About That Patsy Rifle...

[BT George]

Hello,

I am new to this forum, though not new to the JFK case. There is
something I am curious about from an "Oswald was innocent" conspriacy
perspective. It is a matter of faith among many CT's that the Mannlicher
Carcano (MC) said to be found on the 6th floor of the TSBD was not really
used by Oswald nor was it even the real the murder weapon. Likewise,
debates seem to rage endlessly whether he even owned such a rifle or over
whether it was an effective enough instrument to really do what it was
alleged to have done.

I think that most persons (wether CT or LN) would at least agree that a MC
would not normally be an assassin's weapon of choice. Leaving the behind
the arguments about the legitimacy of the evidence that it was the actual
murder weapon or whether Oswald actually fired it, the LN response to the
subject of its deficiencies, is typically to note that it was good enough
to be a standard Italian military rifle during WWII and that when in
working order is plenty capable of dealing out death and destruction.
All that is needed is that the aim of the shooter be good...or that he at
least gets lucky and hits what he is aiming at. Of course, whether that
answer is adequate is in the eye of the beholder, but from an LN
perspective the use of a MC as the apparent murder weapon, simply
reinforces the lone-assassin conclusion. (I.e., it's the kind of cheap
weapon one would only expect to see if the shooter was poor, lone
malcontent like Lee Oswald in late 1963.)

However, from an "Oswald was an innocent patsy" perspective, IOW what
would be the logic of choosing such a weapon to frame him with? It just
seems strange that plotters who were sophisticated enough to frame Oswald
to the degree that is often claimed, would ever choose THAT rifle to frame
him with. Would not another rifle (like the Mauser early reports
indicated was discovered) be a better choice? For that matter, if there
was a frame-up involving governmental authorities either actively or
passively enabling it, I can't help but wonder why they didn't just stick
to the early reports and frame him with a Mauser?

While I doubt I will ever be a high volume poster on this or any other JFK
forum, I would love to better understand the resolution of the seemingly
inherent tension within the propositions: "We know the rifle was not up to
the task." "We also know that they (elaborately) chose to frame him with
it." Any thoughts?

BT George

[Research]

"BT George" <brock....@st.com> wrote in message
news:404b68c0-5325-46e3...@googlegroups.com...

Hello,

I am new to this forum, though not new to the JFK case. There is
something I am curious about from an "Oswald was innocent" conspriacy
perspective. It is a matter of faith among many CT's that the Mannlicher
Carcano (MC) said to be found on the 6th floor of the TSBD was not really
used by Oswald nor was it even the real the murder weapon. Likewise,
debates seem to rage endlessly whether he even owned such a rifle or over
whether it was an effective enough instrument to really do what it was
alleged to have done.

Its hard to conceive that the DPD claimed it was the weapon, but then didn't
even do ballistics test to even see if it was fired. Maybe it was or maybe
wasn't. We simply don't know, cause of the slap shot investigative methods
used. And they found a paper bag wrapping supposedly used to smuggle the
rifle into the building. Just how many curtain rods would have been needed
in that tiny room? The rifle was longer than the folds on the bag.
We were disguessing the scope in another post. Which does seem to fit into
the paper wrapping story. What about the scope and the wrapping? Wouldn't
the scope cause a large bulge in the middle of the wrapping? Wouldn't it
seem by the sear size that the package would appear to weigh more than a
couple curtian rods?

I think that most persons (wether CT or LN) would at least agree that a MC
would not normally be an assassin's weapon of choice. Leaving the behind
the arguments about the legitimacy of the evidence that it was the actual
murder weapon or whether Oswald actually fired it, the LN response to the
subject of its deficiencies, is typically to note that it was good enough
to be a standard Italian military rifle during WWII and that when in
working order is plenty capable of dealing out death and destruction.
All that is needed is that the aim of the shooter be good...or that he at
least gets lucky and hits what he is aiming at. Of course, whether that
answer is adequate is in the eye of the beholder, but from an LN
perspective the use of a MC as the apparent murder weapon, simply
reinforces the lone-assassin conclusion. (I.e., it's the kind of cheap
weapon one would only expect to see if the shooter was poor, lone
malcontent like Lee Oswald in late 1963.)

