> trained to fire rifles having a high curved trajectory with sights set at
> >>>> 200 meters. Totally appropriate. That is not how Oswald was trained.
> >>>> Oswald was trained on an M-1 which has a very flat trajectory and
> >>>> adjustable sights. Apples and oranges.
> >>> That is where short range makes a big difference. With his 4x power scope
> >>> he could aim for the middle of that enlarged target. As for training, we
> >> He could not even SEE the middle of his target. It was below the top of
> >> the back seat. He could only see the shoulders and up.
> > The middle of the target he could see 4 times magnified was the neck.
> > The first wound was near that center point.
>
> So you think the shooter was aiming for the neck? Is that how Marines
> are taught or does that reveal that it wasn't a Marine who did the shooting?

Marines are taught to aim at the middle of a target they can see,
mainly because the enemy can be so uncooperative about exposing their
whole torso for our Marines to shoot at in combat.

> >>> do know from Marina that he spent time and effort learning to fire the
> >>> Carcano. Close range helps the less professional shooter. The bullet arc
> >> Not much practice. Not much ammunition and not much access. Marina ONLY
> >> saw him dry firing, which does not help him learn about the high curved
> >> trajectory.
> > Maybe he didn't need to learn it at short range.
> Maybe you aren't paying attention.

I'm paying close attention to everything you say, which is convincing
me with every response you make that you don't have a clue what you
are talking about.

> >>> for the Carcano didn't reach maximum height until a longer distance past
> >>> where the last shot took place.
> >> You have no facts to back up your guess. 265 yards is pretty damn close
> >> to the midpoint for either 200 yards or 200 meters.
> > The last shot took place only 40% down range of 200 meters.
>
> > 265 ft = 81 meters = .40 (200 m) ...... [81 is 40% of 200]
>
> Which is very close to the midrange height crossover.
> You think a difference of 1/2 inch is significant versus 6 inches?

I think you have no idea what "Battle Zero" means for a military rifle
or what "point blank range" means that is created by open sights set
at 200 m battle zero.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/13/2010 10:47 AM, claviger wrote:
> On Jun 12, 5:00 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 6/12/2010 12:14 PM, claviger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 11, 9:57 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/2010 2:06 PM, claviger wrote:
>>
>>>>> Anthony,
>>>>>> Apples and oranges. The shooter in Dealey Plaza could not aim for the
>>>>>> middle of the body profile. What is suggested would work fine for soldiers
>>>>>> trained to fire rifles having a high curved trajectory with sights set at
>>>>>> 200 meters. Totally appropriate. That is not how Oswald was trained.
>>>>>> Oswald was trained on an M-1 which has a very flat trajectory and
>>>>>> adjustable sights. Apples and oranges.
>>>>> That is where short range makes a big difference. With his 4x power scope
>>>>> he could aim for the middle of that enlarged target. As for training, we
>>>> He could not even SEE the middle of his target. It was below the top of
>>>> the back seat. He could only see the shoulders and up.
>>> The middle of the target he could see 4 times magnified was the neck.
>>> The first wound was near that center point.
>>
>> So you think the shooter was aiming for the neck? Is that how Marines
>> are taught or does that reveal that it wasn't a Marine who did the shooting?
> Marines are taught to aim at the middle of a target they can see,
> mainly because the enemy can be so uncooperative about exposing their
> whole torso for our Marines to shoot at in combat.
>

Ok, fine. So the TSBD shoot aims at the middle of the head, exactly where
the HSCA said there was a bullet wound, but the defective
Mannlicher-Carcano sends that bullet 8 inches above the line of sight.
Then where does the bullet hit, genius?

[Anthony Marsh]

So indeed you do call missing by 4 inches accurate.

> Of course I don’t consider a rifle shooting a 5 inch group accurate to
> begin with. I can cover 3 rounds of my 22-250 with a dime at 100 yards.
> That is accurate.
>

Yeah, at the bottom of the target, not in the bullseye.

> Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

Some other WC defender realized it was only a typo.

[r2bz...@sbcglobal.net]

Accuracy is as accuracy does. A 3 to 5 inch grouping can be
inaccurate, yet one of that group can land smack in the upper part of
someone's head.

In both of the shots that hit JFK, Oswald could have been aiming for
the head.

***Ron Judge

[Coondog]

Well genius, what if the shooter wasn’t aiming at the head. What if he
was aiming for the largest part of the target as he was trained to do in
the Marines? That would be somewhere around the base of the neck and
shoulders. Then add the elevation of the mid-range trajectory and where
does that put the bullet?

And where do you come up with this 8 inches. Emary says 5.5 to 6.5 inches
depending on barrel length. Have you added to the barrel length of
Oswald’s weapon?

Bill Clarke

[Coondog]

Stop trying to put words into what I say, as you say. I said it was
irrelevant in this case.

> > Of course I don’t consider a rifle shooting a 5 inch group accurate to
> > begin with.  I can cover 3 rounds of my 22-250 with a dime at 100 yards.
> > That is accurate.
>
> Yeah, at the bottom of the target, not in the bullseye.

Actually 1.5 inches above the bull at 100 yards. That way I can
pretty well hold dead on out to 200 yards. Now, see how that works?

Bill Clarke

[Coondog]

> Some other WC defender realized it was only a typo.- Hide quoted text -
>

I’m sorry Marsh. Guess I was shocked that you could make any
mistake. Even one so small as a typo.
Bill Clarke

[Coondog]

Certainly true and I believe that is what happened.

> In both of the shots that hit JFK, Oswald could have been aiming for
> the head.
>

He could have been. I’d call it a lucky shot (moving target + shooter
error + rifle error) except he made two hits out of three and I think
that takes the luck out of it. I wonder if he wasn’t aiming lower at
the base of the neck but we’ll never know.

Bill Clarke

[claviger]

Coondog,

Where was he aiming? If the scope was sighted in correctly at 100
yards by LHO himself, then he did some accurate shooting at the middle
of the picture in his scope. If the scope was off high to the right
then he probably stopped following on trigger pull, but the moving
vehicle put the target back on trajectory. Even so he was close to
vertical centerline on both shots. I think FBI agent Robert A Frazier
got it right. The defective scope made up for a any slow lead.

[Anthony Marsh]

> Well genius, what if the shooter wasn�t aiming at the head. What if he

> was aiming for the largest part of the target as he was trained to do in
> the Marines? That would be somewhere around the base of the neck and
> shoulders. Then add the elevation of the mid-range trajectory and where
> does that put the bullet?
>
> And where do you come up with this 8 inches. Emary says 5.5 to 6.5 inches
> depending on barrel length. Have you added to the barrel length of

> Oswald�s weapon?
>
> Bill Clarke
>

Again you are clueless, so you guess. Adding to the barrel length of
Oswald's rifle would have had the opposite effect.

[Coondog]

That could well be.

Bill Clarke

[Coondog]

> > Well genius, what if the shooter wasn t aiming at the head.  What if he

> > was aiming for the largest part of the target as he was trained to do in
> > the Marines?  That would be somewhere around the base of the neck and
> > shoulders.  Then add the elevation of the mid-range trajectory and where
> > does that put the bullet?
>
> > And where do you come up with this 8 inches.  Emary says 5.5 to 6.5 inches
> > depending on barrel length.  Have you added to the barrel length of

> > Oswald s weapon?

>
> > Bill Clarke
>
> Again you are clueless, so you guess. Adding to the barrel length of
> Oswald's rifle would have had the opposite effect.
>

Of course you are right here. I guess I just had a senior moment.
And I can’t even blame it on a typo.
So, where’d you get the 8 inches?
Bill Clarke

[Mi...@jfkballistics.com]

Joe,

Arguing ballistics with Anthony is like teaching a pig to sing. He
simply does not comprehend the subject.

I would also add that the BC of .275 is not calculated with rifling
marks as a consideration. The correct BC is .283, not significant
really, but accurate.

Mike

[Anthony Marsh]

You seem to be arguing with Whiskey Joe.
I did not see anything I have said which you are trying to refute.

[claviger]

On Monday, June 7, 2010 9:35:47 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> Dave Emary
> Chief Ballistic Scientist
> Hornady Manufacturing Inc
> Grand Island, Nebraska
>
> SHOOTING THE 6
> http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/emary.html
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> Shooting the 6.5 X 52 mm, 7.35 x 51mm Cartridges and the Carcano
> Rifles,
> an article by Dave Emary, Senior Ballistician of Hornady Manufacturing
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> The 6.5 X 52 mm cartridge has taken a great deal of criticism as being
> underpowered and anemic. From a ballistic standpoint this is a little
> hard to justify. The Swedish 6.5 X 55 mm cartridge is considered an
> outstanding cartridge yet it is only able to produce 100 fps more
> velocity with a 156-grain bullet in the M96 rifle. The 6.5 X 55
> requires a maximum average pressure of 55,000 psi and approximately 6
> more grains of powder to produce this meager gain in performance. The .
> 30-30 Winchester, regarded as an adequate deer rifle and known to have
> killed many moose and bear produces 2,220 fps in a 24" barrel with a
> 170 grain bullet. The 6.5 X 52 mm fires a bullet with a higher
> ballistic coefficient, at a higher velocity, shoots flatter and has
> far more penetration capability than the .30-30. From the standpoint
> of a service rifle cartridge the 6.5 X 52 with its relatively low
> operating pressure, coupled with its modest powder charge would result
> in much less barrel throat erosion and wear. This would equate to
> longer barrel life and decreased operating cost. In fact, much of what
> was done in the Carcano rifle/ammunition system was aimed at long
> barrel life, as will be shown later. From my point of view the 6.5 X
> 52 is a very efficient cartridge, offering adequate performance for
> what it was intended.
>
> The only fault that one might level against the 6.5 X 52 as a military
> cartridge is that it had relatively humane terminal ballistics. The
> very long, blunt nosed bullet coupled with the fast twist rate of the
> gun resulted in a bullet that was very stable with a very high
> resistance to tumbling. The cartridge was known to have inflicted many
> "through and through" wounds, just leaving a small wound channel. The
> bullet typically would not tumble inside its' target unless it
> encountered something hard such as bone. When it did tumble the
> wounding effect is well known.
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> The original 6.5 X 52 mm Carcano design used a gain twist barrel. The
> gain twist results in a very slow initial twist in the barrel
> progressively getting faster until the full twist rate is attained at
> the muzzle. The slow initial twist results in substantially less
> torque being imparted to the bullet during the highest loading phase
> of the interior ballistic cycle. This results in significantly less
> barrel wear in the throat. This coupled with the very deep rifling of
> the barrel would result in barrels that would have a very long wear
> and accuracy life. This in fact is the case. Many M91 model rifles
> show signs of considerable amounts of ammunition being fired through
> them, because of the crazed/frosted condition of the bore, yet still
> show very strong rifling and shoot well with the proper size bullets.
> The 7.35 X 51 mm Carcano rifles used a standard fixed twist barrel.
>
> The Carcano bolt is the model of a simple, easy to field strip bolt.
> It is about as fool proof as you can get for a common soldier. The
> Carcano trigger has taken a considerable amount of criticism. The
> trigger is basically a Mauser type two-stage trigger. In almost all
> cases if you find the trigger rough or creepy simply polishing the
> sear and trigger mating faces result in a very acceptable trigger for
> a military rifle. For the most part I have found Carcano triggers have
> less creep, are more crisp and lighter than the majority of Mauser
> triggers I have encountered.
>
> The materials used in the Carcano are excellent. These rifles were
> made from special steels perfected by the Czechs, for which the
> Italians paid royalties. If you have ever tried doing any work on a
> Carcano receiver you will find out just how hard and tough the steel
> is. The Carcano has also received a reputation as being a "weak"
> design. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Italians made a
> small run of Carcanos early in WW II chambered for 8 X 57 JS. The
> Germans rechambered some Carcanos to 8 X 57 JS late in WW II. These
> rifles were also proofed for this cartridge. The CIP minimum suggested
> proof pressure for the 8 x 57 JS cartridge is 73,500 psi. I hardly
> call this a weak action.

> ____________________________________________________________
>
> The Italians apparently realized that a 300-meter battle zero was a
> bit impractical and with the introduction of the M38 models went to a
> 200 meter battle zero. This zero results in a maximum height of

> trajectory of 5.5" - 6.5" at a range of approximately 100 yards,

> depending on barrel length. With this sight setting, by simply holding
> on the middle of the torso, it would have been hard to miss the target

> out to about 220 meters. The Carcano's also used a unique sight

> picture. The proper sight picture for regulated sights on a Carcano is
> with the front sight in the very bottom of the rear sight groove. This
> is how the Italian army manuals instructed that the sights be used.
> Potentially, this would allow for two battle sight settings. The
> normal use as mentioned above would be a 200 meter zero. Using the
> Mauser sighting method, the front sight level with the rear sight,

> would result in a zero of 330 - 350 meters. This is about the maximum

> range practical for attempting to engage a target with iron sights.
>
> I contend with the Carcano the Italians had a very intelligent
> approach for a battle rifle. The fixed sights were basically fool
> proof. The Italians must have realized with the M38 models that nearly
> all small arms engagements occurred inside of 200 meters. The fixed
> sights with a 200 meter zero would have been fool proof for a soldier
> under stress, who was probably a poor judge of distance to begin with.
> The soldier would have had to do nothing but point and shoot at the

> middle of his enemy for ranges out to 220 - 230 meters. How much more

> simple and effective could it have been made.
> ____________________________________________________________
>

> 6.5 x 52 mm
>
> The Carcano rifles are capable of outstanding accuracy. With the
> exception of a military issue type load in the short carbines they are
> very pleasant to shoot from a recoil standpoint. Because of the above
> mentioned sight picture for the Carcano, front sight in the bottom of
> the rear sight notch, it is very important to have a consistent stock-
> cheek weld for consistent accuracy. It is often very helpful to use a
> carbide lamp or a sight black product to blacken the sights, which
> improves contrast and sight picture.
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> CONCLUSION:
>
> The 6.5 X 52 is a very useful and capable cartridge. It served well as
> a military cartridge for over 80 years. The 7.35 X 51 would have been
> an even more effective military cartridge than the 6.5 X 52 had its
> timing been different. It is interesting to note that the .308
> Winchester / 7.62 X 51 mm NATO and the 7.35 X 51 mm are nearly the
> same dimensions. Both the 6.5 and 7.35 cartridges are fun to shoot and
> properly loaded capable of very good accuracy. The Carcano rifle is a
> well made rifle that is by no means weak or poorly manufactured. They
> are reliable and strong rifles that are fun to shoot and offer a
> tremendous variety of types and markings for the collector. I will
> admit that they are a rather utilitarian rifle as compared to some
> others. However, they are probably one of the most efficient, cost
> effective, user friendly battle rifles produced in their era. The
> rifle, ammunition combination properly loaded is capable of accuracy
> that will rival the most accurate of the Mauser chamberings.
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> Carcano Homepage: Italian Military Rifles and Carbines
> http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/

Lee Harvey Oswald's Carcano Rifle - Shooting It
http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/lee-harvey-oswalds-carcano-rifle-shooting-it-today/
Nov 11, 2013 ... The Carcano is not thought to be one of the great battle rifles overall. ..... 50 or 100 yards) the bullet would travel a parabolic arc to the point of impact ..... when the 60 seconds started) with each round worth a max of 5 points.

[Anthony Marsh]

A blog is just one kook's opinion, not fact.
So now you are reduced to arguing with yourself?

[mainframetech]

Both Frazier (FBI) and Simmons (Army) had reservations about the ability to aim with the included scope. What difference does it make whether the rifle could hit a target or not, if you couldn't aim it?

Here's a comment from Klein's gunsmith, the guy who mounted the scope on the MC rifle for Oswald:

"It was a piece of junk," Sharp said. Knowing that the warehouse on West Madison in Chicago sold much higher quality guns, Sharp was shocked at Oswald's choice and at his success. "If you want good optics, you don't buy them for three dollars [an estimate]."

Chris

[claviger]

True. There are many opinions about the so-called "Mannlicher-Carcano" rifle and I'm fascinated by the diversity of opinions about this military surplus weapon. I get the feeling there is much parroting by people who have little knowledge on the subject so I'm interested to read about someone who actually acquired one of these rifles and test fired it themselves. As we might guess it all depends on how that particular weapon performed.

> So now you are reduced to arguing with yourself?

I'm not afraid to argue with myself, or to read contrary opinions to what I might believe, nor am I afraid to post dissenting opinions on a thread I started. There was nothing wrong with the design of this military rifle, but due to the demands of war and shortage of rifles in WWII, production was sped up and quality control suffered.

This is understandable and those problems were encountered with the group of rifles purchased in bulk for the 1967 CBS sponsored field test by volunteer shooters. Some rifles performed well, some had problems, and one rifle was completely dysfunctional. The condition of each rifle would be affected by how well it was maintained by the soldiers they were issued to and how many battles the rifle was involved in. With all these variables field testing one rifle has limited value.

