For Walt C -- FU re the Rifle on the 5th Floor
dcwi...@netscape.net
Carcano suggests that that rifle was "found on the 5th floor." Just wanted to
add (as I noted to Joe Z elsewhere) that every TSBD searcher who was there for
both discoveries--rifle & shells-- sez the two discoveries were made on the same
floor, whatever it was, & the consensus was mixed (Dep sheriffs Wiseman &
Faulkner said 5th). The flooring then would imply "5th," for both rifle &
shells, eh?
dw
PapaKochenbrot
>shells, eh?
>dw
Don.... I don't know how to explain the problems....
The numeral "5" on the post and the plank flooring seem to indicate that the
rifle was found on the fifth floor..... However I'm convinced that the shells
were planted in the Smokers Nook in the SE corner of the sixth floor....
The only other explanation is the "insitu" photos of the rifle in the cavern of
boxes are not actually photos that were taken at the time ( 1:25pm).... they
may have been taken later that weekend on the fifth floor. We know that all of
the other false photos of the "snipers nest" were created later that weekend...
There is one other possibility.... Perhaps the rifle found on the sixth floor
was a Mauser just as Some police officers said....while the Carcano was found
on the fifth floor...
Walt
Neil Coburn
rifle being dusted for finger prints at the TSBD minutes after it was
found.That policeman would have corrected his fellow officers if indeed
the rifle was not a MAUSER. N.C.
PapaKochenbrot
>From: dayto...@webtv.net (Neil Coburn)
>Date: 7/9/01 11:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <29601-3B...@storefull-145.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
The film taken by Tom Alyea does in fact show Lt J.C. Day dusting a Carcano
......
PapaKochenbrot
>Date: 7/9/01 7:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010709220111...@ng-ci1.aol.com>
>The film taken by Tom Alyea does in fact show Lt J.C. Day dusting a Carcano
Unfortunately.... Lt Day showed himself to be a liar when he testified before
the W.C.... He swore the photos of the "snipers nest" were taken immediately
when he and Studebaker arrived at the SE corner "crime scene"...
HE WAS LYING!!!
Walt
AnthonyMarsh
Yes, you are correct. He did. That was Lt. Carl Day, the evidence
expert. It didn't take him long to discover that it was a
Mannlicher-Carcano. And the guy who made the mistake made an honest
mistake because from a distance it does look like a Mauser.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
AnthonyMarsh
All you have to do is compare the photo you are talking about to other
photos taken that day in the TSBD on both the fifth and sixth floor.
Notice the way the boxes are stacked.
Don't jump to conclusions before you get your fingernails dirty doing
some actual research.
tomnln
I suggest you ask someone to read to you the following Testimony from the 26
volumes...
FINDING THE RIFLE.
The Warren Report tell us on page 645:
Speculation:-The rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book
Depository was identified as a 7.65 Mauser by the man who found it, Deputy
Constable Seymour Weitzman.
Commission finding:-Weitzman, the original source of the speculation that
the rifle was a Mauser, and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone found the weapon.
Weitzman did not handle the rifle and did not examine it at close range. He
had little more than a glimpse of it and thought it was a Mauser, a German
bolt-type rifle similar in appearance to the Manlicher-Carcano. Police
laboratory technicians subsequently arrived and correctly identified the
weapon as a 6.5 Italian rifle.
Pretty simple in and of itself. But as I Told you earlier the WR consists
of 888 pages of "conclusions" based on 26 Volumes of Testimony and Exhibits.
And they were very selective in what they based their conclusions on. As
stated above: Wietzman simply made a mistake.
Volume XXIV Pg. 228 contains Wietzman's actual written statement dated
11/23/63. (This is what he reported.)