Another point here is the rusty condiction of the rifle. It had to be
cleaned before the test shots as so it could function. And even then the
bolt action was difficult. But the clincher was the timing of the shots.
Many depository witnesses (those saying the shots came from the depository)
claimed the last two shots were on top of each other. The dictabelt showd
they were about 1/2 seconds apart. Working the difficult bolt and re-siting
the target would certainly take more time than that. Even if the bolt wasn't
worn and rusty. But the LNer side can't explain than. So the argue and
deflect.

However, from an "Oswald was an innocent patsy" perspective, IOW what
would be the logic of choosing such a weapon to frame him with? It just
seems strange that plotters who were sophisticated enough to frame Oswald
to the degree that is often claimed, would ever choose THAT rifle to frame
him with. Would not another rifle (like the Mauser early reports
indicated was discovered) be a better choice? For that matter, if there
was a frame-up involving governmental authorities either actively or
passively enabling it, I can't help but wonder why they didn't just stick
to the early reports and frame him with a Mauser?

The first two officers who found the rifle reported it as a Mauser. Another
man not connected to the shooting claimed to have seen the rifle, claimed it
was a Checo Mauser. And was shipped into and out of the building in a wooden
box. Of course immediately after the shooting he was committed to a nut
house. But was there any kind of collaboring evidence? We have to ask Henry
Hurt for that answer. Seems to more than reasonable doubt. Doesn't it?

[Walt]

George your thoughtful post deserves a thoughful reply..... I hope that
I'm able to give you the reply you deserve in a limited amount of time and
space.... I'm sure you realize that this case contains a huge mountain of
unanswerable questions because the government's covert agencies are
heavily involved. They gave us Lee Oswald as the villian who murdered JFK
of no reason at all. That alone should raise a red flag for you, because
It's obvious that Lee Oswald was insane......and only a totally deranged
person would kill without any reason. ( There are people who are serial
killers who do commit murder just for the thrill they receive from ending
a victims life, but Oswald was not one of them)

I believe any thinking person can see that the murder of President Kennedy
was committed by a cabal of powerful men who loathed JFK. The manner in
which he was murdered makes it abundantly clear that the murderers hated
him.

Lee's wife testified that Lee admired President Kennedy and his
family...... and I believe that's true, in fact I'd bet that Lee MORE than
admired JFK.... I'll bet JFK was a "hero" to Lee Oswald. ( I have reason
to believe that)

I don't have time to type out a longer reply at the moment, but I'll try
to post a longer and better reply later. I hope this thread does "go off
the rails" and into the swamp like 99% of the posts do.........

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/26/2013 9:17 AM, Research wrote:
> "BT George" <brock....@st.com> wrote in message
> news:404b68c0-5325-46e3...@googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
>
> I am new to this forum, though not new to the JFK case. There is
> something I am curious about from an "Oswald was innocent" conspriacy
> perspective. It is a matter of faith among many CT's that the Mannlicher
> Carcano (MC) said to be found on the 6th floor of the TSBD was not really
> used by Oswald nor was it even the real the murder weapon. Likewise,
> debates seem to rage endlessly whether he even owned such a rifle or over
> whether it was an effective enough instrument to really do what it was
> alleged to have done.
>
> Its hard to conceive that the DPD claimed it was the weapon, but then didn't
> even do ballistics test to even see if it was fired. Maybe it was or maybe

The DPD didn't have any such tests. When they found the rifle they
didn't even know that it was and one of them guessed it was a Mauser.

> wasn't. We simply don't know, cause of the slap shot investigative methods
> used. And they found a paper bag wrapping supposedly used to smuggle the
> rifle into the building. Just how many curtain rods would have been needed
> in that tiny room? The rifle was longer than the folds on the bag.

One set of curtain rods. You can see them in the National Archives.

> We were disguessing the scope in another post. Which does seem to fit into
> the paper wrapping story. What about the scope and the wrapping? Wouldn't
> the scope cause a large bulge in the middle of the wrapping? Wouldn't it
> seem by the sear size that the package would appear to weigh more than a
> couple curtian rods?
>

You are not allowed to ask any questions about the rifle parts leaving
impressions in the bag. What are you, a terrorist?

> I think that most persons (wether CT or LN) would at least agree that a MC
> would not normally be an assassin's weapon of choice. Leaving the behind

It is the perfect weapon for a guy who is broke and knows nothing about
WWII rifles.
I assume that you are no naive that you think it would make sense if
Oswald had a $5,000 custom made CIA assassination rifle.