However, it can establish a maximum level of potential performance. Another field test revealed the Carcano had outstanding accuracy in a rapid fire exercise with no jams. This was most likely an above average performance but showed what it was capable of.

One must also keep in mind any rifle is lethal at short range, which is defined as a target inside 100 yards by hunters and military riflemen. Some hunters prefer to use an open sight rather than a scope at this close range.

[Anthony Marsh]

Wrong. The WC said the fastest that it could fire two shots is 2.24
seconds. Blakey et al fired twice in 1.66 seconds. The kook in the
desert fired 6 shots in 5 seconds.

> One must also keep in mind any rifle is lethal at short range, which is defined as a target inside 100 yards by hunters and military riflemen. Some hunters prefer to use an open sight rather than a scope at this close range.
>

Failure Analysis also preferred the open sights. They found the scope
distracting when trying to reacquire the target.

>
>

[mainframetech]

Note also that any rifle can be treated badly, and have its scope mounted improperly so that it can't be aimed, which is the case for the MC rifle in the JFK case. No bullet from it ever hit or hurt anyone from the TSBD, and no one can prove that it fired a bullet that did any damage to anyone. Including what the FBI held evidence.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 7:42:04 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

>
> Both Frazier (FBI) and Simmons (Army) had reservations about the ability to aim with the included scope. What difference does it make whether the rifle could hit a target or not, if you couldn't aim it?
>
>
>
> Here's a comment from Klein's gunsmith, the guy who mounted the scope on the MC rifle for Oswald:
>
>
>
> "It was a piece of junk," Sharp said. Knowing that the warehouse on West Madison in Chicago sold much higher quality guns, Sharp was shocked at Oswald's choice and at his success. "If you want good optics, you don't buy them for three dollars [an estimate]."
>

Why would he be shocked? Do you think Oswald was the only one who bought the less expensive rifle and scope? Oswald didn't buy the rifle with the idea of shooting JFK because he would have had no idea he would get the opportunity. If he had a target in mind when he bought it, it was probably Walker. He didn't need a highly accurate rifle for either shooting because he was firing at relatively close ranges. Why he missed Walker is anybody's guess. Maybe Walker moved. Maybe Oswald flinched. Who knows? Who cares? He tried to shoot him and missed just as he missed his first shot at JFK. But he took two more cracks at JFK and found the mark.

[cmikes]

Yes, one of the problems with using a scope is that it takes longer to
reacquire your target after working the bolt. I've always felt that a
military trained rifleman like Oswald would use the open sights if
possible, especially on a moving target at close range.

[mainframetech]

Have you looked closely at the MC rifle? Especially with the scope in
place? Trying to shoot with the iron sights would be a pain with the
scope hitting you in the forehead and keeping you from getting up to the
sight properly. And no shooter from the 6th floor would shoot the MC
rifle without the scope then stop and put it back on before hiding the
rifle among a pile of books, right after shooting JFK. Gotta think this
stuff through.

Chris

[mainframetech]

LOL! Try as you might, you'll never make it work...:) Oswald bought
the least expensive rifle because he had little money and he didn't intend
to shoot anyone. He wanted the rifle to impress someone, and so he didn't
buy any ammunition from Klein's even though they made it easy for him to
do so. He had Marina take some pictures with him holding the rifle and
wearing the revolver, and then rolled the rifle up in a blanket and forgot
about it. Since they look for where Oswald might have bought ammunition
and couldn't find anywhere, where do you suppose he got the 4-5 shells
found in the TSBD? From the FBI? They seems to have plenty of it.

Oswald didn't shoot at Walker with the MC rifle. He had no ammunition
to do that. And if he had shot at walker, he would have learned the lousy
condition of the scope and had it fixed before trying for a president...:)
Try some other story to sell...:)

Chris

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:48:51 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> LOL! Try as you might, you'll never make it work...:) Oswald bought
> the least expensive rifle because he had little money and he didn't intend
> to shoot anyone.

How could you possibly know that?

> He wanted the rifle to impress someone, and so he didn't
> buy any ammunition from Klein's even though they made it easy for him to
> do so.

So anyone who doesn't buy their ammunition at the same place they buy a
gun doesn't intend to shoot the gun. Brilliant, Sherlock!!!

> He had Marina take some pictures with him holding the rifle and
> wearing the revolver, and then rolled the rifle up in a blanket and forgot
> about it.

Oh he forgot about it? But for some strange reason, it wasn't in the
blanket when Marina led police to the garage to show them where her
husband kept the rifle.

> Since they look for where Oswald might have bought ammunition
> and couldn't find anywhere,

Simply not true.

> where do you suppose he got the 4-5 shells
> found in the TSBD? From the FBI? They seems to have plenty of it.
>

Most likely he bought one or two boxes of 20 and fired all but the four he
had left when he took the rifle to the TSBD.

>
> Oswald didn't shoot at Walker with the MC rifle. He had no ammunition
> to do that. And if he had shot at walker, he would have learned the lousy
> condition of the scope and had it fixed before trying for a president...:)
> Try some other story to sell...:)
>

Sometimes I wonder if you aren't really an LN and you write the craziest
shit you can think of just to parody the CTs. It's hard to imagine
somebody could really believe the things you write.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/13/2014 7:48 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 2:22:31 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 7:42:04 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Both Frazier (FBI) and Simmons (Army) had reservations about the ability to aim with the included scope. What difference does it make whether the rifle could hit a target or not, if you couldn't aim it?
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Here's a comment from Klein's gunsmith, the guy who mounted the scope on the MC rifle for Oswald:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> "It was a piece of junk," Sharp said. Knowing that the warehouse on West Madison in Chicago sold much higher quality guns, Sharp was shocked at Oswald's choice and at his success. "If you want good optics, you don't buy them for three dollars [an estimate]."
>>
>>>
>>
>> Why would he be shocked? Do you think Oswald was the only one who bought the less expensive rifle and scope? Oswald didn't buy the rifle with the idea of shooting JFK because he would have had no idea he would get the opportunity. If he had a target in mind when he bought it, it was probably Walker. He didn't need a highly accurate rifle for either shooting because he was firing at relatively close ranges. Why he missed Walker is anybody's guess. Maybe Walker moved. Maybe Oswald flinched. Who knows? Who cares? He tried to shoot him and missed just as he missed his first shot at JFK. But he took two more cracks at JFK and found the mark.
>
>
> LOL! Try as you might, you'll never make it work...:) Oswald bought
> the least expensive rifle because he had little money and he didn't intend
> to shoot anyone. He wanted the rifle to impress someone, and so he didn't
> buy any ammunition from Klein's even though they made it easy for him to
> do so. He had Marina take some pictures with him holding the rifle and
> wearing the revolver, and then rolled the rifle up in a blanket and forgot
> about it. Since they look for where Oswald might have bought ammunition
> and couldn't find anywhere, where do you suppose he got the 4-5 shells
> found in the TSBD? From the FBI? They seems to have plenty of it.
>

Again, Oswald bought that rifle specifically and only to shoot General
Walker. He admitted the shooting to his wife and wrote a note to her
explaining what to do if he was arrested that night. Arrested for what?
Jay-walking?

> Oswald didn't shoot at Walker with the MC rifle. He had no ammunition
> to do that. And if he had shot at walker, he would have learned the lousy
> condition of the scope and had it fixed before trying for a president...:)
> Try some other story to sell...:)
>

We don't know when the scope was damaged.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

That is pure nonsense. Many people have shot an identical Carcano with
none of those problems. In fact the experts from Failure Analysis
Associates said it was easier to shoot using the iron sights than the
scope. You need to get out into the real world and get some real
experience.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

No, not a guess. I explained it in detail. His Carcano had a very high
midrange trajectory and he could not see the window frame in his scope,
so his bullet went 6 inches above his point of aim and hit the meeting
rails of the window.

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:07:51 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:48:51 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >
>
> > LOL! Try as you might, you'll never make it work...:) Oswald bought
>
> > the least expensive rifle because he had little money and he didn't intend
>
> > to shoot anyone.
>
>
>
> How could you possibly know that?
>

It was obvious, do you mean that you didn't figure it out?

1. He bought NO ammunition when he had a perfect chance to get some on the
very same order from Klein's that he was sending in anyway.

2. They found NO place where he bought ammunition in Dallas, and he didn't
have a car to travel around and search for a dealer. You've been shown
documents that prove that there were only 2 places for Oswald to buy
ammunition in Dallas, and he didn't go to either.

3. There were NO ammunition boxes found in his effects after his death.

4. There were only 4-5 shells found in the TSBD that were for the MC
rifle, and they didn't come from Oswald. When he bought the rifle he
spent as little money as possible, and when he got the rifle, he had his
picture taken with it and then put it away wrapped up in a blanket because
he didn't need it for anything else. He anted it to impress someone, not
shoot anyone.

5. The ammunition for the MC rifle was old from 1944, which was the last
batch made by the Western Cartridge company.

6. The rifle was never used for practice either, because if it were, the
misalignment of the scope would become obvious and it would have been
repaired if the rifle were intended to shoot someone with. However, it
wasn't repaired.

>
>
> > He wanted the rifle to impress someone, and so he didn't
>
> > buy any ammunition from Klein's even though they made it easy for him to
>
> > do so.
>
>
>
> So anyone who doesn't buy their ammunition at the same place they buy a
>
> gun doesn't intend to shoot the gun. Brilliant, Sherlock!!!
>

Try not to be too smart and call names. McAdams occasionally notices
and doesn't allow it. It's just a result of not having anything
intelligent to say anyway. In this case, I recommend that you think it
through. You've been shown documents before that prove that there were
only 2 places that had those bullets and both places said they never sold
any to Oswald. And everyone by that time knew what Oswald looked like
after the murder. And the offer in the ad for the rifle was the best and
simplest way to get ammunition if he was going to shoot anything, even
targets for practice.

>
>
> > He had Marina take some pictures with him holding the rifle and
>
> > wearing the revolver, and then rolled the rifle up in a blanket and forgot
>
> > about it.
>
>
>
> Oh he forgot about it? But for some strange reason, it wasn't in the
>
> blanket when Marina led police to the garage to show them where her
>
> husband kept the rifle.
>

Think it through. He probably was the one that took the rifle to work
for some reason he was given. For trade, show, or sale. I have no
problem if you say he brought it in. He was a sucker, they gave him a
good reason, and he brought it in. Simple.



>
>
> > Since they looked for where Oswald might have bought ammunition

>
> > and couldn't find anywhere,
>
>
>
> Simply not true.
>

Nope, won't do. If you know where Oswald bought ammunition for the MC
rifle, then let us all in on the secret...:) I think you went off on that
one...:)

>
>
> > where do you suppose he got the 4-5 shells
>
> > found in the TSBD? From the FBI? They seems to have plenty of it.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Most likely he bought one or two boxes of 20 and fired all but the four he
>
> had left when he took the rifle to the TSBD.
>

Nope, won't do. You've already forgotten that they could not find
anywhere that he bought any ammunition for the MC rifle. As well, if he
had practiced at all, he would have noticed that the sight was misaligned
and had it fixed...you can't kill a president with a bad scope on your
rifle...:)

>
>
> >
>
> > Oswald didn't shoot at Walker with the MC rifle. He had no ammunition
>
> > to do that. And if he had shot at walker, he would have learned the lousy
>
> > condition of the scope and had it fixed before trying for a president...:)
>
> > Try some other story to sell...:)
>
> >
>
>
>
> Sometimes I wonder if you aren't really an LN and you write the craziest
>
> shit you can think of just to parody the CTs. It's hard to imagine
>
> somebody could really believe the things you write.

It all hangs together, and much of it is from testimony too, and you
know it or you wouldn't spend all your time trying to refute most of
it...you're an important part of my statements, having tested them against
all the tons of little things you keep trying to dredge up to get away
from what I'm saying, I've cleaned up my beliefs on the case very well.
Thank you for the opportunity...:)

Chris

[bigdog]

What you have presented is an educated guess, but still a guess. This
presupposes that Oswald's aiming point was 6 inches below the rails. To
know this, you would need to know not only Walker's position as Oswald
took aim but also Oswald's aiming point, (head, torso, etc.). It might
also be that Oswald simply jerked the shot causing him to miss from
relatively short range. There are simply too many variables to say with
any certainty why Oswald missed. All we can say is Walker got lucky. JFK
did not.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, it is a simple fact of exterior ballistics. Basic Physics.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/14/2014 10:39 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:07:51 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:48:51 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> LOL! Try as you might, you'll never make it work...:) Oswald bought
>>
>>> the least expensive rifle because he had little money and he didn't intend
>>
>>> to shoot anyone.
>>
>>
>>
>> How could you possibly know that?
>>
>
>
> It was obvious, do you mean that you didn't figure it out?
>
> 1. He bought NO ammunition when he had a perfect chance to get some on the
> very same order from Klein's that he was sending in anyway.
>

Klein's was selling the SMI ammo, not the WCC ammo. He didn't want 108
rounds. He only needed 20.

> 2. They found NO place where he bought ammunition in Dallas, and he didn't
> have a car to travel around and search for a dealer. You've been shown
> documents that prove that there were only 2 places for Oswald to buy
> ammunition in Dallas, and he didn't go to either.
>

You need to get out in the real world some day. He took the bus to go
shoot at Walker. He got out shopping SOMEWHERE to get the Air Force pistol
holster that he used as a strap for his rifle. You are too young to
remember, but back in those days they had a store called Army-Navy where
you could buy military surplus VERY cheaply.

> 3. There were NO ammunition boxes found in his effects after his death.
>

So what? Most people do not keep the ammo boxes after they've used all
the bullets. Do you?

> 4. There were only 4-5 shells found in the TSBD that were for the MC
> rifle, and they didn't come from Oswald. When he bought the rifle he

Show me your fifth shell.

> spent as little money as possible, and when he got the rifle, he had his

No, he paid more to get it with a scope premounted.

> picture taken with it and then put it away wrapped up in a blanket because
> he didn't need it for anything else. He anted it to impress someone, not
> shoot anyone.
>

Then why didn't he hang it on the mantle or show it to people?

> 5. The ammunition for the MC rifle was old from 1944, which was the last
> batch made by the Western Cartridge company.
>

Typo. 1954.

> 6. The rifle was never used for practice either, because if it were, the
> misalignment of the scope would become obvious and it would have been
> repaired if the rifle were intended to shoot someone with. However, it
> wasn't repaired.
>

No, not when he had no fixed distance to practice on.
You keep repeating the same old false information every day besides
being corrected hundreds of times.

>
>>
>>
>>> He wanted the rifle to impress someone, and so he didn't
>>
>>> buy any ammunition from Klein's even though they made it easy for him to
>>
>>> do so.
>>
>>
>>
>> So anyone who doesn't buy their ammunition at the same place they buy a
>>
>> gun doesn't intend to shoot the gun. Brilliant, Sherlock!!!
>>
>
>
> Try not to be too smart and call names. McAdams occasionally notices
> and doesn't allow it. It's just a result of not having anything
> intelligent to say anyway. In this case, I recommend that you think it
> through. You've been shown documents before that prove that there were
> only 2 places that had those bullets and both places said they never sold
> any to Oswald. And everyone by that time knew what Oswald looked like
> after the murder. And the offer in the ad for the rifle was the best and
> simplest way to get ammunition if he was going to shoot anything, even
> targets for practice.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> He had Marina take some pictures with him holding the rifle and
>>
>>> wearing the revolver, and then rolled the rifle up in a blanket and forgot
>>
>>> about it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh he forgot about it? But for some strange reason, it wasn't in the
>>
>> blanket when Marina led police to the garage to show them where her
>>
>> husband kept the rifle.
>>
>
>
> Think it through. He probably was the one that took the rifle to work
> for some reason he was given. For trade, show, or sale. I have no
> problem if you say he brought it in. He was a sucker, they gave him a
> good reason, and he brought it in. Simple.
>

It was Take Your Rifle to Work Week.

>
>
>>
>>
>>> Since they looked for where Oswald might have bought ammunition
>>
>>> and couldn't find anywhere,
>>
>>
>>
>> Simply not true.
>>
>
>
> Nope, won't do. If you know where Oswald bought ammunition for the MC
> rifle, then let us all in on the secret...:) I think you went off on that
> one...:)
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> where do you suppose he got the 4-5 shells
>>
>>> found in the TSBD? From the FBI? They seems to have plenty of it.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Most likely he bought one or two boxes of 20 and fired all but the four he
>>
>> had left when he took the rifle to the TSBD.
>>
>
>
> Nope, won't do. You've already forgotten that they could not find
> anywhere that he bought any ammunition for the MC rifle. As well, if he
> had practiced at all, he would have noticed that the sight was misaligned
> and had it fixed...you can't kill a president with a bad scope on your
> rifle...:)
>

They don't have to prove where he bought the ammunition.