"Yesterday November 22, 1963 I was standing on the corner of Main and
Houston, and as the President passed and made his turn going west towards
Stemmens, I walked casually around. At this time my partner was behind me
and asked me something. I looked back at him and heard 3 shots. I ran in a
northwest direction and scaled a fence towards where we thought the shots
came from. Then someone said they thought the shots came from the old Texas
Building. I immediately ran to the old Texas Building and started looking
inside. At this time Captain Fritz arrived and ordered all of the sixth
floor sealed off and searched. I was working with Deputy S. Boone of the
Sheriff's Department and helping in the search. We were in the northwest
corner of the sixth floor when Deputy Boone and myself spotted the rifle
about the same time. THE RIFLE WAS A 7.65 MAUSER BOLT ACTION EQUIPED WITH A
4/18 SCOPE, A THICK LEATHER BROWNISH-BLACK SLING ON IT. The rifle was
between some boxes near the stairway. The time the rifle was found was 1:22
pm. Captain Fritz took charge of the rifle and ejected one live round from
the chamber. I then went back to the office after this.
Seymour Weitzman
(EMPHASIS ADDED) (Signature)
1. THIS STATEMENT DOESN'T SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S CLAIM THAT
WEITZMAN ONLY HAD A "GLIMPSE" OF THE WEAPON. (Does that description
sound like nothing more than just a "GLIMPSE"?
2. THE COMMISSION DIDN'T GIVE WEITZMAN THE CREDIT DUE HIM WHEN IT
NEGLECTED TO QUOTE HIS TESTIMONY IN VOLUME VII PG. 108 STATING
THAT HE WAS FAIRLY FAMILAR WITH RIFLES BECAUSE HE OWNED A
SPORTING GOODS BUSINESS FOR A WHILE.
3. THE COMMISSION SKILLFULLY FAILED TO MENTION CORROBURATION FOR
WEITZMAN'S OBSERVATION IN THE FORM OF DEPUTY SHERIFF BOONE'S
AFFIDAVIT (Decker Exhibit 5323 Volume XIX pgs. 508-9) " What appeared to be
a 7.65 Mauser with a teloscopic site. The rifle had what
appeared to be a brownish, black stock and blue steel, metal parts."
(Does that sound like the rifle they reportedly found?)
4. FOR MORE CORROBURATION BOONE HAS A SHORTER REPORT ON PG. 507 OF THE
SAME VOLUME. BUT STILL DESCRIBING A "7.65 MAUSER WITH A
TELESCOPIC SITE."
5. THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE RIFLE FOUND ON THE SIXTH FLOOR AS A 7.65
MAUSER "BY CAPTAIN FRITZ" IS FURTHER EVIDENCED IN THE TESTIMONY OF
DEPUTY BOONE IN VOLUME III Pg. 295.
BALL: There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this
rifle as a Mauser that day?
BOONE: Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought
it was a 7.65 Mauser.
BALL: Who refered to it as a Mauser that day?
BOONE: I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at
it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it
was, he said that is what it looks like. This is when
Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting ready to
photograph it. We were just discussng it back and forth. And he said it
looks like a 7.65 Mauser.
BALL: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Sheriff. You have been very
helpful.
OMMITTING THESE FACTS MAKES IT A LOT EASIER TO DISMISS THE REPORT OF
WEITZMAN AS JUST A MISTAKE!
While we're on the subject of ommissions, take a look at CE #2143 on pg.
754 of Volume XXIV It's a press conference with Dallas Police Cheif Jesse
Curry on Saturday, Nov. 23, 1963.
"Q. What is the name of the rifle that was found in the sixth floor of
the Depository Building?"
"Curry. That was__" (That's where CE #2143 ENDS)
On Pg. 761, Curry states that the Dallas Police got a "TIP" that Oswald
purchased the rifle through a mail-order house under the name of A. Hidell.
(Who was the Tipster?)
On pg. 766 Curry states that there were three (3) witnesses to the murder
of officer Tippitt. (The WC tells us of Helen Markham and Domingo Benavides.
Neither of which could pick Oswald out of a Police line_up) Who was the
third witness that the WC totally ignored? Was it Aquilla Clemmons who
stated that TWO (2) men killed Tippitt. One of whom resembled Jack Ruby!
(see Rush To Judgement by Mark Lane)
The Warren Report tells us that Oswald's palm print was found on one of the
book cartons used for the sniper's nest.