> the arguments about the legitimacy of the evidence that it was the actual
> murder weapon or whether Oswald actually fired it, the LN response to the
> subject of its deficiencies, is typically to note that it was good enough
> to be a standard Italian military rifle during WWII and that when in
> working order is plenty capable of dealing out death and destruction.
> All that is needed is that the aim of the shooter be good...or that he at
> least gets lucky and hits what he is aiming at. Of course, whether that
> answer is adequate is in the eye of the beholder, but from an LN
> perspective the use of a MC as the apparent murder weapon, simply
> reinforces the lone-assassin conclusion. (I.e., it's the kind of cheap
> weapon one would only expect to see if the shooter was poor, lone
> malcontent like Lee Oswald in late 1963.)
>

One hit out of three is pretty good.
The other question the WC defenders refuse to discuss is how often the
rifle jams during reloading.

> Another point here is the rusty condiction of the rifle. It had to be
> cleaned before the test shots as so it could function. And even then the

Not a problem.

> bolt action was difficult. But the clincher was the timing of the shots.
> Many depository witnesses (those saying the shots came from the depository)
> claimed the last two shots were on top of each other. The dictabelt showd
> they were about 1/2 seconds apart. Working the difficult bolt and re-siting
> the target would certainly take more time than that. Even if the bolt wasn't
> worn and rusty. But the LNer side can't explain than. So the argue and
> deflect.

Not the same shots. Some witnesses said shots two and three were bunched
at the end. The acoustics shows that the last two shots of the four they
found were bunched by less than a second.
No one ever said the last two shots separated by less than a second were
both fired by the same rifle. That is physically impossible. Which led
them to find that one the last two shots was fired from a different
location.

>
> However, from an "Oswald was an innocent patsy" perspective, IOW what
> would be the logic of choosing such a weapon to frame him with? It just

So indeed you think they can frame a chronically unemployed loser with a
$5,000 custom made CIA assassination rifle and people would fall for it.

> seems strange that plotters who were sophisticated enough to frame Oswald
> to the degree that is often claimed, would ever choose THAT rifle to frame
> him with. Would not another rifle (like the Mauser early reports

The Mauser report was the simple mistake of a dumb cop who didn't know
the difference and admitted his mistake. Get over it already.

> indicated was discovered) be a better choice? For that matter, if there
> was a frame-up involving governmental authorities either actively or
> passively enabling it, I can't help but wonder why they didn't just stick
> to the early reports and frame him with a Mauser?
>

Because Oswald did not buy a Mauser. He bought a Carcano.

> The first two officers who found the rifle reported it as a Mauser. Another
> man not connected to the shooting claimed to have seen the rifle, claimed it
> was a Checo Mauser. And was shipped into and out of the building in a wooden

Who is this man and what the Hell is a "Checo" Mauser?

> box. Of course immediately after the shooting he was committed to a nut
> house. But was there any kind of collaboring evidence? We have to ask Henry
> Hurt for that answer. Seems to more than reasonable doubt. Doesn't it?
>
> While I doubt I will ever be a high volume poster on this or any other JFK
> forum, I would love to better understand the resolution of the seemingly
> inherent tension within the propositions: "We know the rifle was not up to
> the task." "We also know that they (elaborately) chose to frame him with
> it." Any thoughts?
>

It is hard to frame someone with a gun the suspect never owned. Local
cops can do that by planting throw away guns on the suspects they kill.
But in a major crime with such an unusual weapon it is much harder to
do. Do you understand that they put serial numbers on the weapons?

> BT George
>
>
>

[claviger]

On Apr 25, 10:37 pm, BT George <brock.geo...@st.com> wrote:

BT,

You're asking a very good question. How can a conspiracy so
incredibly brilliant to anticipate a throw down bullet at the hospital
emergency room make such a blunder on the sniper rifle they wold need
to frame a patsy?

The only possible reason to use a "defective" Italian made rifle is a
calling card from the Mafia to let the world know they did the hit on
a President who double-crossed them. James Files claims it was a
Mafia hit all the way with two more snipers in the Dal-Tex Bldg and
the GK. Supposedly Carlos Marcello bragged to a cellmate he took care
of Kennedy as a favor to Jimmy Hoffa. The Mafia was upset JFK was not
working hard enough to get rid of Castro so they could get their
casinos going again in Havana. As we all know Jack Ruby had contacts
with the Mafia in Chicago, NO, Miami, and Havana.