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, August 14, 2014 10:43:41 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:19:59 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> > On 8/13/2014 2:22 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Why would he be shocked? Do you think Oswald was the only one who bought the less expensive rifle and scope? Oswald didn't buy the rifle with the idea of shooting JFK because he would have had no idea he would get the opportunity. If he had a target in mind when he bought it, it was probably Walker. He didn't need a highly accurate rifle for either shooting because he was firing at relatively close ranges. Why he missed Walker is anybody's guess. Maybe Walker moved. Maybe Oswald flinched. Who knows? Who cares? He tried to shoot him and missed just as he missed his first shot at JFK. But he took two more cracks at JFK and found the mark.
>

So now we're reading the minds of dead men. 'He bought a rifle with no
idea he was going to shoot JFK'...:) He had no intention of shooting
anyone or anything. He had no ammunition and didn't buy any when he had
the chance, or later in Dallas at the only 2 places that handled the old
ammo from 1944 for the MC rifle.

There is no independent evidence that Oswald shot at Walker either.
And if he did he would have noticed the failure of the scope and repaired
it before tackling JFK, don'tcha think?

> >
>
> > No, not a guess. I explained it in detail. His Carcano had a very high
>
> > midrange trajectory and he could not see the window frame in his scope,
>
> > so his bullet went 6 inches above his point of aim and hit the meeting
>
> > rails of the window.
>

With a faulty scope, his bullet would have gone astray in any event,
but he had no ammunition to shoot at Walker. Where did that come from?
The bullet was too damaged to track down the rifle it came from.

>
>
> What you have presented is an educated guess, but still a guess. This
>
> presupposes that Oswald's aiming point was 6 inches below the rails. To
>
> know this, you would need to know not only Walker's position as Oswald
>
> took aim but also Oswald's aiming point, (head, torso, etc.). It might
>
> also be that Oswald simply jerked the shot causing him to miss from
>
> relatively short range. There are simply too many variables to say with
>
> any certainty why Oswald missed. All we can say is Walker got lucky. JFK
>
> did not.

Oswald didn't shoot at Walker. He might have heard about it, but it
wasn't him with his little MC rifle with no ammunition and a faulty scope.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Thursday, August 14, 2014 10:39:50 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:07:51 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:48:51 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > LOL! Try as you might, you'll never make it work...:) Oswald bought
>
> >
>
> > > the least expensive rifle because he had little money and he didn't intend
>
> >
>
> > > to shoot anyone.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > How could you possibly know that?
>
> It was obvious, do you mean that you didn't figure it out?
>
> 1. He bought NO ammunition when he had a perfect chance to get some on the
> very same order from Klein's that he was sending in anyway.
>

So you pretend to know what was going on inside Oswald's mind when he
ordered the rifle. There are any number of reasons he might have chosen
not to buy ammo from Klein's. He didn't have a lot of money. He had enough
to buy the rifle and scope but not enough spare cash to buy the large lot
of ammo Klein's was selling. He might have had enough just to buy one or
two boxes from a local gun shop. That is just one of many possible reasons
Oswald chose not to buy the ammo from Klein's. But of course you disregard
all the other possibilities and leap to the silly conclusion that he
didn't buy ammo because he didn't intend to shoot the rifle, only show it
off. Every hear the term "logical fallacy"?

>
> 2. They found NO place where he bought ammunition in Dallas, and he didn't
> have a car to travel around and search for a dealer. You've been shown
> documents that prove that there were only 2 places for Oswald to buy
> ammunition in Dallas, and he didn't go to either.
>

Just because they couldn't find a gun shop that remembered selling him
ammo does not even begin to prove he didn't buy his ammo locally. If I buy
a 6-pack of beer with cash from a nearby convenience store and 8 months
later, nobody at that covenience store remembers me buying the beer, does
that prove I didn't buy beer there. And even if he didn't buy it locally,
there are other places he could have gotten it.

>
> 3. There were NO ammunition boxes found in his effects after his death.
>

Who saves empty ammo boxes?

>
> 4. There were only 4-5 shells found in the TSBD that were for the MC
> rifle, and they didn't come from Oswald.

There were four. The three that were spent and the one in the breech.

> When he bought the rifle he
> spent as little money as possible,

BINGO!!! That would explain why he didn't buy the ammo then.

> and when he got the rifle, he had his
> picture taken with it and then put it away wrapped up in a blanket because
> he didn't need it for anything else. He anted it to impress someone, not
> shoot anyone.
>

More illogical assumptions. We have a witness and forensic evidence that
he fired the rifle at Walker. We have a mountain of evidence he fired it
at JFK. We have no way of knowing what he did with the rifle in between or
how many times he took it out of the blanket, used it, and then returned
it to the blanket. But in true CT form, you assume that once he wrapped
the rifle in the blanket, he left it there, never taking it out.

>
> 5. The ammunition for the MC rifle was old from 1944, which was the last
> batch made by the Western Cartridge company.
>

So? Ammo will stay good for years. As long as the bullet is seated
tightly, moisture won't get into the powder. The teenage kid who lives
next to me was sold a lot of .30-06 ammo for a rifle his mother helped him
buy. He was aware I knew a little bit about firearms so he asked me if
this was the right ammo. I looked at the stamp on the shell and it didn't
say .30-06 but instead had 70 and 72 stamped on it along with some other
markings. I asked a more knowledgeable friend of mine what it meant and
with a google search, we determined it was surplus Greek NATO ammo
manufactured in 1970 and 1972. It became surplus when NATO adopted the
5.56mm as its standard round. The ammo is over 40 years old and shoots
just fine.

>
> 6. The rifle was never used for practice either, because if it were, the
> misalignment of the scope would become obvious and it would have been
> repaired if the rifle were intended to shoot someone with. However, it
> wasn't repaired.
>

You don't know when the scope became misalligned. You just assume that.

>
> > > He wanted the rifle to impress someone, and so he didn't
> > > buy any ammunition from Klein's even though they made it easy for him to
> > > do so.
>
> > So anyone who doesn't buy their ammunition at the same place they buy a
> > gun doesn't intend to shoot the gun. Brilliant, Sherlock!!!
>
> Try not to be too smart and call names. McAdams occasionally notices
> and doesn't allow it. It's just a result of not having anything
> intelligent to say anyway. In this case, I recommend that you think it
> through.

Try taking your own advice.

> You've been shown documents before that prove that there were
> only 2 places that had those bullets and both places said they never sold
> any to Oswald.

No, they had no record they sold it to Oswald. Of course they wouldn't
because gun shops don't keep records of who they sold ammo to. To know
whether their store had sold ammo to Oswald, they would have to ask every
single employee, past and present, whether they remembered selling Oswald
the ammo and even if they didn't remember, it wouldn't prove they hadn't
because it is unlikely the person who sold ammo to Oswald would remember
that 8 months later.

> And everyone by that time knew what Oswald looked like
> after the murder.

Almost nobody knew what he looked like when he would have bought the ammo
and no reason for anyone to remember his face 8 months later.

> And the offer in the ad for the rifle was the best and
> simplest way to get ammunition if he was going to shoot anything, even
> targets for practice.
>

It might have been the best price if one was looking to buy a large lot.
It wasn't the best deal for someone who only needed a small lot.

>
> > > He had Marina take some pictures with him holding the rifle and
> > > wearing the revolver, and then rolled the rifle up in a blanket and forgot
> > > about it.
>
> > Oh he forgot about it? But for some strange reason, it wasn't in the
> > blanket when Marina led police to the garage to show them where her
> > husband kept the rifle.
>
> Think it through. He probably was the one that took the rifle to work
> for some reason he was given.

Really? Who gave him that reason? How do you know that? Or are you just
assuming that to try to make your silly story work for you.

> For trade, show, or sale. I have no
> problem if you say he brought it in.

That's good, because he brought it in.

> He was a sucker, they gave him a
> good reason, and he brought it in. Simple.
>

Who is "they"? How do you know what "they" told him?

>
> > > Since they looked for where Oswald might have bought ammunition
> > > and couldn't find anywhere,
>
> > Simply not true.
>
> Nope, won't do. If you know where Oswald bought ammunition for the MC
> rifle, then let us all in on the secret...:) I think you went off on that
> one...:)
>

I don't know where he bought the ammo. I don't need to know where he
bought the ammo. If proving where a murderer bought his ammo was a
requirement, few murderers would ever be convicted. I was on a jury in a
murder case and we sent a guy away for 15 to life and we had no idea where
he bought the ammo he used to kill his girlfriend. I'm always amazed when
CTs demand a standard of proof of Oswald's guilt that goes far beyond what
is necessary in any other murder case. I don't know why I should be
amazed. It is the kind of thinking I have come to expect from the CTs.

>
> > > where do you suppose he got the 4-5 shells
> > > found in the TSBD? From the FBI? They seems to have plenty of it.
>
> > Most likely he bought one or two boxes of 20 and fired all but the four he
> > had left when he took the rifle to the TSBD.
>
> Nope, won't do. You've already forgotten that they could not find
> anywhere that he bought any ammunition for the MC rifle. As well, if he
> had practiced at all, he would have noticed that the sight was misaligned
> and had it fixed...you can't kill a president with a bad scope on your
> rifle...:)
>

You're repeating yourself. There is no need for me to once again point out
your logical fallacies in the above statement.

>
> > > Oswald didn't shoot at Walker with the MC rifle. He had no ammunition
> > > to do that. And if he had shot at walker, he would have learned the lousy
> > > condition of the scope and had it fixed before trying for a president...:)
> > > Try some other story to sell...:)
>
> > Sometimes I wonder if you aren't really an LN and you write the craziest
> > shit you can think of just to parody the CTs. It's hard to imagine
> > somebody could really believe the things you write.
>
> It all hangs together, and much of it is from testimony too, and you
> know it or you wouldn't spend all your time trying to refute most of
> it...you're an important part of my statements, having tested them against
> all the tons of little things you keep trying to dredge up to get away
> from what I'm saying, I've cleaned up my beliefs on the case very well.
>
> Thank you for the opportunity...:)
>

You're welcome. Thank you for the comedic relief.

[bigdog]

It is noted that you failed to address the variables I pointed out in your
educated guess.

[bigdog]

On Friday, August 15, 2014 6:29:09 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, August 14, 2014 10:43:41 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:19:59 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> > > On 8/13/2014 2:22 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> > > > Why would he be shocked? Do you think Oswald was the only one who bought the less expensive rifle and scope? Oswald didn't buy the rifle with the idea of shooting JFK because he would have had no idea he would get the opportunity. If he had a target in mind when he bought it, it was probably Walker. He didn't need a highly accurate rifle for either shooting because he was firing at relatively close ranges. Why he missed Walker is anybody's guess. Maybe Walker moved. Maybe Oswald flinched. Who knows? Who cares? He tried to shoot him and missed just as he missed his first shot at JFK. But he took two more cracks at JFK and found the mark.
>

> So now we're reading the minds of dead men.
> 'He bought a rifle with no
> idea he was going to shoot JFK'...:)

Do you seriously think back in March of 1963 that Oswald could have known
that JFK would be coming to Dallas and that he would ride by Oswald's
workplace, a place he didn't even work at yet, in an open top limosine?
You don't have to be a mind reader to figure that out. You just have to
use common sense.

> He had no intention of shooting
> anyone or anything.

So now you are reading the mind of a dead man.

> He had no ammunition and didn't buy any when he had
> the chance,

He had lots of chances to buy ammo. He didn't have to buy it when he
bought the rifle. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

> or later in Dallas at the only 2 places that handled the old
> ammo from 1944 for the MC rifle.
>

There is no way you or anyone else could know if Oswald bought ammo from a
local gun shop because records are not kept of who ammo is sold to. It is
completely illogical to assume Oswald didn't buy ammo simply because there
is no proof of where he bought the ammo.

>
> There is no independent evidence that Oswald shot at Walker either.

Why does the evidence have to be "independent". The Walker bullet was
match to his Carcano, the one you claim never bought ammo for. How do you
suppose that happened? His wife testified that he had done it. But that's
not good enough for you. No amount of evidence is sufficient for a
dedicate conspiracy hobbyist.

> And if he did he would have noticed the failure of the scope and repaired
> it before tackling JFK, don'tcha think?
>

Reading minds again?

>
> With a faulty scope, his bullet would have gone astray in any event,

By a few inches. That wouldn't cause him to miss a man sized target. And
that assumes the scope wasn't damaged when he dropped it behind the boxes.
It might have been perfectly alligned when he shot JFK. Doesn't matter. We
know that Carcano was the one that was used to fire a shot at Walker and
kill JFK.

>
> but he had no ammunition to shoot at Walker.

Do you think that if you repeat something goofy dozens of times, it will
begin to sound less goofy?

> Where did that come from?

Who knows? Who cares? Can you name another murder in which the prosecution
had to prove where the accused bought his ammo? It is not one of the
elements that is required to prove someone committed murder.

> The bullet was too damaged to track down the rifle it came from.
>

Are you serious? You can't figure out that the bullet was damaged AFTER it
left the rifle? Yesterday I said facetiously that I sometimes wonder if
you aren't really a LN who writes the goofiest shit you can come up with
just to parody the CTs. When I read something this ridiculous, I'm finding
that easier to believe. It's hard to believe somebody could make that as a
serious argument.

>
> Oswald didn't shoot at Walker. He might have heard about it, but it
> wasn't him with his little MC rifle with no ammunition and a faulty scope.
>

You really are trying to make CTs look ridiculous, aren't you?

[Anthony Marsh]

He wasn't aiming for the torso. Walker was sitting at his desk. All
Oswald could see was the head. He aiming for the head, not the feet. As
Dave Emary said about the Carcano, "I suspect more than one Austrian
soldiers life was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head."

> that assumes the scope wasn't damaged when he dropped it behind the boxes.
> It might have been perfectly alligned when he shot JFK. Doesn't matter. We
> know that Carcano was the one that was used to fire a shot at Walker and
> kill JFK.
>
>>
>> but he had no ammunition to shoot at Walker.
>
> Do you think that if you repeat something goofy dozens of times, it will
> begin to sound less goofy?
>
>> Where did that come from?
>
> Who knows? Who cares? Can you name another murder in which the prosecution
> had to prove where the accused bought his ammo? It is not one of the
> elements that is required to prove someone committed murder.
>
>> The bullet was too damaged to track down the rifle it came from.
>>
>
> Are you serious? You can't figure out that the bullet was damaged AFTER it
> left the rifle? Yesterday I said facetiously that I sometimes wonder if
> you aren't really a LN who writes the goofiest shit you can come up with
> just to parody the CTs. When I read something this ridiculous, I'm finding
> that easier to believe. It's hard to believe somebody could make that as a
> serious argument.

SO you think all bullets can not be matched ballistically once they are
fired?

>
>>
>> Oswald didn't shoot at Walker. He might have heard about it, but it
>> wasn't him with his little MC rifle with no ammunition and a faulty scope.
>>
>
> You really are trying to make CTs look ridiculous, aren't you?
>

You do that when you misrepresent what they said.

[claviger]

On Friday, August 15, 2014 5:29:09 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, August 14, 2014 10:43:41 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:19:59 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > > On 8/13/2014 2:22 PM, bigdog wrote:

> So now we're reading the minds of dead men. 'He bought a rifle with no
> idea he was going to shoot JFK'...:) He had no intention of shooting
> anyone or anything.

Actions speak louder than words.

> He had no ammunition and didn't buy any when he had the chance, or later in
> Dallas at the only 2 places that handled the old ammo from 1944 for the MC
> rifle.

More than two places in Dallas that sold this ammo.

> There is no independent evidence that Oswald shot at Walker either.

He confessed to his wife.

> And if he did he would have noticed the failure of the scope and repaired
> it before tackling JFK, don'tcha think?

Not sure how he analyzed his failed attempt at murder. There is evidence
he had the scope adjusted once, and maybe twice.

> With a faulty scope, his bullet would have gone astray in any event,

You don't know if it was faulty on that shot. Since it was deflected by
the window it may not have been a faulty scope.

> but he had no ammunition to shoot at Walker. Where did that come from?

Probably a gun shop that sells ammunition.

> The bullet was too damaged to track down the rifle it came from.

True, but we know where it came from because the sniper confessed to his
wife.

> Oswald didn't shoot at Walker. He might have heard about it,

Marina heard about it from her husband.

> but it wasn't him with his little MC rifle with no ammunition and a faulty
> scope.

It wasn't the little MC rifle he ordered. The mail order company sent a
longer model, which he kept and had to disassemble to put in a bag so he
could sneak it into the building where he worked.