I don't find that at all amazing considering that Oswald worked in that
area all morning. .. What I DO find amazing is that they also found
TWENTY-FIVE (25) "other" prints. Only twenty-four of which they could
match with TSBD employees, Dallas P.D. and FBI. SHOWING NO CONCERN
WHATSOEVER OVER WHO THE 25th PRINT BELONGED TO! (WRpg.249)
By tomnln
"AnthonyMarsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:3B4A81A5...@quik.com...
AnthonyMarsh
>
> Tony;
> I suggest you ask someone to read to you the following Testimony from the 26
> volumes...
>
Wow, as if you are pointing out something that I never knew before. NOT.
I was reading the 26 volumes before you were even aware of this case.
And we have been though this discussion dozens of times before.
> FINDING THE RIFLE.
>
> The Warren Report tell us on page 645:
>
> Speculation:-The rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book
> Depository was identified as a 7.65 Mauser by the man who found it, Deputy
> Constable Seymour Weitzman.
> Commission finding:-Weitzman, the original source of the speculation that
> the rifle was a Mauser, and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone found the weapon.
> Weitzman did not handle the rifle and did not examine it at close range. He
Weitzman did not examine it at close range. Physically he had no way to
get that close, as close as Lt. Day did. Lt. Day was holding the rifle.
You need a loupe, which Day had, to see some of the markings. Terni is
not in Germany, FYI.
> had little more than a glimpse of it and thought it was a Mauser, a German
> bolt-type rifle similar in appearance to the Manlicher-Carcano. Police
> laboratory technicians subsequently arrived and correctly identified the
> weapon as a 6.5 Italian rifle.
>
> Pretty simple in and of itself. But as I Told you earlier the WR consists
> of 888 pages of "conclusions" based on 26 Volumes of Testimony and Exhibits.
> And they were very selective in what they based their conclusions on. As
And YOU are very selective in the information YOU provide. Weitzman
admitted that he had made a mistake and confirmed that it really was a
Mannlicher-Carcano.
> stated above: Wietzman simply made a mistake.
>
> Volume XXIV Pg. 228 contains Wietzman's actual written statement dated
> 11/23/63. (This is what he reported.)
> "Yesterday November 22, 1963 I was standing on the corner of Main and
> Houston, and as the President passed and made his turn going west towards
> Stemmens, I walked casually around. At this time my partner was behind me
> and asked me something. I looked back at him and heard 3 shots. I ran in a
> northwest direction and scaled a fence towards where we thought the shots
> came from. Then someone said they thought the shots came from the old Texas
> Building. I immediately ran to the old Texas Building and started looking
> inside. At this time Captain Fritz arrived and ordered all of the sixth
> floor sealed off and searched. I was working with Deputy S. Boone of the
> Sheriff's Department and helping in the search. We were in the northwest
> corner of the sixth floor when Deputy Boone and myself spotted the rifle
Spotted? Saw it was between some boxes? And you call those close enough
to conclusively identify the make of the rifle? Give me a break. That is
ridiculous. Even YOU could not identify the rifle just from the photo of
it between the boxes.
> about the same time. THE RIFLE WAS A 7.65 MAUSER BOLT ACTION EQUIPED WITH A
> 4/18 SCOPE, A THICK LEATHER BROWNISH-BLACK SLING ON IT. The rifle was
> between some boxes near the stairway. The time the rifle was found was 1:22
> pm. Captain Fritz took charge of the rifle and ejected one live round from
> the chamber. I then went back to the office after this.
> Seymour Weitzman
> (EMPHASIS ADDED) (Signature)
>
> 1. THIS STATEMENT DOESN'T SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S CLAIM THAT
> WEITZMAN ONLY HAD A "GLIMPSE" OF THE WEAPON. (Does that description
> sound like nothing more than just a "GLIMPSE"?
This statement does not even include the fact that Weitzman saw the
rifle AFTER it was removed from its hiding place. He is ONLY talking
about seeing the rifle in its hiding place. He does not even get to the
point of saying that someone showed the rifle to him AFTER it had been
removed from its hiding place and THAT is when he made the
identification of it. You have trouble understanding what the witness
said.