Other than Mafia symbolism the choice of rifle was appears to be
simply a cost decision by a low tech assassin who decided not to waste
money on a rifle he was going to leave behind anyway. He only took
one clip thinking 3-4 shots at a moving target was probably all he
would use. At close range any rifle is lethal so why waste money on a
better rifle? Marina Oswald testified he practiced with this rifle
and kept it oiled, so LHO knew it was sufficient for such a close
ambush. The FBI fired 70+ rounds with this same rifle with no
problems. So a low tech sniper hit the intended target 2/3 times as
the slow moving motorcade passed under the sniper's perch in the 6th
floor window overlooking the parade. At this close range a scope
wasn't necessary to hit human size targets.



.

[BT George]

On Friday, April 26, 2013 8:17:38 AM UTC-5, Research wrote:
> "BT George" <brock....@st.com> wrote in message
>
> news:404b68c0-5325-46e3...@googlegroups.com...
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I am new to this forum, though not new to the JFK case. There is
>
> something I am curious about from an "Oswald was innocent" conspriacy
>
> perspective. It is a matter of faith among many CT's that the Mannlicher
>
> Carcano (MC) said to be found on the 6th floor of the TSBD was not really
>
> used by Oswald nor was it even the real the murder weapon. Likewise,
>
> debates seem to rage endlessly whether he even owned such a rifle or over
>
> whether it was an effective enough instrument to really do what it was
>
> alleged to have done.
>
>
>
> Its hard to conceive that the DPD claimed it was the weapon, but then didn't
>
> even do ballistics test to even see if it was fired. Maybe it was or maybe
>
> wasn't. We simply don't know, cause of the slap shot investigative methods
>
> used. And they found a paper bag wrapping supposedly used to smuggle the
>
> rifle into the building. Just how many curtain rods would have been needed
>
> in that tiny room? The rifle was longer than the folds on the bag.
>
> We were disguessing the scope in another post. Which does seem to fit into
>
> the paper wrapping story. What about the scope and the wrapping? Wouldn't
>
> the scope cause a large bulge in the middle of the wrapping? Wouldn't it
>
> seem by the sear size that the package would appear to weigh more than a
>
> couple curtian rods?
>

> First, thanks for the reply. I have not heard the allegation that the DPD did not test it to see fired, so I cannot speak to that directly. Since that matter is not exactly the point of my query, I will not pursue that question, beyond noting that such testing (or lack thereof) is only relevant if, in fact, the rifle was not fired. Of course, according to the bullet ballistics evidence it had to have been. (I.e., per those test the shell fragments in the limo + the famous--or infamous depending on your take---CE399 were found to have been fired from the discovered MC rifle to the exclusion of all others.) Therfore, it seems that one has to conclude that the ballistics evidence is either incorrect or downright false in order seriously question whether the rifle was even fired that day. (At minimum, it would imply that the shells were fired at a different time and place and then planted at the scene or just flat out "said" to have been found at the scene.)

The paper bag issue ia a whole set of debates in itself, and ground I have seen hashed out here and elsewhere endlessly. Though I personally believe the evidence favors LHO carrying in his largely dissassembled rifle into the TSBD that day, since it's not directly what I started the topic to discuss, I'll leave that well trodden ground to be addressed by others or at a different time.

>
> I think that most persons (wether CT or LN) would at least agree that a MC
>
> would not normally be an assassin's weapon of choice. Leaving the behind
>
> the arguments about the legitimacy of the evidence that it was the actual
>
> murder weapon or whether Oswald actually fired it, the LN response to the
>
> subject of its deficiencies, is typically to note that it was good enough
>
> to be a standard Italian military rifle during WWII and that when in
>
> working order is plenty capable of dealing out death and destruction.
>
> All that is needed is that the aim of the shooter be good...or that he at
>
> least gets lucky and hits what he is aiming at. Of course, whether that
>
> answer is adequate is in the eye of the beholder, but from an LN
>
> perspective the use of a MC as the apparent murder weapon, simply
>
> reinforces the lone-assassin conclusion. (I.e., it's the kind of cheap
>
> weapon one would only expect to see if the shooter was poor, lone
>
> malcontent like Lee Oswald in late 1963.)
>
>
>
> Another point here is the rusty condiction of the rifle. It had to be
>
> cleaned before the test shots as so it could function. And even then the
>
> bolt action was difficult. But the clincher was the timing of the shots.
>
> Many depository witnesses (those saying the shots came from the depository)
>
> claimed the last two shots were on top of each other. The dictabelt showd
>
> they were about 1/2 seconds apart. Working the difficult bolt and re-siting
>
> the target would certainly take more time than that. Even if the bolt wasn't
>
> worn and rusty. But the LNer side can't explain than. So the argue and
>
> deflect.
>

> Yep. Seen lots of discussion/debate on the condition of the rifle and on the whole dictabelt issue. Of course, each side CT/LN directly contradict each other on both topics, but for purposes of the "Oswald was framed with an inadequate rifle." scenario that my original query supposes, I think that point can granted at this time without rehashing any pro/con arguments.