[mainframetech]

On Friday, August 15, 2014 11:09:44 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, August 15, 2014 6:29:09 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, August 14, 2014 10:43:41 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:19:59 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On 8/13/2014 2:22 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > Why would he be shocked? Do you think Oswald was the only one who bought the less expensive rifle and scope? Oswald didn't buy the rifle with the idea of shooting JFK because he would have had no idea he would get the opportunity. If he had a target in mind when he bought it, it was probably Walker. He didn't need a highly accurate rifle for either shooting because he was firing at relatively close ranges. Why he missed Walker is anybody's guess. Maybe Walker moved. Maybe Oswald flinched. Who knows? Who cares? He tried to shoot him and missed just as he missed his first shot at JFK. But he took two more cracks at JFK and found the mark.
>
> >
>
>
>
> > So now we're reading the minds of dead men.
>
> > 'He bought a rifle with no
>
> > idea he was going to shoot JFK'...:)
>
>
>
> Do you seriously think back in March of 1963 that Oswald could have known
>
> that JFK would be coming to Dallas and that he would ride by Oswald's
>
> workplace, a place he didn't even work at yet, in an open top limosine?
>
> You don't have to be a mind reader to figure that out. You just have to
>
> use common sense.
>

It doesn't matter. The facts show that Oswald had no intention (ever)
of killing anyone.

>
>
> > He had no intention of shooting
>
> > anyone or anything.
>
>
>
> So now you are reading the mind of a dead man.
>

Nope, the evidence shows that he had no intention to kill anyone, and
it's been laid out for you time and again. You just don't like it and are
scrambling for any little thing that might get you off the hot seat.

>
>
> > He had no ammunition and didn't buy any when he had
>
> > the chance,
>
>
>
> He had lots of chances to buy ammo. He didn't have to buy it when he
>
> bought the rifle. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>

Forget it. You've been shown the proof that he didn't buy any
ammunition for the MC rifle, because he didn't intend to use it to shoot
anything. You're grasping at straws and they're letting you drown.

>
>
> > or later in Dallas at the only 2 places that handled the old
>
> > ammo from 1944 for the MC rifle.
>
> >
>
>
>
> There is no way you or anyone else could know if Oswald bought ammo from a
>
> local gun shop because records are not kept of who ammo is sold to. It is
>
> completely illogical to assume Oswald didn't buy ammo simply because there
>
> is no proof of where he bought the ammo.
>

Welp, this is a special case. The ammo for the MC rifle was a special
lot of ammo made last in 1944 by Western. It was sold in only 2 places in
the area, and neither sold to Oswald. You've been shown all the documents
that prove all that. And you know that the full resources of the FBI
couldn't find anywhere that Oswald bought any ammo. Not only would Oswald
be recognized after the murder, but the special ammo would be noticed as
having been sold, and who bought it. But no one knew of the sale of 5
cartridges of the MC ammo.

>
>
> >
>
> > There is no independent evidence that Oswald shot at Walker either.
>
>
>
> Why does the evidence have to be "independent". The Walker bullet was
>
> match to his Carcano, the one you claim never bought ammo for. How do you
>
> suppose that happened? His wife testified that he had done it. But that's
>
> not good enough for you. No amount of evidence is sufficient for a
>
> dedicate conspiracy hobbyist.
>

Nope, won't do. Explain how the bullet was proven to be from the MC
rifle. Otherwise I'll go with the report I have heard already, that the
bullet was too damaged to identify the rifle it came from, and the NAA
test has been debunked since. We have the exact same situation that we
had for the JFK murder, where Oswald leaves a note and other stuff for
Marina, with her not knowing anything until some time later. We also have
Marina saying whatever suits the authorities, since her husband was dead,
and they had a threat to her hanging over her head by being sent back to
Russia. She admitted to many lies from that period, though she wasn't
specific about which ones.

Remember, it was critical to the conspirators that the silly theory of
the 'lone nut' had to be kept going at all costs. Otherwise, the
conspirators would be hounded the rest of their lives until caught.
There as nothing they wouldn't have done to maintain the fiction of Oswald
the killer. Oswald's lack of caring for Marina in the latter part of
their marriage was shown by his violence toward her. Why would he be all
nice suddenly?

>
>
> > And if he did he would have noticed the failure of the scope and repaired
>
> > it before tackling JFK, don'tcha think?
>
> >
>
>
>
> Reading minds again?
>

Nope, just using common sense and thinking it through. Give that a try.
Or do you want to publicly say that Oswald didn't care that the rifle
didn't shoot straight, he would use it anyway for murder...:)

>
>
> >
>
> > With a faulty scope, his bullet would have gone astray in any event,
>
>
>
> By a few inches. That wouldn't cause him to miss a man sized target. And
>
> that assumes the scope wasn't damaged when he dropped it behind the boxes.
>
> It might have been perfectly alligned when he shot JFK. Doesn't matter. We
>
> know that Carcano was the one that was used to fire a shot at Walker and
>
> kill JFK.
>

Nope, we DON'T know that. That rifle was NOT in any condition to shoot
anyone or anything. That's been shown, but you can't handle the
information. You've been given all the information for why the scope was
misaligned from the first mounting at Klein's, and not later. The army
testers said they couldn't do their testing with the rifle until they gave
it to their gunsmith, who repaired the scope. William Sharp, the gunsmith
for Klein's thought the rifle was "junk", and he had a low opinion of it.
His mounting of the scope was careless and used only 2 screws instead of
the 3 it should have had.

>
>
> >
>
> > but he had no ammunition to shoot at Walker.
>
>
>
> Do you think that if you repeat something goofy dozens of times, it will
>
> begin to sound less goofy?
>

what sounds goofy is your continued repetition that Oswald found a place
to buy ammunition for the MC rifle. After you've seen all the documents
proving otherwise, and knowing the full resources of the FBI couldn't find
anywhere the ammo was bought, by anyone. you continue, because you have
nothing else to hang your hat on.

>
>
> > Where did that come from?
>
>
>
> Who knows? Who cares? Can you name another murder in which the prosecution
>
> had to prove where the accused bought his ammo? It is not one of the
>
> elements that is required to prove someone committed murder.
>

Normally you would be right, but this case has Oswald who never intended
to kill anyone, that there's no proof that he killed anyone, and a rifle
that didn't kill anyone. It becomes necessary to delve into it a bit
further, mainly to prove to all the wacky LNs what happened.

>
>
> > The bullet was too damaged to track down the rifle it came from.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Are you serious? You can't figure out that the bullet was damaged AFTER it
>
> left the rifle? Yesterday I said facetiously that I sometimes wonder if
>
> you aren't really a LN who writes the goofiest shit you can come up with
>
> just to parody the CTs. When I read something this ridiculous, I'm finding
>
> that easier to believe. It's hard to believe somebody could make that as a
>
> serious argument.
>

Show me proof that the MC rifle shot at Walker. The bullet was too
damaged to be sued to find what rifle it came from, and the old NAA test
they thought might do it was debunked long ago by the scientists. I'm
waiting to hear from you on that proof.

>
>
> >
>
> > Oswald didn't shoot at Walker. He might have heard about it, but it
>
> > wasn't him with his little MC rifle with no ammunition and a faulty scope.
>
> >
>
>
>
> You really are trying to make CTs look ridiculous, aren't you?

I'm not representing CTs. I'm more of a 'CE', a conspiracy believer,
with Evidence. Not wacky theories, like you and the WC have.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Friday, August 15, 2014 10:54:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, August 14, 2014 10:39:50 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:07:51 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:48:51 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > LOL! Try as you might, you'll never make it work...:) Oswald bought
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > the least expensive rifle because he had little money and he didn't intend
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > to shoot anyone.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > How could you possibly know that?
>
> >
>
> > It was obvious, do you mean that you didn't figure it out?
>
> >
>
> > 1. He bought NO ammunition when he had a perfect chance to get some on the
>
> > very same order from Klein's that he was sending in anyway.
>
> >
>
>
>
> So you pretend to know what was going on inside Oswald's mind when he
>
> ordered the rifle. There are any number of reasons he might have chosen
>
> not to buy ammo from Klein's. He didn't have a lot of money. He had enough
>
> to buy the rifle and scope but not enough spare cash to buy the large lot
>
> of ammo Klein's was selling. He might have had enough just to buy one or
>
> two boxes from a local gun shop. That is just one of many possible reasons
>
> Oswald chose not to buy the ammo from Klein's. But of course you disregard
>
> all the other possibilities and leap to the silly conclusion that he
>
> didn't buy ammo because he didn't intend to shoot the rifle, only show it
>
> off. Every hear the term "logical fallacy"?
>

Nope, won't do. As usual, you missed the common sense answer. He
missed the chance to buy at Klein's (which by waiting a week he would have
had enough money), and we know he didn't buy ammo at any local gun shop,
of which there were only 2 places that sold the old outmoded 1944 ammo for
the MC rifle. You've already been shown the letters to Western Cartridge
company and others proving that there were only 2 places to buy ammo and
proof that Oswald didn't buy any ammo at either one. My comment has to do
with Oswald NOT buying ammo for the rifle, and therefore not intending to
kill anyone, and no intent to practice either. All the resources of the
FBI couldn't find where he bought any ammo. But if he had bought ammo and
tried to practice he would have found the badly mounted scope wasn't
working and fixed it, which he didn't do. Nope, he had no intent to kill
with the MC rifle. Think it through next time.

>
>
> >
>
> > 2. They found NO place where he bought ammunition in Dallas, and he didn't
>
> > have a car to travel around and search for a dealer. You've been shown
>
> > documents that prove that there were only 2 places for Oswald to buy
>
> > ammunition in Dallas, and he didn't go to either.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Just because they couldn't find a gun shop that remembered selling him
>
> ammo does not even begin to prove he didn't buy his ammo locally. If I buy
>
> a 6-pack of beer with cash from a nearby convenience store and 8 months
>
> later, nobody at that covenience store remembers me buying the beer, does
>
> that prove I didn't buy beer there. And even if he didn't buy it locally,
>
> there are other places he could have gotten it.
>

Who would forget the guy that killed JFK who also bought the odd old
ammunition from 1944 for the MC rifle. not much chance of that. Think it
through. And as to other places, that's a comment in an attempt to get
you off the hot seat you put yourself into. What places? Why only 4-5
shells? C'mon...use your head.

>
>
> >
>
> > 3. There were NO ammunition boxes found in his effects after his death.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Who saves empty ammo boxes?
>

People save them when they buy a full box and don't use them all.
Funny, the MC rifle only had 5 shells in it, when it could hold more.
Why not fill it up? How safe and effective was ammunition that was made
in 1944 or before? We know that no one used any shells for practice or
the scope would have been fixed. So where are the rest of the box of
shells?

>
>
> >
>
> > 4. There were only 4-5 shells found in the TSBD that were for the MC
>
> > rifle, and they didn't come from Oswald.
>
>
>
> There were four. The three that were spent and the one in the breech.
>

OK...But don't you want to try to blame Oswald for the shot at Walker?
:))

>
>
> > When he bought the rifle he
>
> > spent as little money as possible,
>
>
>
> BINGO!!! That would explain why he didn't buy the ammo then.
>

nope, won't do. He could have waited a week and gotten his paycheck and
gotten the whole package together. It would have been simpler, and we
know he didn't buy anyplace else, since the full resources of the FBI
couldn't find any sales. We've been over all that and you flopped then
too.

>
>
> > and when he got the rifle, he had his
>
> > picture taken with it and then put it away wrapped up in a blanket because
>

> > he didn't need it for anything else. He wanted it to impress someone, not

>
> > shoot anyone.
>
> >
>
>
>
> More illogical assumptions. We have a witness and forensic evidence that
>
> he fired the rifle at Walker. We have a mountain of evidence he fired it
>
> at JFK. We have no way of knowing what he did with the rifle in between or
>
> how many times he took it out of the blanket, used it, and then returned
>
> it to the blanket. But in true CT form, you assume that once he wrapped
>
> the rifle in the blanket, he left it there, never taking it out.
>

Nope, we have nothing of the sort. What forensic evidence do you have
that Oswald used the MC rifle and fired a shot at Walker? None. And
there is NO evidence that Oswald fired the MC rifle at JFK either. We've
been over all this and you missed the boat each time. If you're trying to
convince folks by repetition of failed hypotheses, it's not working.

As well, we've been over the business of practicing, and firing the MC
rifle for any purpose would have proven the scope had been faulty and the
rifle would have been fixed before the 'big event'. So forget that
desperate attempt to get off the hot seat. What purpose would Oswald have
had to take the MC rifle out of the blanket?

>
>
> >
>
> > 5. The ammunition for the MC rifle was old from 1944, which was the last
>
> > batch made by the Western Cartridge company.
>
> >
>
>
>
> So? Ammo will stay good for years. As long as the bullet is seated
>
> tightly, moisture won't get into the powder. The teenage kid who lives
>
> next to me was sold a lot of .30-06 ammo for a rifle his mother helped him
>
> buy. He was aware I knew a little bit about firearms so he asked me if
>
> this was the right ammo. I looked at the stamp on the shell and it didn't
>
> say .30-06 but instead had 70 and 72 stamped on it along with some other
>
> markings. I asked a more knowledgeable friend of mine what it meant and
>
> with a google search, we determined it was surplus Greek NATO ammo
>
> manufactured in 1970 and 1972. It became surplus when NATO adopted the
>
> 5.56mm as its standard round. The ammo is over 40 years old and shoots
>
> just fine.
>

Did you have some Ouija board to tell you that the cartridges were
sealed properly on the last few runs from Western for an old, 1944, war
surplus cheapo rifle? You don't know that. But let's help you out by
assuming that the cartridges found in the TSBD were sealed properly.

It still leaves you without any proof of a sale to Oswald from
anywhere...:)

>
>
> >
>
> > 6. The rifle was never used for practice either, because if it were, the
>
> > misalignment of the scope would become obvious and it would have been
>
> > repaired if the rifle were intended to shoot someone with. However, it
>
> > wasn't repaired.
>
> >
>
>
>
> You don't know when the scope became misalligned. You just assume that.
>

From the comments of Klein's gunsmith that did the mounting, and the
fact that he used only 2 screws instead of the called for 3, and from the
reports from Frazier and Simmons, it was pretty clear that the scope was a
cheapo in the first place, and that no care was spent in placing it on the
rifle. The need for shims by a gunsmith to make it shoot straight, and
the fact that there was NO report of any damage to the scope from the Army
gunsmith or other technicians, says the scope wasn't harmed, and that the
problem was with the mounting, not any bending or other damage to the
scope. The rifle scope was badly mounted. My statement is based on the
above facts.

>
>
> >
>
> > > > He wanted the rifle to impress someone, and so he didn't
>
> > > > buy any ammunition from Klein's even though they made it easy for him to
>
> > > > do so.
>
> >
>
> > > So anyone who doesn't buy their ammunition at the same place they buy a
>
> > > gun doesn't intend to shoot the gun. Brilliant, Sherlock!!!
>
> >
>
> > Try not to be too smart and call names. McAdams occasionally notices
>
> > and doesn't allow it. It's just a result of not having anything
>
> > intelligent to say anyway. In this case, I recommend that you think it
>
> > through.
>
>
>
> Try taking your own advice.
>
> > You've been shown documents before that prove that there were
>
> > only 2 places that had those bullets and both places said they never sold
>
> > any to Oswald.
>
>
>
> No, they had no record they sold it to Oswald. Of course they wouldn't
>
> because gun shops don't keep records of who they sold ammo to. To know
>
> whether their store had sold ammo to Oswald, they would have to ask every
>
> single employee, past and present, whether they remembered selling Oswald
>
> the ammo and even if they didn't remember, it wouldn't prove they hadn't
>
> because it is unlikely the person who sold ammo to Oswald would remember
>
> that 8 months later.
>

You've already tried to get away with that gimmick, and it didn't work
then, and it won't work now. Almost all businesses record sales no matter
whether it is ammo or elephants. They need the information for
restocking, and for tax purposes, as well as statistics and standard
business calculations (for instance, gross income). But since there were
only 2 places to check in the area, it was a simple search that the full
resources of the FBI spent to find the information. You've seen the
documentation about what we're talking about.

Remember too, that this was special ammunition, not standard stuff.
It was old 1944 ammo or older and few had these rifles. The sale would
stand out that someone actually bought ammo for on of these clunkers.

>
>
> > And everyone by that time knew what Oswald looked like
>
> > after the murder.
>
>
>
> Almost nobody knew what he looked like when he would have bought the ammo
>
> and no reason for anyone to remember his face 8 months later.
>

Except that the ammo itself stood out, since almost no one bought it.

>
>
> > And the offer in the ad for the rifle was the best and
>
> > simplest way to get ammunition if he was going to shoot anything, even
>
> > targets for practice.
>
> >
>
>
>
> It might have been the best price if one was looking to buy a large lot.
>
> It wasn't the best deal for someone who only needed a small lot.
>

A lot of 4-5 shells? :)) Give it up. You're not making any headway
here, just running from one 'maybe' answer to another. All the maybes in
the world won't get you past the logic we've discussed here and now.