> 2. THE COMMISSION DIDN'T GIVE WEITZMAN THE CREDIT DUE HIM WHEN IT
> NEGLECTED TO QUOTE HIS TESTIMONY IN VOLUME VII PG. 108 STATING
> THAT HE WAS FAIRLY FAMILAR WITH RIFLES BECAUSE HE OWNED A
> SPORTING GOODS BUSINESS FOR A WHILE.
>
So what? The report does not quote every witness. That's what the
volumes are for.
So what if Weitzman owned a gun shop? That does not make him an expert
on ALL rifles. Having said that I am sure that Weitzman WOULD have
correctly identified the rifle if he had been allowed to handle it as
Lt. Day did.
Nevertheless all your arguments are just plain silly. The rifle that Lt.
Carl Day is seen holding in the Alyea film was photographically
identified as Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano by the HSCA.
> 3. THE COMMISSION SKILLFULLY FAILED TO MENTION CORROBURATION FOR
> WEITZMAN'S OBSERVATION IN THE FORM OF DEPUTY SHERIFF BOONE'S
> AFFIDAVIT (Decker Exhibit 5323 Volume XIX pgs. 508-9) " What appeared to be
> a 7.65 Mauser with a teloscopic site. The rifle had what
> appeared to be a brownish, black stock and blue steel, metal parts."
> (Does that sound like the rifle they reportedly found?)
> 4. FOR MORE CORROBURATION BOONE HAS A SHORTER REPORT ON PG. 507 OF THE
> SAME VOLUME. BUT STILL DESCRIBING A "7.65 MAUSER WITH A
> TELESCOPIC SITE."
> 5. THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE RIFLE FOUND ON THE SIXTH FLOOR AS A 7.65
> MAUSER "BY CAPTAIN FRITZ" IS FURTHER EVIDENCED IN THE TESTIMONY OF
> DEPUTY BOONE IN VOLUME III Pg. 295.
> BALL: There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this
> rifle as a Mauser that day?
> BOONE: Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought
> it was a 7.65 Mauser.
> BALL: Who refered to it as a Mauser that day?
> BOONE: I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at
> it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it
> was, he said that is what it looks like. This is when
> Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting ready to
> photograph it. We were just discussng it back and forth. And he said it
> looks like a 7.65 Mauser.
Again, try to understand what the words mean. He said, "BEFORE HE
REMOVED IT." That means that the initial identification of the rifle as
a Mauser, which everyone seemed to agree on happened while the rifle was
still hidden between the boxes and no one did or could have made a
complete inspection of the rifle. Thus the identification was based
solely on its shape.
> BALL: Thank you.
> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Sheriff. You have been very
> helpful.
>
> OMMITTING THESE FACTS MAKES IT A LOT EASIER TO DISMISS THE REPORT OF
> WEITZMAN AS JUST A MISTAKE!
>
Including these facts makes it quite clear how the mistake was made.
Just looking at the rifle while it was hidden between the boxes is not
what any sane person can call a close examination. It was Lt. Carl Day
who made the hands-on close examination.
> While we're on the subject of ommissions, take a look at CE #2143 on pg.
> 754 of Volume XXIV It's a press conference with Dallas Police Cheif Jesse
> Curry on Saturday, Nov. 23, 1963.
> "Q. What is the name of the rifle that was found in the sixth floor of
> the Depository Building?"
> "Curry. That was__" (That's where CE #2143 ENDS)
>
So, what's your point?
> On Pg. 761, Curry states that the Dallas Police got a "TIP" that Oswald
> purchased the rifle through a mail-order house under the name of A. Hidell.
> (Who was the Tipster?)
>
The FBI.
> On pg. 766 Curry states that there were three (3) witnesses to the murder
> of officer Tippitt. (The WC tells us of Helen Markham and Domingo Benavides.
> Neither of which could pick Oswald out of a Police line_up) Who was the
> third witness that the WC totally ignored? Was it Aquilla Clemmons who
> stated that TWO (2) men killed Tippitt. One of whom resembled Jack Ruby!
> (see Rush To Judgement by Mark Lane)
>
What the hell does this have to do with the identification of the rifle.
Perhaps you realize that you've lost that argument and need to start new
ones if you have any chance of winning ANY argument.