>
> However, from an "Oswald was an innocent patsy" perspective, IOW what
>
> would be the logic of choosing such a weapon to frame him with? It just
>
> seems strange that plotters who were sophisticated enough to frame Oswald
>
> to the degree that is often claimed, would ever choose THAT rifle to frame
>
> him with. Would not another rifle (like the Mauser early reports
>
> indicated was discovered) be a better choice? For that matter, if there
>
> was a frame-up involving governmental authorities either actively or
>
> passively enabling it, I can't help but wonder why they didn't just stick
>
> to the early reports and frame him with a Mauser?
>
>
>
> The first two officers who found the rifle reported it as a Mauser. Another
>
> man not connected to the shooting claimed to have seen the rifle, claimed it
>
> was a Checo Mauser. And was shipped into and out of the building in a wooden
>
> box. Of course immediately after the shooting he was committed to a nut
>
> house. But was there any kind of collaboring evidence? We have to ask Henry
>
> Hurt for that answer. Seems to more than reasonable doubt. Doesn't it?
>

> Never heard the "Checo Mauser" thing before, but this case has endless allegations, so I'm not surprised to have missed that one. I do know that the DPD cop who originally found the rifle called it a Mauser, but testified later that he had called it that without really studying it closely merely because it was a bolt-action rifle, for which the generic name Mauser was sometimes used. Regardless, for purposes of my original query, it makes little sense to me that in a frame-up rifle scenario they would not have used a better weapon to do the framing---especially if the original identification asserted that a better rifle like the German Mauser was the murder weapon.

Again, my query is not so much about the proposition of the adequacy of
the alleged murder weapon itself, but about the tension between the
competing claims that some seem to make that really amount to saying "They
framed Oswald for the murder with a bad rifle."

At any rate, thanks for your feedback.

[BT George]

Thanks for responding. As per my posts to "Research" you can count on me
to do my best to avoid anything going "off the rails." My focus in the
original posting is not to debate the case as a whole nor to debate the
details regarding the actual conditon of the MC rifle. Rather, it's
exploring the logical resolution of the seeming dicotomy in the thinking
of many who assert that there was a frame-up, yet argue on the other hand
that the rifle used to do the framing was bad and therefore incapable of
being the murder weapon. ...Now...as to whether others eventually take
this thread over and send it way off the reservation, I can't really do
much about.

[Anthony Marsh]

They had to use the gun he bought to frame him. I don't see the point in
planting some rifle they can't trace back to him. Can you explain how
that would work?

[Anthony Marsh]

In fact the Italians tried to deny that is was a Carcano and claimed
that it was a Mauser.

> Mafia hit all the way with two more snipers in the Dal-Tex Bldg and

James Files was a liar. Why are you citing him if you want to be a WC
defender?

> the GK. Supposedly Carlos Marcello bragged to a cellmate he took care
> of Kennedy as a favor to Jimmy Hoffa. The Mafia was upset JFK was not

Not quite. The Mafia has its own reason to get rid of JFK. Namely that
that the Kennedy brothers were prosecuting them.

> working hard enough to get rid of Castro so they could get their
> casinos going again in Havana. As we all know Jack Ruby had contacts
> with the Mafia in Chicago, NO, Miami, and Havana.
>
> Other than Mafia symbolism the choice of rifle was appears to be
> simply a cost decision by a low tech assassin who decided not to waste
> money on a rifle he was going to leave behind anyway. He only took
> one clip thinking 3-4 shots at a moving target was probably all he

Oswald bought the rifle only to kill Walker.

> would use. At close range any rifle is lethal so why waste money on a
> better rifle? Marina Oswald testified he practiced with this rifle
> and kept it oiled, so LHO knew it was sufficient for such a close
> ambush. The FBI fired 70+ rounds with this same rifle with no

You are right about the close ambush. He estimated that the fence behind
the Walker house was only about 100 feet away from the house. Hard to
miss at that distance. But Oswald managed to miss a stationary target at
120 feet.