>
>
> >
>
> > > > He had Marina take some pictures with him holding the rifle and
>
> > > > wearing the revolver, and then rolled the rifle up in a blanket and forgot
>
> > > > about it.
>
> >
>
> > > Oh he forgot about it? But for some strange reason, it wasn't in the
>
> > > blanket when Marina led police to the garage to show them where her
>
> > > husband kept the rifle.
>
> >
>
> > Think it through. He probably was the one that took the rifle to work
>
> > for some reason he was given.
>
>
>
> Really? Who gave him that reason? How do you know that? Or are you just
>
> assuming that to try to make your silly story work for you.
>

Whoa! Don't you think that Oswald took the rifle to work? Have you
changed over to the CT side of the table? :)

As to who gave him the reason, there were a number of people that he
was into, including US authorities that he was ratting to, and possibly
Cubans that he was working with, maybe even Jack Ruby since connections to
him keep popping up.

Any of those people could convince Oswald to bring the rifle in to work
and put it somewhere to access later for trade, sale or show. For all we
know, he might have been convinced that the rifle was going to be used to
scare someone in the motorcade, but not kill. He could have even been
told to stay away from the 6th floor at lunchtime...:)

>
>
> > For trade, show, or sale. I have no
>
> > problem if you say he brought it in.
>
>
>
> That's good, because he brought it in.
>
>
>
> > He was a sucker, they gave him a
>
> > good reason, and he brought it in. Simple.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Who is "they"? How do you know what "they" told him?
>

Obviously I don't know who told him what, and neither do you. We have
to speculate with what we do know. I've named possible connections above.

>
>
> >
>
> > > > Since they looked for where Oswald might have bought ammunition
>
> > > > and couldn't find anywhere,
>
> >
>
> > > Simply not true.
>
> >
>
> > Nope, won't do. If you know where Oswald bought ammunition for the MC
>
> > rifle, then let us all in on the secret...:) I think you went off on that
>
> > one...:)
>
> >
>
>
>
> I don't know where he bought the ammo. I don't need to know where he
>
> bought the ammo. If proving where a murderer bought his ammo was a
>
> requirement, few murderers would ever be convicted. I was on a jury in a
>
> murder case and we sent a guy away for 15 to life and we had no idea where
>
> he bought the ammo he used to kill his girlfriend. I'm always amazed when
>
> CTs demand a standard of proof of Oswald's guilt that goes far beyond what
>
> is necessary in any other murder case. I don't know why I should be
>
> amazed. It is the kind of thinking I have come to expect from the CTs.
>

You're amazed because you fail time and again to think it through.
That's how you got to be an LN in the first place. You just accepted what
you were told, like a robot. When they told you to go forward and blat it
to everyone, you went and did it. In this case particularly, there is
serious doubt that Oswald killed anyone, intended to kill anyone, and
whether his rifle killed anyone. There is evidence against all those
possibilities and it causes the information about ammunition to come in to
help determine other aspects of the case. This case has nothing to do
with your other murder case.

>
>
> >
>
> > > > where do you suppose he got the 4-5 shells
>
> > > > found in the TSBD? From the FBI? They seems to have plenty of it.
>
> >
>
> > > Most likely he bought one or two boxes of 20 and fired all but the four he
>
> > > had left when he took the rifle to the TSBD.
>
> >
>
> > Nope, won't do. You've already forgotten that they could not find
>
> > anywhere that he bought any ammunition for the MC rifle. As well, if he
>
> > had practiced at all, he would have noticed that the sight was misaligned
>
> > and had it fixed...you can't kill a president with a bad scope on your
>
> > rifle...:)
>
> >
>
>
>
> You're repeating yourself. There is no need for me to once again point out
>
> your logical fallacies in the above statement.
>

Well that'll save us all some time...:)

>
>
> >
>
> > > > Oswald didn't shoot at Walker with the MC rifle. He had no ammunition
>
> > > > to do that. And if he had shot at walker, he would have learned the lousy
>
> > > > condition of the scope and had it fixed before trying for a president...:)
>
> > > > Try some other story to sell...:)
>
> >
>
> > > Sometimes I wonder if you aren't really an LN and you write the craziest
>
> > > shit you can think of just to parody the CTs. It's hard to imagine
>
> > > somebody could really believe the things you write.
>
> >
>
> > It all hangs together, and much of it is from testimony too, and you
>
> > know it or you wouldn't spend all your time trying to refute most of
>
> > it...you're an important part of my statements, having tested them against
>
> > all the tons of little things you keep trying to dredge up to get away
>
> > from what I'm saying, I've cleaned up my beliefs on the case very well.
>
> >
>
> > Thank you for the opportunity...:)
>
> >
>
>
>
> You're welcome. Thank you for the comedic relief.

Yes, it has been a laugh hasn't it? And it's not over. You're hooked
and have to come back over and over to tell me these desperate mumblings
to escape the truth...:)

Chris

[bigdog]

On Saturday, August 16, 2014 11:47:54 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

>
> He wasn't aiming for the torso. Walker was sitting at his desk. All
> Oswald could see was the head.

You must have a much taller desk than the rest of us. When most people sit
at a desk, the upper part of their torso is above the desk and would be
visible to someone looking through a window at him.

> He aiming for the head, not the feet.

Is that what Oswald told you? Why would you bring Walker's feet into the
converstation?

> As
> Dave Emary said about the Carcano, "I suspect more than one Austrian
> soldiers life was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head."
>

I'm sure a lot of Austrians got shot dead by Carcanos too. I'm sure
Springfield rifles, Mausers, and Enfields were fired over the heads of
their intended targets too.

>
> > You really are trying to make CTs look ridiculous, aren't you?
>
> You do that when you misrepresent what they said.

You guys need no help from me.

[Anthony Marsh]

I agree, but someone has a theory that there was already an empty shell
left in the chamber when he had the clip of 4 rounds in it. And then
Fritz ejected an empty and kept it for himself.

That was a typo. It wasn't 1944. It was 1954.

It also had the advantage of including free clips.
Some purchasers did not know that they needed a clip to load the rifle.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, August 16, 2014 2:17:48 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Friday, August 15, 2014 5:29:09 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, August 14, 2014 10:43:41 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
> > > On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:19:59 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> > > > On 8/13/2014 2:22 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
>
>
> > So now we're reading the minds of dead men. 'He bought a rifle with no
>
> > idea he was going to shoot JFK'...:) He had no intention of shooting
>
> > anyone or anything.
>
>
>
> Actions speak louder than words.
>

thank you. You have NO proof that Oswald shot anyone, especially with
the MC rifle...:) And the 2 bullets in FBI custody didn't hit or hurt any
person.

>
>
> > He had no ammunition and didn't buy any when he had the chance, or later in
>
> > Dallas at the only 2 places that handled the old ammo from 1944 for the MC
>
> > rifle.
>
>
>
> More than two places in Dallas that sold this ammo.
>

Interesting. Western Cartridge company couldn't find them, and the FBI
didn't find them, but then you're saying that you're better than both of
them. Enlighten me, please. Where else sold the 1944 ammo for the MC
rifle in that area?

>
>
> > There is no independent evidence that Oswald shot at Walker either.
>
>
>
> He confessed to his wife.
>

No, you read a letter he supposedly wrote to Marina that was found
after Oswald was dead. But even the HSCA could be sure that Oswald shot
at Walker. They said:

"The committee concluded that the evidence strongly suggested that Oswald
attempted to murder General Walker..."

From: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0046a.htm

"Strongly suggested..." not a clear accusation, and leaves room for
doubt. So they couldn't find the proof they needed for that attempt.

Remember that Marina was in a position to be shipped back to Russia, or
she thought so, and would lie any way they wanted her to. The routine was
the same after the murder of JFK. Same M.O. Marina admitted that she was
made to lie, but wasn't specific as to what the lies were. She did say
later after she became a citizen that Oswald loved JFK. (FWIW)

>
>
> > And if he did he would have noticed the failure of the scope and repaired
>
> > it before tackling JFK, don'tcha think?
>
>
>
> Not sure how he analyzed his failed attempt at murder. There is evidence
>
> he had the scope adjusted once, and maybe twice.
>

where is that evidence? I personally don't believe you. If you're
going to bring up the way out shooting range, forget it, it's been
debunked long ago. But time to show your evidence that Oswald had the
scope adjusted, even once, never mind twice.

>
>
> > With a faulty scope, his bullet would have gone astray in any event,
>
>
>
> You don't know if it was faulty on that shot. Since it was deflected by
>
> the window it may not have been a faulty scope.
>

the scope was still faulty when it was carried into the hands of the
FBI, who tested the rifle. The DPD knew that they had to treat evidence
like the rifle carefully and not damage it. Robert Frazier, who was FBI
was part of the testing, and he noted that the scope was misaligned. It
had been put on at Klein's by a gunsmith who called the rifle "junk", and
he used 2 screws to fix it onto to the rifle, when it was supposed to have
3 screws. The mounting was done without care. The army said they had to
pass it to their gunsmith to even get a safe test going. And he had to
shim up the scope to make it seem more aligned. The problem with the
scope was one that doesn't come from mishandling.

>
>
> > but he had no ammunition to shoot at Walker. Where did that come from?
>
>
>
> Probably a gun shop that sells ammunition.
>

There were only 2 places that sold the old, outmoded ammo for the MC
rifle, and the last batch was made in 1944. Here is the chain of search
documents that include letters to and from Western Cartridge Co. and
others, showing that there were no other places to buy the odd stuff:

http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/rifle_ammo.htm

The information was put together by an excellent researcher, who is
known to this forum. The proof are all through his article.

>
>
> > The bullet was too damaged to track down the rifle it came from.
>
>
>
> True, but we know where it came from because the sniper confessed to his
>
> wife.
>

Marina was caught in many lies. Here's an example:
http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/marina.htm

>
>
> > Oswald didn't shoot at Walker. He might have heard about it,
>
>
>
> Marina heard about it from her husband.
>

See above. She lied many times, and she was under threat from the
authorities, and was worried they would send her back to Russia.

>
>
> > but it wasn't him with his little MC rifle with no ammunition and a faulty
>
> > scope.
>
>
>
> It wasn't the little MC rifle he ordered. The mail order company sent a
>
> longer model, which he kept and had to disassemble to put in a bag so he
>
> could sneak it into the building where he worked.

Sneaking a rifle into the TSBD doesn't mean that he fired it out the
window. He could as easily have been told to bring it on for trading,
selling, or showing. All of which don't kill presidents. Roy Truly had 2
rifles in his office that day, and one was a Mauser. Did HE shoot JFK and
then sneak his Mauser back to his office? :)


Chris

[bigdog]

The Walker bullet had markings consistent with Oswald's Carcano. While the
damage to the bullet precluded a certain match, the markings are still
probative. NAA testing while not conclusive is also probative. Then we
have Marina's statement which is corroberated by Oswald's handwritten note
which handwriting experts testified was written by Oswald. It did not
mention Walker by name but clearly indicated Oswald intended to commit an
act which could result in him being killed or captured. Once again we have
all the arrows pointing to Oswald's guilty and you inventing excuses to
ignore all the arrows rather than admit the obvious.

You really should consider a different hobby. This one requires one to be
able to think logically. You are obviously challenged in that area. For
example, you believe that because no proof exists of where Oswald bought
his ammo, that proves he didn't buy ammo. You seem unable to grasp how
illogical that conclusion is. In addition, you disregard all tried and
true forms of evidence that are used in every other murder case and then
turn around and demand proof that isn't required in any other murder case.
In other words you are trying to reinvent how to determine the guilty
party in a gunshot murder case with predictable results. You are
completely lost.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <9bd9645d-886d-4edd...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
says...

Top post. Bigdog, you are a man of enduring patience and tolerance with
this fellow with a glass ball that can read Oswald's mind.

I salute you, sir.

Bill Clarke

>On Thursday, August 14, 2014 10:39:50 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:07:51 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

>>=20

>> > On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:48:51 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20
>> > >=20
>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20
>> > > LOL! Try as you might, you'll never make it work...:) Oswald boug=
>ht=20
>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20
>> > > the least expensive rifle because he had little money and he didn't i=
>ntend=20
>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20
>> > > to shoot anyone.=20
>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20

>> > How could you possibly know that?

>>=20

>> It was obvious, do you mean that you didn't figure it out?

>>=20
>> 1. He bought NO ammunition when he had a perfect chance to get some on th=
>e=20

>> very same order from Klein's that he was sending in anyway.

>>=20

>
>So you pretend to know what was going on inside Oswald's mind when he
>ordered the rifle. There are any number of reasons he might have chosen
>not to buy ammo from Klein's. He didn't have a lot of money. He had enough
>to buy the rifle and scope but not enough spare cash to buy the large lot
>of ammo Klein's was selling. He might have had enough just to buy one or
>two boxes from a local gun shop. That is just one of many possible reasons
>Oswald chose not to buy the ammo from Klein's. But of course you disregard
>all the other possibilities and leap to the silly conclusion that he
>didn't buy ammo because he didn't intend to shoot the rifle, only show it
>off. Every hear the term "logical fallacy"?
>

>>=20
>> 2. They found NO place where he bought ammunition in Dallas, and he didn'=
>t=20
>> have a car to travel around and search for a dealer. You've been shown=
>=20
>> documents that prove that there were only 2 places for Oswald to buy=20

>> ammunition in Dallas, and he didn't go to either.

>>=20

>
>Just because they couldn't find a gun shop that remembered selling him
>ammo does not even begin to prove he didn't buy his ammo locally. If I buy
>a 6-pack of beer with cash from a nearby convenience store and 8 months
>later, nobody at that covenience store remembers me buying the beer, does
>that prove I didn't buy beer there. And even if he didn't buy it locally,
>there are other places he could have gotten it.
>

>>=20

>> 3. There were NO ammunition boxes found in his effects after his death.
>>
>
>Who saves empty ammo boxes?
>

>>=20
>> 4. There were only 4-5 shells found in the TSBD that were for the MC=20
>> rifle, and they didn't come from Oswald.=20

>
>There were four. The three that were spent and the one in the breech.
>

>> When he bought the rifle he=20

>> spent as little money as possible,
>
>BINGO!!! That would explain why he didn't buy the ammo then.
>

>> and when he got the rifle, he had his=20
>> picture taken with it and then put it away wrapped up in a blanket becaus=
>e=20
>> he didn't need it for anything else. He anted it to impress someone, not=
>=20
>> shoot anyone.
>>=20

>
>More illogical assumptions. We have a witness and forensic evidence that
>he fired the rifle at Walker. We have a mountain of evidence he fired it
>at JFK. We have no way of knowing what he did with the rifle in between or
>how many times he took it out of the blanket, used it, and then returned
>it to the blanket. But in true CT form, you assume that once he wrapped
>the rifle in the blanket, he left it there, never taking it out.
>

>>=20
>> 5. The ammunition for the MC rifle was old from 1944, which was the last=
>=20

>> batch made by the Western Cartridge company.

>>=20

>
>So? Ammo will stay good for years. As long as the bullet is seated
>tightly, moisture won't get into the powder. The teenage kid who lives
>next to me was sold a lot of .30-06 ammo for a rifle his mother helped him
>buy. He was aware I knew a little bit about firearms so he asked me if
>this was the right ammo. I looked at the stamp on the shell and it didn't
>say .30-06 but instead had 70 and 72 stamped on it along with some other
>markings. I asked a more knowledgeable friend of mine what it meant and
>with a google search, we determined it was surplus Greek NATO ammo
>manufactured in 1970 and 1972. It became surplus when NATO adopted the
>5.56mm as its standard round. The ammo is over 40 years old and shoots
>just fine.
>

>>=20
>> 6. The rifle was never used for practice either, because if it were, the=
>=20
>> misalignment of the scope would become obvious and it would have been=20
>> repaired if the rifle were intended to shoot someone with. However, it=
>=20
>> wasn't repaired.
>>=20

>
>You don't know when the scope became misalligned. You just assume that.
>

>>=20
>> > > He wanted the rifle to impress someone, and so he didn't=20
>> > > buy any ammunition from Klein's even though they made it easy for him=
> to=20
>> > > do so.=20
>>=20
>> > So anyone who doesn't buy their ammunition at the same place they buy a=
>=20

>> > gun doesn't intend to shoot the gun. Brilliant, Sherlock!!!

>>=20
>> Try not to be too smart and call names. McAdams occasionally notices=
>=20
>> and doesn't allow it. It's just a result of not having anything=20
>> intelligent to say anyway. In this case, I recommend that you think it=
>=20
>> through.=20

>
>Try taking your own advice.