> The Warren Report tells us that Oswald's palm print was found on one of the
> book cartons used for the sniper's nest.
> I don't find that at all amazing considering that Oswald worked in that
> area all morning. .. What I DO find amazing is that they also found
> TWENTY-FIVE (25) "other" prints. Only twenty-four of which they could
> match with TSBD employees, Dallas P.D. and FBI. SHOWING NO CONCERN
> WHATSOEVER OVER WHO THE 25th PRINT BELONGED TO! (WRpg.249)
>
So what? Stop preaching to the choir.
PapaKochenbrot
>Date: 7/9/01 9:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B4A8241...@quik.com>
>All you have to do is compare the photo you are talking about to other
>photos taken that day in the TSBD on both the fifth and sixth floor.
>Notice the way the boxes are stacked.
>Don't jump to conclusions before you get your fingernails dirty doing
>some actual research.
Dear Agent Mush....I'd be willing to wager that I've researched the
configuration of the stacks of boxes more than you have.....
Tom Alyea's film shows the rifle in a CAVITY in the boxes..... The floor
below the rifle is the old plank flooring.... Bonnie Ray Williams and other
TSBD employees testified that the new PLYWOOD floor had already been installed
in the NW corner of the sixth floor.....
Furthermore Since the photo shows the rifle in a CAVITY.... Oswald could not
have run by and threw the rifle down into that cavity....That rifle was placed
in the cavity BEFORE the shooting.
Walt
AnthonyMarsh
>
> >Subject: Re: For Walt C -- FU re the Rifle on the 5th Floor
> >From: AnthonyMarsh ama...@quik.com
> >Date: 7/9/01 9:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <3B4A8241...@quik.com>
>
> >All you have to do is compare the photo you are talking about to other
> >photos taken that day in the TSBD on both the fifth and sixth floor.
> >Notice the way the boxes are stacked.
> >Don't jump to conclusions before you get your fingernails dirty doing
> >some actual research.
>
> Dear Agent Mush....I'd be willing to wager that I've researched the
> configuration of the stacks of boxes more than you have.....
>
Yeah, right. Show me the pictures you are using.
> Tom Alyea's film shows the rifle in a CAVITY in the boxes..... The floor
Cavity? Like a tooth cavity? What are you talking about? There was
naturally a space between the boxes. That is where the shooter dropped
the rifle. Between the boxes.
> below the rifle is the old plank flooring.... Bonnie Ray Williams and other
> TSBD employees testified that the new PLYWOOD floor had already been installed
> in the NW corner of the sixth floor.....
>
I didn't ask you to misuse stupid testimony of stupid witnesses. I asked
you to compare photos.
> Furthermore Since the photo shows the rifle in a CAVITY.... Oswald could not
> have run by and threw the rifle down into that cavity....That rifle was placed
> in the cavity BEFORE the shooting.
>
Your logic is missing. I didn't say that Oswald ran by and threw the
rifle down. But the space between the boxes would allow someone to throw
the rifle into that space. If the rifle could be placed into the hole
before the shooting it could just as easily be placed there after the
shooting. You have not presented any evidence why it could be done
before the shooting and not after.
> Walt
John McAdams
No, not if nobody knew *what* it was at the time. It wasn't
identified until Day got it back to DPD headquarters.
BTW, the pictures you are talking about are from the Alyea film, and
they show a Mannlicher-Carcano.
Here are two frames:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day2.jpg
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
PapaKochenbrot
>Message-id: <3B4BC135...@quik.com>
>
>> Tom Alyea's film shows the rifle in a CAVITY in the boxes..... The floor
>Cavity? Like a tooth cavity? What are you talking about? There was
>naturally a space between the boxes. That is where the shooter dropped
>the rifle. Between the boxes.
I rest my case.... Yer a dumbass loudmouth, and you haven't even looked at
Alyea's picture....or you would know that the rifle could NOT have been dropped
into the "CAVE" ( hollow) in the boxes, because there was a box on top closing
the opening.....
> If the rifle could be placed into the hole
>before the shooting it could just as easily be placed there after the
>shooting.
WRONG !!...dumbass.... The reinactment determined that Oswald would NOT have
had time to stop to insert the rifle into the cavity...