> problems. So a low tech sniper hit the intended target 2/3 times as
> the slow moving motorcade passed under the sniper's perch in the 6th
> floor window overlooking the parade. At this close range a scope
> wasn't necessary to hit human size targets.

1 out of 3 ain't bad for a Carcano.

>
>
>
> .
>

[claviger]

BT George,

There are 3 CT scenarios on this subject:

LHO was firing his rifle at the motorcade but missed. The other
snipers in the Dal-Tex, TSBD, and GK did all the damage.

LHO was not on the 6th floor during the motorcade but someone else
fired his rifle and murdered the President.

LHO was not on the 6th floor and his rifle was not used in firing on
the parade, only planted there to frame LHO.

I would be interested in your response to these theories.

[mainframetech]

On Apr 26, 10:31 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/26/2013 9:17 AM, Research wrote:
>

> > "BT George" <brock.geo...@st.com> wrote in message

> >news:404b68c0-5325-46e3...@googlegroups.com...
> > Hello,
>
> > I am new to this forum, though not new to the JFK case.  There is
> > something I am curious about from an "Oswald was innocent" conspriacy
> > perspective.  It is a matter of faith among many CT's that the Mannlicher
> > Carcano (MC) said to be found on the 6th floor of the TSBD was not really
> > used by Oswald nor was it even the real the murder weapon.  Likewise,
> > debates seem to rage endlessly whether he even owned such a rifle or over
> > whether it was an effective enough instrument to really do what it was
> > alleged to have done.
>
> > Its hard to conceive that the DPD claimed it was the weapon, but then didn't
> > even do ballistics test to even see if it was fired. Maybe it was or maybe
>
> The DPD didn't have any such tests. When they found the rifle they
> didn't even know that it was and one of them guessed it was a Mauser.
>

The DPD officers that identified the rifle as a 'Mauser 7.65'
looked at it from 6-8 inches from the place on the rifle where it was
stamped 'Mauser 7.65'. That's from a statement from Roger Craig,
deputy sheriff, and Seymour Weitzman, who signed an affidavit to the
effect that it was a Mauser. Later they got Weitzman to say he had
made a mistake and the rifle was an Italian MC 6.5 rifle, which was
stamped that way. Roger Craig wouldn't change his statement. To see
the related part, skip ahead to 4:30:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE

a mannlicher-Carcano would have a stamp that said

> > wasn't. We simply don't know, cause of the slap shot investigative methods
> > used. And they found a paper bag wrapping supposedly used to smuggle the
> > rifle into the building. Just how many curtain rods would have been needed
> > in that tiny room? The rifle was longer than the folds on the bag.
>
> One set of curtain rods. You can see them in the National Archives.
>
> > We were disguessing the scope in another post. Which does seem to fit into
> > the paper wrapping story. What about the scope and the wrapping? Wouldn't
> > the scope cause a large bulge in the middle of the wrapping? Wouldn't it
> > seem by the sear size that the package would appear to weigh more than a
> > couple curtian rods?
>
> You are not allowed to ask any questions about the rifle parts leaving
> impressions in the bag. What are you, a terrorist?
>
> > I think that most persons (wether CT or LN) would at least agree that a MC
> > would not normally be an assassin's weapon of choice.  Leaving the behind
>
> It is the perfect weapon for a guy who is broke and knows nothing about
> WWII rifles.
> I assume that you are no naive that you think it would make sense if
> Oswald had a $5,000 custom made CIA assassination rifle.
>

It's also a perfect weapon for a guy that has no intention of
shooting anyone, but wants to take a few pictures with the rifle to
look like a revolutionary for the Cubans he was trying to infiltrate.
He bought the rifle without a clip, and we don't know how a clip and
ammunition were acquired, but they were found in the TSBD.