>> You've been shown documents before that prove that there were=20
>> only 2 places that had those bullets and both places said they never sold=
>=20
>> any to Oswald. =20

>
>No, they had no record they sold it to Oswald. Of course they wouldn't
>because gun shops don't keep records of who they sold ammo to. To know
>whether their store had sold ammo to Oswald, they would have to ask every
>single employee, past and present, whether they remembered selling Oswald
>the ammo and even if they didn't remember, it wouldn't prove they hadn't
>because it is unlikely the person who sold ammo to Oswald would remember
>that 8 months later.
>

>> And everyone by that time knew what Oswald looked like=20
>> after the murder.=20

>
>Almost nobody knew what he looked like when he would have bought the ammo
>and no reason for anyone to remember his face 8 months later.
>

>> And the offer in the ad for the rifle was the best and=20
>> simplest way to get ammunition if he was going to shoot anything, even=20
>> targets for practice.
>>=20

>
>It might have been the best price if one was looking to buy a large lot.
>It wasn't the best deal for someone who only needed a small lot.
>

>>=20
>> > > He had Marina take some pictures with him holding the rifle and=20
>> > > wearing the revolver, and then rolled the rifle up in a blanket and f=
>orgot=20
>> > > about it.=20
>>=20
>> > Oh he forgot about it? But for some strange reason, it wasn't in the=20
>> > blanket when Marina led police to the garage to show them where her=20
>> > husband kept the rifle.
>>=20
>> Think it through. He probably was the one that took the rifle to work=
>=20
>> for some reason he was given.=20

>
>Really? Who gave him that reason? How do you know that? Or are you just
>assuming that to try to make your silly story work for you.
>

>> For trade, show, or sale. I have no=20

>> problem if you say he brought it in.
>
>That's good, because he brought it in.
>

>> He was a sucker, they gave him a=20

>> good reason, and he brought it in. Simple.

>>=20

>
>Who is "they"? How do you know what "they" told him?
>

>>=20
>> > > Since they looked for where Oswald might have bought ammunition=20

>> > > and couldn't find anywhere,

>>=20
>> > Simply not true.=20
>>=20
>> Nope, won't do. If you know where Oswald bought ammunition for the MC=
>=20
>> rifle, then let us all in on the secret...:) I think you went off on tha=
>t=20
>> one...:)
>>=20

>
>I don't know where he bought the ammo. I don't need to know where he
>bought the ammo. If proving where a murderer bought his ammo was a
>requirement, few murderers would ever be convicted. I was on a jury in a
>murder case and we sent a guy away for 15 to life and we had no idea where
>he bought the ammo he used to kill his girlfriend. I'm always amazed when
>CTs demand a standard of proof of Oswald's guilt that goes far beyond what
>is necessary in any other murder case. I don't know why I should be
>amazed. It is the kind of thinking I have come to expect from the CTs.
>

>>=20
>> > > where do you suppose he got the 4-5 shells=20

>> > > found in the TSBD? From the FBI? They seems to have plenty of it.

>>=20
>> > Most likely he bought one or two boxes of 20 and fired all but the four=
> he=20

>> > had left when he took the rifle to the TSBD.

>>=20
>> Nope, won't do. You've already forgotten that they could not find=20
>> anywhere that he bought any ammunition for the MC rifle. As well, if he=
>=20
>> had practiced at all, he would have noticed that the sight was misaligned=
>=20
>> and had it fixed...you can't kill a president with a bad scope on your=20
>> rifle...:)
>>=20

>
>You're repeating yourself. There is no need for me to once again point out
>your logical fallacies in the above statement.
>

>>=20
>> > > Oswald didn't shoot at Walker with the MC rifle. He had no ammuni=
>tion=20
>> > > to do that. And if he had shot at walker, he would have learned the =
>lousy=20
>> > > condition of the scope and had it fixed before trying for a president=
>...:) =20

>> > > Try some other story to sell...:)

>>=20
>> > Sometimes I wonder if you aren't really an LN and you write the crazies=
>t=20
>> > shit you can think of just to parody the CTs. It's hard to imagine=20

>> > somebody could really believe the things you write.

>>=20
>> It all hangs together, and much of it is from testimony too, and you=
>=20
>> know it or you wouldn't spend all your time trying to refute most of=20
>> it...you're an important part of my statements, having tested them agains=
>t=20
>> all the tons of little things you keep trying to dredge up to get away=20
>> from what I'm saying, I've cleaned up my beliefs on the case very well. =
>=20
>>=20

>> Thank you for the opportunity...:)

>>=20

[Bill Clarke]

In article <19a805d9-821a-4533...@googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...

>
>On Friday, August 15, 2014 10:54:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 14, 2014 10:39:50 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

>>=20

>> > On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:07:51 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20

>> > > On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:48:51 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20
>> > >=20
>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20
>> > > >=20
>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20
>> > >=20
>>=20
>> >=20

>>=20
>> > > > LOL! Try as you might, you'll never make it work...:) Oswald bo=
>ught=20

>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20
>> > >=20
>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20

>> > > > the least expensive rifle because he had little money and he didn't=
> intend=20

>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20
>> > >=20
>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20

>> > > > to shoot anyone.=20
>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20
>> > >=20
>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20

>> > >=20
>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20
>> > >=20
>>=20
>> >=20

>>=20

>> > > How could you possibly know that?

>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20

>> > It was obvious, do you mean that you didn't figure it out?

>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20
>> > 1. He bought NO ammunition when he had a perfect chance to get some on =
>the=20
>>=20

>> > very same order from Klein's that he was sending in anyway.

>>=20
>> >=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20

>> So you pretend to know what was going on inside Oswald's mind when he=20
>>=20
>> ordered the rifle. There are any number of reasons he might have chosen=
>=20
>>=20
>> not to buy ammo from Klein's. He didn't have a lot of money. He had enoug=
>h=20
>>=20
>> to buy the rifle and scope but not enough spare cash to buy the large lot=
>=20
>>=20
>> of ammo Klein's was selling. He might have had enough just to buy one or=
>=20
>>=20
>> two boxes from a local gun shop. That is just one of many possible reason=
>s=20
>>=20
>> Oswald chose not to buy the ammo from Klein's. But of course you disregar=
>d=20
>>=20
>> all the other possibilities and leap to the silly conclusion that he=20
>>=20
>> didn't buy ammo because he didn't intend to shoot the rifle, only show it=
>=20
>>=20

>> off. Every hear the term "logical fallacy"?
>>
>
>
> Nope, won't do. As usual, you missed the common sense answer. He
>missed the chance to buy at Klein's (which by waiting a week he would have
>had enough money), and we know he didn't buy ammo at any local gun shop,
>of which there were only 2 places that sold the old outmoded 1944 ammo for
>the MC rifle. You've already been shown the letters to Western Cartridge
>company and others proving that there were only 2 places to buy ammo and
>proof that Oswald didn't buy any ammo at either one. My comment has to do
>with Oswald NOT buying ammo for the rifle, and therefore not intending to
>kill anyone, and no intent to practice either. All the resources of the
>FBI couldn't find where he bought any ammo. But if he had bought ammo and
>tried to practice he would have found the badly mounted scope wasn't
>working and fixed it, which he didn't do. Nope, he had no intent to kill
>with the MC rifle. Think it through next time.

Try this one. The clerk that sold Oswald the ammo was also in on the
conspiracy. Naturally he lied about selling the ammo to cover for his
buddy Oswald! Surely in such a vast conspiracy this is possible. At
least as possible as Oswald buying a rifle but no ammo. Do you know the
first thing a man wants to do when he buys a firearm? He wants to shoot
it!

Again, we don't know that the scope was off while Oswald had the rifle.
Take a look at this again;
http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/lee-harvey-oswalds-carcano-rifle-shooting-it-today/.

Pay attention to the junky mounting system and the very cheap scope. It
wouldn't take much to knock them out of sight.

Bill Clarke

[bigdog]

On Saturday, August 16, 2014 7:55:16 PM UTC-4, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article <9bd9645d-886d-4edd...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>
> says...
>
> Top post. Bigdog, you are a man of enduring patience and tolerance with
> this fellow with a glass ball that can read Oswald's mind.
>
> I salute you, sir.
>
> Bill Clarke
>

Somebody less charitable might say I'm a glutton for punishment.

I read the article in your second post. The guy sounds very knowledgeable
about firearms but a little less so about the JFK assassination. He did
get a few things wrong. Not game changers, but not insignificant either.

[Anthony Marsh]

Hey, not kooky enough. How about if the CIA gave it to him from its
secret warehouse?

[Anthony Marsh]

The WCC ammo was made only in 1954, not 1944.

> http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/rifle_ammo.htm
>
> The information was put together by an excellent researcher, who is
> known to this forum. The proof are all through his article.
>

We know Gil Jesus is a kook.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <6d22adaa-61c3-41d8...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
says...

I forgot to add a warning that the article itself wasn't very good but the
photos are some of the clearest I've seen and that is why I saved it. This is
especially true of the picture showing the scope mounted on the side from a rear
view and how easy it would be to use the open sights. Also how flimsy the mount
was. Really a pile of junk. Also a good picture of the Carcano being loaded
which shows why the scope had to be side mounted.

[mainframetech]

Attacking me won't make your case for the WC lawyers any better. You know how badly they screwed up, but you can't say anything because your so invested in them.

It's really amazing the list you were able to concoct showing Oswald's death urge for Walker...:)

First, being "consistent with" means there is NO proof of anything, since every bullet ever fired would be "consistent with". The bullet in question was too mangled to even assign it as a MC type bullet.

Second, the NAA tests were shown scientifically to be useless in proving that one bullet came from the same batch as another in the JFK case. In fact, the scientists that wrote the following paper suggested the possibility of a second shooter!:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2150.pdf

Third, Marina's statement at that time is suspect, since she was saying whatever they wanted to hear, since she thought they could send her back to Russia. In some cases she was even changing her stories and the WC was simply accepting each successive story as valid (they kept getting closer to the story they wanted to hear) and asked no questions.

Fourth, we have exactly the same M.O. with notes left for Marina, but Oswald wasn't getting along with her so well in the latter months, and had never left her notes before when he was about to do things. He carried on his life as if she didn't exist. Only the 2 items that the government card about were heralded by a note attributed to Oswald. Handwriting analysts are as good as needed in writing like another person, and then analyzing the result as an Oswald writing.

Fifth, Oswald had his little 'game' going, which was to infiltrate the Cubans and report on their doings. Why would he jeopardize his little ego boost by taking potshots at Walker?

Sixth, Oswald had bought a rifle and had no ammunition for it. The special ammo for that rifle was found in only certain places, and the FBI checked them all and Oswald didn't buy ammo at any of them. Not only was there no ammo, but there was a fault in the scope, meaning bad aiming. With a miss at Walker, wouldn't Oswald have the scope fixed if it were his rifle that fired the miss at Walker? Of course, but he never did, even when he decided to kill the president that Marina said he loved.


Nope, you make less sense each time you try to cover up for the WC and their screw-ups.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Yep, a glutton for punishment, as am I, since I've responded to you
more often than you have to me. So we share that dubious honor. Of
course, as before, I will be here long after you decide to escape this
hole where you are raked over the coals daily...:)

If this begins to feel like a job, it's time for a change.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Sunday, August 17, 2014 11:14:34 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, August 16, 2014 7:54:33 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
> > You really should consider a different hobby. This one requires one to be
> > able to think logically. You are obviously challenged in that area. For
> > example, you believe that because no proof exists of where Oswald bought
> > his ammo, that proves he didn't buy ammo. You seem unable to grasp how
> > illogical that conclusion is. In addition, you disregard all tried and
> > true forms of evidence that are used in every other murder case and then
> > turn around and demand proof that isn't required in any other murder case.
> > In other words you are trying to reinvent how to determine the guilty
> > party in a gunshot murder case with predictable results. You are
> > completely lost.
>
> Attacking me won't make your case for the WC lawyers any better.

It doesn't need to get any better.

> You know how badly they screwed up, but you can't say anything because your so invested in them.
>
> It's really amazing the list you were able to concoct showing Oswald's death urge for Walker...:)
>
> First, being "consistent with" means there is NO proof of anything, since every bullet ever fired would be "consistent with". The bullet in question was too mangled to even assign it as a MC type bullet.
>

No, every bullet fired would not have markings consistent with the Walker
bullet. The Walker bullet matched Oswald's rifle but due to the damage, it
did not have enough markings to say conclusively it came from Oswald's
gun.

> Second, the NAA tests were shown scientifically to be useless in proving that one bullet came from the same batch as another in the JFK case. In fact, the scientists that wrote the following paper suggested the possibility of a second shooter!:
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2150.pdf
>

No, they weren't scientifically useless. It has been shown that such
testing can't postively prove a bullet came from a particular batch, but
such testing still has probative value because it eliminates most batches
from consideration. Evidence does not have to be 100% conclusive in order
to have probative value. Since logic isn't your strong suit, you seem to
think everything is black or white, but in the real world, most things are
shades of gray. If black would be 100% conclusive, this is a very dark
gray.

>
>
> Third, Marina's statement at that time is suspect, since she was saying whatever they wanted to hear, since she thought they could send her back to Russia. In some cases she was even changing her stories and the WC was simply accepting each successive story as valid (they kept getting closer to the story they wanted to hear) and asked no questions.
>

It's suspect only because accepting it would fly in the face of the things
you choose to believe. Her story is corroborated by the handwritten not
which handwriting experts conclude came from Oswald's hand. If she really
had been coerced, she is now an American citizen and can't be deported.
She is free to set the record straight if she had been pressured to lie.
She has never taken that step.

>
> Fourth, we have exactly the same M.O. with notes left for Marina, but Oswald wasn't getting along with her so well in the latter months, and had never left her notes before when he was about to do things. He carried on his life as if she didn't exist. Only the 2 items that the government card about were heralded by a note attributed to Oswald. Handwriting analysts are as good as needed in writing like another person, and then analyzing the result as an Oswald writing.
>

It seems like you are claiming they note was forged. Got any evidence of
that or is this another in a long list of things you have dreamed up to
give you an excuse to dismiss evidence that is damning to Oswald.

>
>
> Fifth, Oswald had his little 'game' going, which was to infiltrate the Cubans and report on their doings. Why would he jeopardize his little ego boost by taking potshots at Walker?
>

Really? Who was he reporting to? Sounds like more of your fiction. Walker
was a right wing extremist and Oswald was a left wing sociopath so I guess
that was reason enough for him.

>
>
> Sixth, Oswald had bought a rifle and had no ammunition for it. The special ammo for that rifle was found in only certain places, and the FBI checked them all and Oswald didn't buy ammo at any of them.

Another fine example of your logical shortcomings. You can't seem to
understand that the lack of evidence that Oswald bought ammo in a
particular place is not evidence he did not buy them there. I have lots of
boxes of ammo and I doubt anyone could prove where I bought them. That's
also true of the beer I drink.

> Not only was there no ammo, but there was a fault in the scope, meaning bad aiming. With a miss at Walker, wouldn't Oswald have the scope fixed if it were his rifle that fired the miss at Walker? Of course, but he never did, even when he decided to kill the president that Marina said he loved.
>

More examples of wy I suggested you find a new hobby. You really aren't
cut out for this one. Maybe you should chase butterflies instead. You
might find them less elusive to you than the truth about the JFK
assassination.

[bigdog]

Yup. Go get a butterfly net.

[Anthony Marsh]

That is simply not true. You never know what the Hell you are talking
about. Being consistent with can rule in and rule out certain things.

> Second, the NAA tests were shown scientifically to be useless in proving that one bullet came from the same batch as another in the JFK case. In fact, the scientists that wrote the following paper suggested the possibility of a second shooter!:
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2150.pdf
>
> Third, Marina's statement at that time is suspect, since she was saying whatever they wanted to hear, since she thought they could send her back to Russia. In some cases she was even changing her stories and the WC was simply accepting each successive story as valid (they kept getting closer to the story they wanted to hear) and asked no questions.
>

The note is not suspect.

> Fourth, we have exactly the same M.O. with notes left for Marina, but Oswald wasn't getting along with her so well in the latter months, and had never left her notes before when he was about to do things. He carried on his life as if she didn't exist. Only the 2 items that the government card about were heralded by a note attributed to Oswald. Handwriting analysts are as good as needed in writing like another person, and then analyzing the result as an Oswald writing.
>
> Fifth, Oswald had his little 'game' going, which was to infiltrate the Cubans and report on their doings. Why would he jeopardize his little ego boost by taking potshots at Walker?
>

How does the Walker shooting help Oswald infiltrate anything if he never
mentioned it?

> Sixth, Oswald had bought a rifle and had no ammunition for it. The special ammo for that rifle was found in only certain places, and the FBI checked them all and Oswald didn't buy ammo at any of them. Not only was there no ammo, but there was a fault in the scope, meaning bad aiming. With a miss at Walker, wouldn't Oswald have the scope fixed if it were his rifle that fired the miss at Walker? Of course, but he never did, even when he decided to kill the president that Marina said he loved.
>

Simply not true.

>
> Nope, you make less sense each time you try to cover up for the WC and their screw-ups.
>

The WC has nothing to do with shooting at Walker.

> Chris
>
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

You surely know that is not what bigdog meant.

It is punishing to be subjected repeatedly to an obstinate inability to
absorb information and to process it logically.

That's why I gave up on you.