That's why they told us he ran by and threw the rifle down into the opening
between the boxes.
Fact is ....He could NOT have thrown the rifle down...he would have had to stop
and INSERT it into the "cave"....
NAI
****Fingers dirty?? Looks to me like Walt proved that there were atleast two
separate MC's And I didn't see anyone step up and prove his work wrong..
Othey than to say its been disproven before, he is a sloppy researcher etc..
Forget all the hearsay, physical evidence is the way to solve this case, and
the pictures of two different MC's is a damn good start.
dcwi...@netscape.net
do you mean that HM couldn't pick LHO out? She did, but she really shouldn't
have (as per my upcoming "2nd Gunman on 10th St.").... A curious footnote: in
his book, FBI guy Hosty sez he saw a "waitress & a car salesman" at the 1st
lineup--& adds that "both positively picked out O". Is he conflating 2
different lineups? Or what?
dw
In article <gBw27.150719$v5.11...@news1.rdc1.ct.home.com>, "tomnln" says...
dcwi...@netscape.net
But W seems pretty precise & thorough--did he just see it in situ, then go away
searching for the shooter? On the other hand, yes, as Walt C notes, it's an MC
in the Alyea film. Personally, I don't know what to make of this contradiction,
just as I never could get the ref to a Winchester on the DPD radio that day....
dw
AnthonyMarsh
>
> >Subject: Re: For Walt C -- FU re the Rifle on the 5th Floor
> >From: AnthonyMarsh ama...@quik.com
> >Date: 7/10/01 8:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <3B4BC135...@quik.com>
> >
>
> >> Tom Alyea's film shows the rifle in a CAVITY in the boxes..... The floor
>
> >Cavity? Like a tooth cavity? What are you talking about? There was
> >naturally a space between the boxes. That is where the shooter dropped
> >the rifle. Between the boxes.
>
> I rest my case.... Yer a dumbass loudmouth, and you haven't even looked at
> Alyea's picture....or you would know that the rifle could NOT have been dropped
> into the "CAVE" ( hollow) in the boxes, because there was a box on top closing
> the opening.....
You have no brain at all. If you claim that the rifle was placed there
before the shooting, then why couldn't it just as easily be placed there
after the shooting? You have never answered that question. It got there
sometime somehow.
You keep saying "in the boxes." The rifle was not placed into the boxes.
It was place BETWEEN the boxes, in the space BETWEEN the boxes. That
space was there before the shooting as well as after the shooting.
You need to take a course on critical thinking.
>
> > If the rifle could be placed into the hole
> >before the shooting it could just as easily be placed there after the
> >shooting.
>
> WRONG !!...dumbass.... The reinactment determined that Oswald would NOT have
> had time to stop to insert the rifle into the cavity...
>
So what?? I never said it was Oswald you idiot. Stop assuming things for
me and making up false statements of what I think.
> That's why they told us he ran by and threw the rifle down into the opening
> between the boxes.
>
I don't give a shit what those morons told us. Stick to the facts.
> Fact is ....He could NOT have thrown the rifle down...he would have had to stop
> and INSERT it into the "cave"....
Again, so what? I don't care what you call it. Try to be politically
correct and say he would have to INSERT it instead of throwing it down.
I don't care. Whatever you call it, the real shooter could have done it
after the shooting as easily as before. And you can't refute that. Just
drop your stupid little theories. Get back into the real world.
AnthonyMarsh
I would speculate that someone saw the rifle and thought it was a
Winchester because the magazine under the stock might look like the
lever action of a Winchester. Or maybe someone thought it sounded like a
..30-30 and the only rifle they could remember in that caliber is the
Winchester.
Ricky Tobias
The 12:43 DPD radio call of the 30-30 Winchester sounds like an eye
witness report given to the officer out side the SBD or I was told this.
As I recall it says subject is a white male carrying a 30-30 Winchester or
some type of Winchester. This indicates a lever action rifle and not the
bolt action. Does anyone know who made the call and where he was at the
time?