> > the arguments about the legitimacy of the evidence that it was the actual
> > murder weapon or whether Oswald actually fired it, the LN response to the
> > subject of its deficiencies, is typically to note that it was good enough
> > to be a standard Italian military rifle during WWII and that when in
> > working order is plenty capable of dealing out death and destruction.
> > All that is needed is that the aim of the shooter be good...or that he at
> > least gets lucky and hits what he is aiming at.  Of course, whether that
> > answer is adequate is in the eye of the beholder, but from an LN
> > perspective the use of a MC as the apparent murder weapon, simply
> > reinforces the lone-assassin conclusion. (I.e., it's the kind of cheap
> > weapon one would only expect to see if the shooter was poor, lone
> > malcontent like Lee Oswald in late 1963.)
>
> One hit out of three is pretty good.
> The other question the WC defenders refuse to discuss is how often the
> rifle jams during reloading.
>
> > Another point here is the rusty condiction of the rifle. It had to be
> > cleaned before the test shots as so it could function. And even then the
>
> Not a problem.
>

More than that, the scope had to be shimmed up by the gunsmith
before they could aim the rifle.

> > bolt action was difficult. But the clincher was the timing of the shots.
> > Many depository witnesses (those saying the shots came from the depository)
> > claimed the last two shots were on top of each other. The dictabelt showd
> > they were about 1/2 seconds apart. Working the difficult bolt and re-siting
> > the target would certainly take more time than that. Even if the bolt wasn't
> > worn and rusty. But the LNer side can't explain than. So the argue and
> > deflect.
>
> Not the same shots. Some witnesses said shots two and three were bunched
> at the end. The acoustics shows that the last two shots of the four they
> found were bunched by less than a second.
> No one ever said the last two shots separated by less than a second were
> both fired by the same rifle. That is physically impossible. Which led
> them to find that one the last two shots was fired from a different
> location.
>
>
>
> > However, from an "Oswald was an innocent patsy" perspective, IOW what
> > would be the logic of choosing such a weapon to frame him with?  It just
>
> So indeed you think they can frame a chronically unemployed loser with a
> $5,000 custom made CIA assassination rifle and people would fall for it.
>
> > seems strange that plotters who were sophisticated enough to frame Oswald
> > to the degree that is often claimed, would ever choose THAT rifle to frame
> > him with.  Would not another rifle (like the Mauser early reports
>
> The Mauser report was the simple mistake of a dumb cop who didn't know
> the difference and admitted his mistake. Get over it already.
>

The cop who identified the rifle as a 'Mauser 7.65' was NOT a dumb
cop, he was the go-to guy when gun identification was needed. He ran
a sports shop for a while and was familiar with many types of guns.
It was stated by another cop that watched the identification, that the
'dumb cop' (Seymour Weitzman) was 6-8 inches from the stamp on the
rifle that said 'Mauser 7.65'. After signing an affidavit as to the
type of rifle, the next day Weitzman said he made a mistake and it was
an MC 6.5 rifle. The other cop never changed his statement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE
Skip to 4:30 to get the related part.

> > indicated was discovered) be a better choice?  For that matter, if there
> > was a frame-up involving governmental authorities either actively or
> > passively enabling it, I can't help but wonder why they didn't just stick
> > to the early reports and frame him with a Mauser?
>
> Because Oswald did not buy a Mauser. He bought a Carcano.
>
> > The first two officers who found the rifle reported it as a Mauser. Another
> > man not connected to the shooting claimed to have seen the rifle, claimed it
> > was a Checo Mauser. And was shipped into and out of the building in a wooden
>
> Who is this man and what the Hell is a "Checo" Mauser?
>

Checo means 'Czechoslovakian'. I assume that's where the guy
thought the rifle was made for the Mauser company.

> > box. Of course immediately after the shooting he was committed to a nut
> > house. But was there any kind of collaboring evidence? We have to ask Henry
> > Hurt for that answer. Seems to more than reasonable doubt. Doesn't it?
>
> > While I doubt I will ever be a high volume poster on this or any other JFK
> > forum, I would love to better understand the resolution of the seemingly
> > inherent tension within the propositions: "We know the rifle was not up to
> > the task."  "We also know that they (elaborately) chose to frame him with
> > it."  Any thoughts?
>
> It is hard to frame someone with a gun the suspect never owned. Local
> cops can do that by planting throw away guns on the suspects they kill.
> But in a major crime with such an unusual weapon it is much harder to
> do. Do you understand that they put serial numbers on the weapons?
>
>
>

> > BT George- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[mainframetech]

And to give the other side of the issues:

However, the scope was already affixed to the rifle when it was
found and transported to the FBI, who then found that the scope
couldn't be aimed and it had to go to their gunsmith to have the scope
shimmed up so it could be sighted in. They also found the bolt hard
to work as if the rifle hadn't been used in a good while. It was
probably WW2 surplus, since the lands and grooves were worn inside the
barrel, so it took a lot of use in it's time. One of the FBI
specialists testified that the rifle was 'worn and corroded'.