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:59:11 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, August 17, 2014 11:14:34 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, August 16, 2014 7:54:33 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > You really should consider a different hobby. This one requires one to be
>
> > > able to think logically. You are obviously challenged in that area. For
>
> > > example, you believe that because no proof exists of where Oswald bought
>
> > > his ammo, that proves he didn't buy ammo. You seem unable to grasp how
>
> > > illogical that conclusion is. In addition, you disregard all tried and
>
> > > true forms of evidence that are used in every other murder case and then
>
> > > turn around and demand proof that isn't required in any other murder case.
>
> > > In other words you are trying to reinvent how to determine the guilty
>
> > > party in a gunshot murder case with predictable results. You are
>
> > > completely lost.
>
> >
>
> > Attacking me won't make your case for the WC lawyers any better.
>
>
>
> It doesn't need to get any better.
>

Sure does. A LOT better...:)

>
>
> > You know how badly they screwed up, but you can't say anything because your so invested in them.
>
> >
>
> > It's really amazing the list you were able to concoct showing Oswald's death urge for Walker...:)
>
> >
>
> > First, being "consistent with" means there is NO proof of anything, since every bullet ever fired would be "consistent with". The bullet in question was too mangled to even assign it as a MC type bullet.
>
> >
>
>
>
> No, every bullet fired would not have markings consistent with the Walker
>
> bullet. The Walker bullet matched Oswald's rifle but due to the damage, it
>
> did not have enough markings to say conclusively it came from Oswald's
>
> gun.
>

False. The bullet was too mangled to be matched to the MC rifle. Try as you might to rewrite history, it won't work. Being 'consistent with' means that it can't be proved.

>
>
> > Second, the NAA tests were shown scientifically to be useless in proving that one bullet came from the same batch as another in the JFK case. In fact, the scientists that wrote the following paper suggested the possibility of a second shooter!:
>
> >
>
> > http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2150.pdf
>
> >
>
>
>
> No, they weren't scientifically useless. It has been shown that such
>
> testing can't postively prove a bullet came from a particular batch, but
>
> such testing still has probative value because it eliminates most batches
>
> from consideration. Evidence does not have to be 100% conclusive in order
>
> to have probative value. Since logic isn't your strong suit, you seem to
>
> think everything is black or white, but in the real world, most things are
>
> shades of gray. If black would be 100% conclusive, this is a very dark
>
> gray.
>

Read the study rather than just trying to fake it. Bullets can be from many batches and not have any individual matching elements, or many and it means nothing. The NAA test is of no use in the JFK case. Saying otherwise won't change the facts.

>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Third, Marina's statement at that time is suspect, since she was saying whatever they wanted to hear, since she thought they could send her back to Russia. In some cases she was even changing her stories and the WC was simply accepting each successive story as valid (they kept getting closer to the story they wanted to hear) and asked no questions.
>
> >
>
>
>
> It's suspect only because accepting it would fly in the face of the things
>
> you choose to believe. Her story is corroborated by the handwritten not
>
> which handwriting experts conclude came from Oswald's hand. If she really
>
> had been coerced, she is now an American citizen and can't be deported.
>
> She is free to set the record straight if she had been pressured to lie.
>
> She has never taken that step.
>

As a citizen looking back, she would rather not harp on the lies she told, and which were lies and which were true (if any). He more recent statements give the impression that the she wished the whole thing would blow over and be forgotten. She won't make herself out as the liar of the century.



>
>
> >
>
> > Fourth, we have exactly the same M.O. with notes left for Marina, but Oswald wasn't getting along with her so well in the latter months, and had never left her notes before when he was about to do things. He carried on his life as if she didn't exist. Only the 2 items that the government cared about were heralded by a note attributed to Oswald. Handwriting analysts are as good as needed in writing like another person, and then analyzing the result as an Oswald writing. Mind you, it wouldn't be the first time the FBI was caught faking evidence or creating it.



>
> >
>
>
>
> It seems like you are claiming the note was forged. Got any evidence of

>
> that or is this another in a long list of things you have dreamed up to
>
> give you an excuse to dismiss evidence that is damning to Oswald.
>

Oswald had some involvement, but not to the degree where he knew that his rifle was going to be used to kill anyone. He figured that out later when Baker and Truly accosted him at the lunchroom. And as noted, and as you've been shown, the FBI has had no problem faking evidence in the case many times before. We have only a subjective opinion that the writing is the same. Another reason why Oswald had to be killed.

>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Fifth, Oswald had his little 'game' going, which was to infiltrate the Cubans and report on their doings. Why would he jeopardize his little ego boost by taking potshots at Walker?
>
> >
>
>
>
> Really? Who was he reporting to? Sounds like more of your fiction. Walker
>
> was a right wing extremist and Oswald was a left wing sociopath so I guess
>
> that was reason enough for him.
>

So now you're a forensic psychiatrist and know what Oswald's state of mind was, and that he was a sociopath. A sociopath wouldn't spend the time to write a note explaining where everything was in the event of his death to his estranged wife. He was 'reporting' through de Mohrenschildt for one. He seems to have had some contact with the FBI as well.

>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sixth, Oswald had bought a rifle and had no ammunition for it. The special ammo for that rifle was found in only certain places, and the FBI checked them all and Oswald didn't buy ammo at any of them.
>
>
>
> Another fine example of your logical shortcomings. You can't seem to
>
> understand that the lack of evidence that Oswald bought ammo in a
>
> particular place is not evidence he did not buy them there. I have lots of
>
> boxes of ammo and I doubt anyone could prove where I bought them. That's
>
> also true of the beer I drink.
>

Your ammunition and beer are probably common brands. The ammunition for the MC rifle was found in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area in only 2 places. They were checked, and neither sold ammo to Oswald. Please don't try to pretend that the ammo was common and could be bought just anywhere. Not to mention that if anyone sold the rare, oddball ammo to Oswald, after the murder they would remember Oswald, if not the weird ammo. You've been shown documentation o nthat, yet you continue to pretend that there were many places to find that special ammunition.

>
>
> > Not only was there no ammo, but there was a fault in the scope, meaning bad aiming. With a miss at Walker, wouldn't Oswald have the scope fixed if it were his rifle that fired the miss at Walker? Of course, but he never did, even when he decided to kill the president that Marina said he loved.
>
> >
>
>
>
> More examples of wy I suggested you find a new hobby. You really aren't
>
> cut out for this one. Maybe you should chase butterflies instead. You
>
> might find them less elusive to you than the truth about the JFK
>
> assassination.

Obviously you have no sensible response for my comment. The ad hominem shot is proof that you had nothing intelligent to say. Keep tryin'...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

If I did, guess who would get caught in it, from flitting around everywhere claiming the intelligence of the WC lawyers.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Not exactly. Read the report again. All it tells us is that the lead
came from unhardened lead cores.

>>
>>
>> Third, Marina's statement at that time is suspect, since she was saying whatever they wanted to hear, since she thought they could send her back to Russia. In some cases she was even changing her stories and the WC was simply accepting each successive story as valid (they kept getting closer to the story they wanted to hear) and asked no questions.
>>
>
> It's suspect only because accepting it would fly in the face of the things
> you choose to believe. Her story is corroborated by the handwritten not
> which handwriting experts conclude came from Oswald's hand. If she really
> had been coerced, she is now an American citizen and can't be deported.

It's ot about today. It's about 11/22/63.

> She is free to set the record straight if she had been pressured to lie.
> She has never taken that step.

How would you know? You've never talked to her.

>
>>
>> Fourth, we have exactly the same M.O. with notes left for Marina, but Oswald wasn't getting along with her so well in the latter months, and had never left her notes before when he was about to do things. He carried on his life as if she didn't exist. Only the 2 items that the government card about were heralded by a note attributed to Oswald. Handwriting analysts are as good as needed in writing like another person, and then analyzing the result as an Oswald writing.
>>
>
> It seems like you are claiming they note was forged. Got any evidence of
> that or is this another in a long list of things you have dreamed up to
> give you an excuse to dismiss evidence that is damning to Oswald.
>
>>
>>
>> Fifth, Oswald had his little 'game' going, which was to infiltrate the Cubans and report on their doings. Why would he jeopardize his little ego boost by taking potshots at Walker?
>>
>
> Really? Who was he reporting to? Sounds like more of your fiction. Walker
> was a right wing extremist and Oswald was a left wing sociopath so I guess
> that was reason enough for him.
>

Maurice Bishop.

[Anthony Marsh]

The NAA helps only to rule out hardened lead bullets.

[bigdog]

On Monday, August 18, 2014 1:51:31 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:59:11 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
> > No, every bullet fired would not have markings consistent with the Walker
> > bullet. The Walker bullet matched Oswald's rifle but due to the damage, it
> > did not have enough markings to say conclusively it came from Oswald's
> > gun.
>
> False. The bullet was too mangled to be matched to the MC rifle. Try as you might to rewrite history, it won't work. Being 'consistent with' means that it can't be proved.
>

Had it been inconsistent, it would have proved the bullet was not fired by
Oswald's Carcano. Just a coincidence I suppose. Once more you demonstrate
why you really need to find a new hobby. You seem incapable of weighing
evidence. To you, any piece of evidence that is not 100% conclusive is
worthless. Probability doesn't enter into the equation for you nor does
weighing evidence to see how it fits with other evidence in the case. When
you have several pieces of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion,
it strengthens each piece of evidence. In this case, we have a bullet with
markings consistent with Oswald's Carcano. It has the same metalurgical
make up as the batch of WCC Carcano bullets that were recovered from the
JFK shooting. We have Marina's sworn testimony which she gave to both the
WC and the HSCA stating Oswald had told her he shot at Walker. We have the
note Oswald wrote to Marina, corroborating her story. We have photographs
of Walker's house in Oswald's possessions. It should be amusing to hear
your explaination for that. None of these pieces of evidence by itself
establishes Oswald's guilt in the Walker shooting but together they
present a clear cut picture that he did it. There is simply no other
plausible explaination that these four pieces of evidence would be as they
are if Oswald wasn't guilty. You want us to believe it is just pure
conincidence that the ballistic markings and the metalurgical makeup of
the Walker bullet was the same as the Carcano bullets recovered from the
JFK assassination. You want us to believe Marina committed purgury not
once but twice when she gave sworn testimony to the WC and the HSCA that
Oswald told her he shot at Walker. You want us to believe the handwritten
not by Oswald to Marina had nothing to do with the attempt on Walker's
life. You want us to believe it was just another strange coincidence that
Oswald would have photos of Walker's house in his possession. We are
suppose to believe that all because there is no record of where Oswald
bought his bullets even though there is nor reason to thing there should
be a record. This is a perfect example of why you have no aptitude for
this hobby. But don't despair. I play in a golf league that has lots of
guys who really suck at golf but they stick with it even though they have
about as much chance as you of ever getting better at their chosen
hobby.

>
> As a citizen looking back, she would rather not harp on the lies she told, and which were lies and which were true (if any). He more recent statements give the impression that the she wished the whole thing would blow over and be forgotten. She won't make herself out as the liar of the century.
>

She has you to do that for her, even though there is physical evidence
which corrobrates her story. Oswald's handwritten note and the photos of
Walker's house.

>
>
> > It seems like you are claiming the note was forged. Got any evidence of
> > that or is this another in a long list of things you have dreamed up to
> > give you an excuse to dismiss evidence that is damning to Oswald.
>
> Oswald had some involvement, but not to the degree where he knew that his rifle was going to be used to kill anyone. He figured that out later when Baker and Truly accosted him at the lunchroom. And as noted, and as you've been shown, the FBI has had no problem faking evidence in the case many times before. We have only a subjective opinion that the writing is the same. Another reason why Oswald had to be killed.
>

We were talking about the Walker shooting. What do Baker and Truly have to
do with that? No wonder you have so much trouble figuring this thing out.

>
>
>
> > > Fifth, Oswald had his little 'game' going, which was to infiltrate the Cubans and report on their doings. Why would he jeopardize his little ego boost by taking potshots at Walker?
>
> > Really? Who was he reporting to? Sounds like more of your fiction. Walker
> > was a right wing extremist and Oswald was a left wing sociopath so I guess
> > that was reason enough for him.
>
> So now you're a forensic psychiatrist and know what Oswald's state of mind was, and that he was a sociopath. A sociopath wouldn't spend the time to write a note explaining where everything was in the event of his death to his estranged wife. He was 'reporting' through de Mohrenschildt for one. He seems to have had some contact with the FBI as well.
>

So you accuse me of playing pschiatrist and then turn around and tell us
what a sociopath would have done. <snicker> So if Oswald didn't write the
note to Marina because he planned to shoot Walker, why do you suppose he
wrote it?

>
>
> > > Sixth, Oswald had bought a rifle and had no ammunition for it. The special ammo for that rifle was found in only certain places, and the FBI checked them all and Oswald didn't buy ammo at any of them.
>
> > Another fine example of your logical shortcomings. You can't seem to
> > understand that the lack of evidence that Oswald bought ammo in a
> > particular place is not evidence he did not buy them there. I have lots of
> > boxes of ammo and I doubt anyone could prove where I bought them. That's
> > also true of the beer I drink.
>
> Your ammunition and beer are probably common brands.

Doens't matter whether ammo is common or not. No records are kept of who
ammo is sold to. Back in the day, no records are kept of who beer was
sold to. Now many stores at least enter the buyer's birthday when
approving an alcohol sale. Still no record is kept of ammo purchases if it
is a cash transaction.

> The ammunition for the MC rifle was found in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area in only 2 places. They were checked, and neither sold ammo to Oswald.

Complete bullshit. They had no record they sold ammo to Oswald. They
wouldn't have had any record they sold ammo to Oswald because gun stores
don't keep that kind of records. Why is it you cannot understand something
so amazingly simple.

> Please don't try to pretend that the ammo was common and could be bought just anywhere. Not to mention that if anyone sold the rare, oddball ammo to Oswald, after the murder they would remember Oswald, if not the weird ammo. You've been shown documentation o nthat, yet you continue to pretend that there were many places to find that special ammunition.

And why would anyone remember selling ammo to Oswald 8 months earlier and
even if they could, do you really think they tracked down every employee
who had worked at those gun shops the previous 8 months and asked them if
they remembered selling ammo to Oswald. Another fine example of why you
really are bad at this hobby.

>
> > > Not only was there no ammo, but there was a fault in the scope, meaning bad aiming. With a miss at Walker, wouldn't Oswald have the scope fixed if it were his rifle that fired the miss at Walker? Of course, but he never did, even when he decided to kill the president that Marina said he loved.
>

When I miss a putt, and don't go and have my putter checked to see if it
is out of allignment. When I miss a shot, I don't go have the sights on my
guns checked out. I figure those misses were my fault.

> >
> > More examples of wy I suggested you find a new hobby. You really aren't
> > cut out for this one. Maybe you should chase butterflies instead. You
> > might find them less elusive to you than the truth about the JFK
> > assassination.
>
> Obviously you have no sensible response for my comment. The ad hominem shot is proof that you had nothing intelligent to say. Keep tryin'...:)
>

Actually, suggesting you find a hobby more suited to your skill set is a
very sensible response.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/16/2014 7:56 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:

The important thing is WHEN it was damaged. It was ALWAYS defective.

> http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/lee-harvey-oswalds-carcano-rifle-shooting-it-today/.
>
> Pay attention to the junky mounting system and the very cheap scope. It
> wouldn't take much to knock them out of sight.
>

Not the same scope. Not the same mount. You should have posted a link to
his photo of HIS scope.

http://cdn.gunsamerica.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/carcano-oswald-rifle-scope21-324x300.jpg

Slightly better quality than Oswald got. The author wrote some
self-contradictory sentences, but he was correct in saying that one could
still use the iron sights instead of the scope:


This pictures shows the scope from the rear of the rifle. As you can see,
like the side mount on a Garand, the open sights are still in view. There
are opinions that because Oswald?s scope couldn?t be zeroed by the FBI
that he used the iron sights on the gun to shoot so quickly.


> Bill Clarke
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, but that wasn't Oswald's rifle and it wasn't Oswald's scope. But it
is possible to use the iron sights instead of the scope.
And if the photo is good enough to prove a point then it is good enough
to post a link to it:

http://cdn.gunsamerica.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/carcano-oswald-rifle-scope21-324x300.jpg

[mainframetech]

On Monday, August 18, 2014 7:30:05 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, August 18, 2014 1:51:31 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:59:11 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > No, every bullet fired would not have markings consistent with the Walker
>
> > > bullet. The Walker bullet matched Oswald's rifle but due to the damage, it
>
> > > did not have enough markings to say conclusively it came from Oswald's
>
> > > gun.
>
> >
>
> > False. The bullet was too mangled to be matched to the MC rifle. Try as you might to rewrite history, it won't work. Being 'consistent with' means that it can't be proved.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Had it been inconsistent, it would have proved the bullet was not fired by
>
> Oswald's Carcano. Just a coincidence I suppose. Once more you demonstrate
>
> why you really need to find a new hobby. You seem incapable of weighing
>
> evidence. To you, any piece of evidence that is not 100% conclusive is
>
> worthless.