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/
Problems? try
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Steve Keating
"NAI" <iann...@home.com> wrote in message >
****Fingers dirty?? Looks to me like Walt proved that there were atleast two
> separate MC's
He has done no such thing. Oh sure, he and Jack White and other buffs have
tried like hell over the yrs, but to no avail. And even if they thought they
had, they need to prove it to the authorities that can make a difference and
change the govt conclusion.
And I didn't see anyone step up and prove his work wrong..
You need to get a wider brim for your hat, NAI. The sun ain't doin you no
good. You really expect researchers to waste time trying to prove wacky buff
theories wrong? Its incumbent upon *them* to prove their assertions. As I
said above, if Walt or any other buff can ever prove one of their theories
with credible evidence, we will read about it in the national news. But
there is a good reason why that has not happened in 38 yrs. The buffs simply
can't except the simple truth of 11/22/63 and the ghost of LHO still haunts
them.
> Othey than to say its been disproven before, he is a sloppy researcher
etc..
In this case, Anthony is 100% correct with that statement. And the facts and
history of this NG alone back it up. Just ask Walt about his theories that
he can see bullets in flight in at least two different photos taken during
the assassination. Then see if you can get even *one* person, even a buff,
that has ever agreed that they see that too.
> Forget all the hearsay, physical evidence is the way to solve this case,
Now this statement is correct. Murder cases always come back to the physical
evidence. There is a mountain of it against LHO. More than in most capital
cases.
and
> the pictures of two different MC's is a damn good start.
False premise. There is only one MC. That much is clear to anyone who truly
understands the evidence and has no agenda to find some conspiracy.
Steve K.
>
>
>
PapaKochenbrot
>Message-id: <3B4CB965...@quik.com>
>The rifle was not placed into the boxes.
>It was place BETWEEN the boxes, in the space BETWEEN the boxes. That
>space was there before the shooting as well as after the shooting.
The POINT my dear dumbass is.....The Warren Commission told us Oswald ran by
and tossed his rifle into the crevice between the boxes...
There was no CREVICE to toss the rifle into...There was a CAVITY or "CAVE"
where the rifle was found but it the rifle would have had to have been INSERTED
into the cave....
The existance of that CAVE would have had to have been known BEFORE the
shooting ...
if the rifle was fired that day.....and then inserted into that cave AFTER the
shooting...
I contend that the rifle wasn't even fired that day and the rifle was placed
there BEFORE the murder....either way the consprititors knew about the cavity
BEFORE the shooting...
Walt
AnthonyMarsh
At 12:44 Sawyer radioed in on channel two that, "The type of weapon
looked like a
30-30 rifle
or some type of
Winchester."
I agree that it sounds as if someone saw the rifle and mistook it for a
Winchester, most probably because of the magazine under the stock. I
don't remember where Sawyer was at the moment, but probably somewhere
near the corner.
At 12:37 Patrolman Brewer said that he had a witness who saw the weapon
in the window. We might assume he means Brennan.
>
> Ricky
> "Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
> An early draft with some errors is posted at:
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/
> Problems? try
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK
> Then go to: Issues and evidence
> Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
> or try:
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
> Then go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
dcwi...@netscape.net
dw
PapaKochenbrot
>Forget all the hearsay, physical evidence is the way to solve this case,
EXACTLY right..... And mathematically verifiable information is the very
best....
Because mathematics are infallible.....
It is mathematically verifiable that Janes Powell took his photo of the TSBD
BEFORE Tom Dillard took his....... Tom Dillard did NOT take his photo 30
seconds after the shooting....He snapped his photo DURING the shooting and
there is NOBODY firing a rifle from the SN window DURING the shooting.
Walt
David Healy
> "NAI" <iann...@home.com> wrote in message >
<snip>
...
>
> And the facts and history of this NG alone back it up. > >
<snip>
...
Spare me oh eternal savior ... "Fact's and *history* of this
newsgroup...??? " more word's of wisdom from the Lone Nut palace of
obfuscation. The only thing your accurate in Steve is the slamming of
ANYONE that disagrees with the Warren Commissions tome of lies, deceit
and corruption. I like you better when your foolishness about
Oswald's tenacious marksmanship and the single bullet theory bullshit
is in play.
Hope your having a NICE summer ...
David H