Your attempt to try and guess at my methods fails yet again. I'll use
evidence that is 'consistent with' when it makes sense. Since Oswald
wasn't on the 6th floor as the shots rang out, we know he wasn't the
guilty party. Even though he was probably the person that brought the
rifle to the TSBD that day.

You have to learn to take an overview that is unbiased or YOU will need
to get a different hobby. This has become some kind of death ritual for
you jumping into boiling water all the time. But then some people are
indeed gluttons for punishment. There's a job with the government waiting
for you to do exactly the same thing you're doing now, but you would get
paid and wouldn't have to volunteer. You can apply as you continue your
hobby with me...:)

Apparently you think you have gotten a hold of something you can
pretend means something in the case, by continuing to spout about
'consistent with'. Being 'consistent with' means that they don't know if
there's a match or not, so they say 'consistent with' so they can testify
in court and make it sound like it means something, just like you're
attempting to do. How many other bullets in the country are 'consistent
with' ammunition for the MC rifle, And what batch of ammunition WAS it
found to be 'consistent with'? Where is your cite saying 'consistent
with', not that it means anything?

Probability doesn't enter into the equation for you nor does
>
> weighing evidence to see how it fits with other evidence in the case. When
>
> you have several pieces of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion,
>
> it strengthens each piece of evidence.

Well, well! We agree that evidence can mount up and be more impressive
as that happens. However, when you have a whole agency pushing a single
scenario, there's a lot of resources there to do many things if they
aren't completely honest, as we've found out about the FBI. And in that
light, we've found that altered evidence has indeed mounted up, showing
what an effort was put forward to make that evidence support the weirdo
'lone nut' scenario.

> In this case, we have a bullet with
>
> markings consistent with Oswald's Carcano. It has the same metalurgical
>
> make up as the batch of WCC Carcano bullets that were recovered from the
>
> JFK shooting.

Here we go with the 'consistent with' baloney again. Millions of
bullets were probably 'consistent with' the MC rifle. And by saying that
the Walker bullet came from the same "metallurgical make up", it's the
same as saying my nickel in my pocket had the same "metallurgical make up"
as all the other nickels in the country. Millions of MC bullets will
match the same "batch" as the 2 bullets found in the JFK case in all the
wrong places. We have piled on error after error!

We have Marina's sworn testimony which she gave to both the
>
> WC and the HSCA stating Oswald had told her he shot at Walker. We have the
>
> note Oswald wrote to Marina, corroborating her story.

We know about Marina's veracity at that time in her life. Husband
gone and left in a strange country with a baby, possibly to be shipped
back to Russia (she thought). She'd say anything they wanted. And the
note was stated by an FBI writing specialist, which doesn't say much about
the value of that piece of evidence. The FBI has been caught many times
lying, creating evidence, changing statements, and doing all sorts of
things to make the wacky 'lone nut' scenario be true.

> We have photographs
>
> of Walker's house in Oswald's possessions. It should be amusing to hear
>
> your explaination for that.

Interesting that you say "WE have photographs". Have you already
joined the government agency tasked with pretending that the conspiracy
didn't happen? For Oswald to have photos of Walker's house in his
possessions, tell me, did they find them AFTER the murder of JFK? Try and
picture a guy who doesn't have a car and doesn't drive putting a rifle a
yard long in his pants and try to get onto a bus and sit with the rifle
stuck under his coat. Try and imagine him walking along with a rifle and
scope until he gets to the right place to hunker down and take aim. Then
picture him walking back to the bus stop while police come racing to the
house and begin looking around the neighborhood. First, we must consider
that if Oswald was part of the Walker attempt, that someone drove him
around, especially to the parking lot next door at the church there. A 14
year old boy heard a shot and came out then and looked into the church
parking lot and saw 2 men leaving in 2 cars. Couldn't be Oswald, since he
didn't drive. The 2 men left right after the shot sounded. their leaving
was 'consistent with' shooters leaving the scene of the shooting. The FBI
report tried to change the information from the boy to make it look like
the report wasn't of any importance, but the police report shows their
machinations and the true version:

http://www.giljesus.com/Walker/witness.htm

> None of these pieces of evidence by itself
>
> establishes Oswald's guilt in the Walker shooting but together they
>
> present a clear cut picture that he did it.

Nope, that's YOUR interpretation. The WC and the HSCA findings were
not conclusive.

> There is simply no other
>
> plausible explaination that these four pieces of evidence would be as they
>
> are if Oswald wasn't guilty. You want us to believe it is just pure
>
> conincidence that the ballistic markings and the metalurgical makeup of
>
> the Walker bullet was the same as the Carcano bullets recovered from the
>
> JFK assassination.

I imagine you're going to repeat those false statements often in hopes
that frequency will cause belief? They've been shown to be made up by
you.

> You want us to believe Marina committed purgury not
>
> once but twice when she gave sworn testimony to the WC and the HSCA that
>
> Oswald told her he shot at Walker. You want us to believe the handwritten
>
> not by Oswald to Marina had nothing to do with the attempt on Walker's
>
> life. You want us to believe it was just another strange coincidence that
>
> Oswald would have photos of Walker's house in his possession. We are
>
> suppose to believe that all because there is no record of where Oswald
>
> bought his bullets even though there is nor reason to thing there should
>
> be a record.

Try and use your head on this stuff. It's all been answered above, and
repeating it all over again will not make it any more firm. Try and do
what you always do and follow the WC and HSCA and go with 'inconclusive'
instead of making up evidence, like 'metallurgically similar', lie a
nickel in your pocket to the millions out in the world...:)

> This is a perfect example of why you have no aptitude for
>
> this hobby. But don't despair. I play in a golf league that has lots of
>
> guys who really suck at golf but they stick with it even though they have
>
> about as much chance as you of ever getting better at their chosen
>
> hobby.
>

Try and appreciate how your various attempts to shore up the
government's case makes you look. It's a hobby that you should get away
from so you can go play more golf. Or something you're good at.

>
>
> >
>
> > As a citizen looking back, she would rather not harp on the lies she told, and which were lies and which were true (if any). He more recent statements give the impression that the she wished the whole thing would blow over and be forgotten. She won't make herself out as the liar of the century.
>
> >
>
>
>
> She has you to do that for her, even though there is physical evidence
>
> which corrobrates her story. Oswald's handwritten note and the photos of
>
> Walker's house.
>

Yep. A handwritten note from the FBI! Wow! More evidence they come up
with supporting the wacky 'lone nut' theory. Sorry, I'm not buying. The
Coleman story makes more sense. I can't get the picture out of my head of
Oswald trying to hide a rifle on his person as he takes a bus and walks up
to a place near the Walker house, then his trip back home...:) Think it
through.

>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > It seems like you are claiming the note was forged. Got any evidence of
>
> > > that or is this another in a long list of things you have dreamed up to
>
> > > give you an excuse to dismiss evidence that is damning to Oswald.
>
> >
>
> > Oswald had some involvement, but not to the degree where he knew that his rifle was going to be used to kill anyone. He figured that out later when Baker and Truly accosted him at the lunchroom. And as noted, and as you've been shown, the FBI has had no problem faking evidence in the case many times before. We have only a subjective opinion that the writing is the same. Another reason why Oswald had to be killed.
>
> >
>
>
>
> We were talking about the Walker shooting. What do Baker and Truly have to
>
> do with that? No wonder you have so much trouble figuring this thing out.
>
>

Try and follow what's going on. You said "...dismiss evidence that is
damning to Oswald.", but to answer your Walker comment. The evidence for
the FBI forging a note is the same as all the FBI 'doings' that were
illegal and improper. They've been shown to have lied, changed
statements, intimidated witnesses by threat, and done whatever they could
get away with to push the wacky 'lone nut' theory. If that theory didn't
hold up, then many conspirators would be in the fire running for their
lives.

>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > Fifth, Oswald had his little 'game' going, which was to infiltrate the Cubans and report on their doings. Why would he jeopardize his little ego boost by taking potshots at Walker?
>
> >
>
> > > Really? Who was he reporting to? Sounds like more of your fiction. Walker
>
> > > was a right wing extremist and Oswald was a left wing sociopath so I guess
>
> > > that was reason enough for him.
>
> >
>
> > So now you're a forensic psychiatrist and know what Oswald's state of mind was, and that he was a sociopath. A sociopath wouldn't spend the time to write a note explaining where everything was in the event of his death to his estranged wife. He was 'reporting' through de Mohrenschildt for one. He seems to have had some contact with the FBI as well.
>
> >
>
>
>
> So you accuse me of playing pschiatrist and then turn around and tell us
>
> what a sociopath would have done. <snicker> So if Oswald didn't write the
>
> note to Marina because he planned to shoot Walker, why do you suppose he
>
> wrote it?
>

Give it up! You were trying to diagnose a specific person (Oswald),
while I was speaking generally from the book on a sociopath, information
that many of us have. A person that looks after someone else and cares
about them enough to leave money and information is case of emergency
isn't acting as the definition of a sociopath. Think it through!

>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > Sixth, Oswald had bought a rifle and had no ammunition for it. The special ammo for that rifle was found in only certain places, and the FBI checked them all and Oswald didn't buy ammo at any of them.
>
> >
>
> > > Another fine example of your logical shortcomings. You can't seem to
>
> > > understand that the lack of evidence that Oswald bought ammo in a
>
> > > particular place is not evidence he did not buy them there. I have lots of
>
> > > boxes of ammo and I doubt anyone could prove where I bought them. That's
>
> > > also true of the beer I drink.
>
> >
>
> > Your ammunition and beer are probably common brands.
>
>
>
> Doens't matter whether ammo is common or not. No records are kept of who
>
> ammo is sold to. Back in the day, no records are kept of who beer was
>
> sold to. Now many stores at least enter the buyer's birthday when
>
> approving an alcohol sale. Still no record is kept of ammo purchases if it
>
> is a cash transaction.
>

Amazing! You're still trying to get away with that old line about ammo
sales not being recorded. It's been shown that it IS recorded, anywhere
there's a store, whether for ammo or for birthday cakes, they want it
recorded. They need those sales receipts for restocking, for tax
purposes, for statistics on sales, and much more. You can be sure that
any sale of ammunition would be recorded just as the sale of a rifle would
be. They may not write down the name of the buyer, though that is also
useful information for sending out sales literature at times.

Now, since there were only 2 places where the ammo for the MC rifle was
sold in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, and the FBI checked them both, Oswald
didn't buy the special oddball ammo. The oddball ammo would have stood
out, and after the murder, so would Oswald. You've been shown the
documentation on all that, so don't pretend you didn't know it.

>
>
> > The ammunition for the MC rifle was found in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area in only 2 places. They were checked, and neither sold ammo to Oswald.
>
>
>
> Complete bullshit. They had no record they sold ammo to Oswald. They
>
> wouldn't have had any record they sold ammo to Oswald because gun stores
>
> don't keep that kind of records. Why is it you cannot understand something
>
> so amazingly simple.
>

The bullshit is dripping from you right now. Oh I hear you fine, but
you didn't listen to me when I told you how full of it you were. You're
not able to hear that sort of thing. You've been shown the proof of what
the FBI did to track down the sale of MCF ammo to Oswald. They would have
loved to be able to do that, if it were possible, but they couldn't. Not
because it was some anonymous sale that no one remembered, but because the
ammo was special, and Oswald's photo was spread everywhere after the
murder, and he would be remembered for that if nothing else.




>
>
> > Please don't try to pretend that the ammo was common and could be bought just anywhere. Not to mention that if anyone sold the rare, oddball ammo to Oswald, after the murder they would remember Oswald, if not the weird ammo. You've been shown documentation on that, yet you continue to pretend that there were many places to find that special ammunition.

>
>
>
> And why would anyone remember selling ammo to Oswald 8 months earlier and
>
> even if they could, do you really think they tracked down every employee
>
> who had worked at those gun shops the previous 8 months and asked them if
>
> they remembered selling ammo to Oswald. Another fine example of why you
>
> really are bad at this hobby.
>

Keep trying to get rid of me. I must be a thorn in your side...:)
Your effort to try and escape the problem of Oswald not buying any
ammunition for the MC rifle pushes you further and further out on your
limb. Think it through. The MC ammunition was special and odd at that.
It would not easily be forgotten, nor the person that bought such stuff.
And of course, the sale would be recorded. Remember, you've already seen
the FBI documents and other information about the failure to track down
the ammunition, or nail Oswald with a purchase of it.

>
>
> >
>
> > > > Not only was there no ammo, but there was a fault in the scope, meaning bad aiming. With a miss at Walker, wouldn't Oswald have the scope fixed if it were his rifle that fired the miss at Walker? Of course, but he never did, even when he decided to kill the president that Marina said he loved.
>
> >
>
>
>
> When I miss a putt, and don't go and have my putter checked to see if it
>
> is out of allignment. When I miss a shot, I don't go have the sights on my
>
> guns checked out. I figure those misses were my fault.
>

So you believe that Oswald didn't do any practice shooting then? :))
He just tried the one shot at Walker and missed for a normal reason, and
then went right into a murder of the POTUS? LOL! So at no time did
Oswald check out his rifle for accuracy. Suure...:)

>
>
> > >
>
> > > More examples of wy I suggested you find a new hobby. You really aren't
>
> > > cut out for this one. Maybe you should chase butterflies instead. You
>
> > > might find them less elusive to you than the truth about the JFK
>
> > > assassination.
>
> >
>
> > Obviously you have no sensible response for my comment. The ad hominem shot is proof that you had nothing intelligent to say. Keep tryin'...:)
>
> >
>
>
>
> Actually, suggesting you find a hobby more suited to your skill set is a
>
> very sensible response.

And my suggestion that you go see the government and get them to pay
you for the job your doing for them would allow you to put together a
little nest egg for the future...and you wouldn't have to change a
thing...:)

Chris

[bigdog]

Give a man enough rope and he'll hang himself. There is no need for me to
waste any more of my time refuting your nonsense. When you start using
people like Gil Jesus as a source, you've put your own head in the noose.

[mainframetech]

A foolish move if you had been a serious researcher. Even a blind man
can determine whether it's raining...:) As it turns out, Gil Jesus is a
careful researcher. The way you can usually tell is how much the LN
community dumps on you to try and shut you up. The more they try, the
more right you are, and the more afraid they are that you are getting
closer to real answers.

Your comments trying to down the research by downing the person show
that his research is valid. I've showed it to you, now you welcome to
accept it or attempt to refute it.

Your immediate denial of his research based on your belief in him is
illogical. So if you think there's a noose there, prove his research
about documents incorrect, or just accept it by saying nothing.

Chris

[Bud]

Gil Jesus is an idiot.

> The way you can usually tell is how much the LN
>
> community dumps on you to try and shut you up.

Free country, you should indulge in this silly hobby as for as long as you derive enjoyment from it. Don`t let shame or reason impede your hobby, spin them wheels!

> The more they try, the
>
> more right you are, and the more afraid they are that you are getting
>
> closer to real answers.

Just the poor kind of figuring one would expect from a conspiracy hobbyist.

>
>
> Your comments trying to down the research by downing the person show
>
> that his research is valid. I've showed it to you, now you welcome to
>
> accept it or attempt to refute it.
>
>
>
> Your immediate denial of his research based on your belief in him is
>
> illogical.

Just because he is a hobbyists desperate to believe Oswald was a patsy
and tries to get all information to fit that fantasy doesn`t mean he
should be dismissed, does it? Why yes, yes it does.

> So if you think there's a noose there, prove his research
>
> about documents incorrect, or just accept it by saying nothing.

Gil Jesus has displayed his poor abilities many times, as have you. When
I feel like it I mention it.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, he isn't. He is a kook. You gravitate towards kooks.

> community dumps on you to try and shut you up. The more they try, the
> more right you are, and the more afraid they are that you are getting
> closer to real answers.
>
> Your comments trying to down the research by downing the person show
> that his research is valid. I've showed it to you, now you welcome to
> accept it or attempt to refute it.
>

So you would accept anything just because it came from the WC and you
trust it to always be accurate and never check it out yourself?

[bigdog]

Why would we want to shut Gil Jesus up. His YouTube videos are a
laughfest. I'm surprised none of them have made their way to America's
Funniest Home Videos.

> Your comments trying to down the research by downing the person show
> that his research is valid.

Actually, it requires a lot more than that to validate something. Having
people laugh at your work is hardly validation of it.

> I've showed it to you, now you welcome to
> accept it or attempt to refute it.
>

I was aware of Gil Jesus long before I ran across you. It doesn't surprise
me one bit that you are his protege.

> Your immediate denial of his research based on your belief in him is
> illogical. So if you think there's a noose there, prove his research
> about documents incorrect, or just accept it by saying nothing.
>

There is no need for me to do either.