The evidence they used to try and connect Oswald with the rifle
(the bullets) are certainly vey much in doubt as to their use during
the assassination, how they were found, and whether they even were
fired at a person.

Chris

[mainframetech]

The point of the argument that the rifle wasn't in any condition to
be used as a murder weapon from the TSBD is really saying that Oswald
couldn't have done the murder with that weapon, which the WC defenders
say was used. It's one of many points that the evidence oriented
doubters will bring up. If indeed a Mauser was used, then the
replacement also says that Oswald was the patsy because why go to such
efforts to get him blamed otherwise?

As you read on, you will finds many different viewpoints, that
generally boil down to the usual, did Oswald do it or not, or was it a
'lone nut' or a competent group of assassins. If you keep an open
mind the answers will be obvious.

Chris

[Walt]

They above theory is entirely plausible...... BUT.... They could not
have escaped justice if Hoover and Johnson hadn't aided and abetted
them .......... Hoover had discovered the plot, and told LBJ that
JFK was going to be shot. LBJ and JE Hoover sanctioned the plot and
aided the plotters by getting JFK into the ambush site....

[Research]

"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:659805b5-d6e6-453f...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

As I've read, Oswald was to have come up with this plot on the spur of the
moment. Cause nobody knew of the motorcade until published in the paper.
There was no prior intent.

He only took one clip thinking 3-4 shots at a moving target was probably
all he would use.

Would you LNers make up your mind. Was it 3 or 4 for the money? And if it
was 4 what happen to the shell Mr. Posner?

At close range any rifle is lethal so why waste money on a
better rifle? Marina Oswald testified he practiced with this rifle
and kept it oiled, so LHO knew it was sufficient for such a close
ambush. The FBI fired 70+ rounds with this same rifle with no
problems.

Yeak this was after the rifle was cleaned so it would function. Look at
Fraziers testimony.

So a low tech sniper hit the intended target 2/3 times as
the slow moving motorcade

You mean stopped in the street don't you. Then after the headshot Greer
gunned it all the way to Parkland.

passed under the sniper's perch in the 6th
floor window overlooking the parade. At this close range a scope
wasn't necessary to hit human size targets.

Then why didn't Oswald simply remove the loose scope? Seems none of you
had the answer to my question, so I'll ask again. If the paper wrapping
was used how come the wrapping didn't show signs of a the scope
impression? And wouldn't the scope cause the "package" to have a
significant buldge and the appearence of a much heavier and larger package
than simple curtain rods?

[Walt]

On Apr 26, 10:26 pm, BT George <brock.geo...@st.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 26, 2013 8:17:38 AM UTC-5, Research wrote:

> > "BT George" <brock.geo...@st.com> wrote in message

That would make sense IF IF that Old Carcano had been the murder weapon
and Lee Oswald had been the murderer. BUT..... The carcano was NOT the
murder weapon, and Lee Oswald was not the murderer.......

I believe the answer lies in the fact that the plotters were just not very
bright and blinded by hatred......( kinda like The Boston Bombers mother,
nutty, irrational, and blind) ......They planned to kill JFK and Oswald,
then make it appear that Oswald was the assassin. IF they had succeeded
and killed Oswald in the TSBD nobody would have raised any serious
questions about the abilitiy of Lee to perform the deed, nor would they
have questioned the capability of the rifle. Had they murdered Lee Oswald
immediately it would have been an open and shut case.

The mastermind behind the plot knew that he had the sanction of J.E.Hoover
and knew he could rely on Hoover to cover up any details that would have
exposed the plot.

[mainframetech]

On Apr 27, 4:31 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "claviger" <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote in message

It wasn't that brilliant, and required much time and effort on the
inside covering up the many glaring errors. They knew in advance that
they needed a bullet to frame Oswald. They came in to the hospital and
left the bullet on the wrong stretcher which was tracked down by Josiah
Thompson to have been used by a 10 year old child (Ronnie Fuller). Later
that bullet (CE399) was called the 'magic' bullet because it hit 2 people
7 times, including 2 bones, and came away almost in pristine condition.
I'm not sure they knew what bad condition the MC rifle was in, or that
Frazier and Simmons of the FBI would testify to that bad condition.

> The only possible reason to use a "defective" Italian made rifle is a
> calling card from the Mafia to let the world know they did the hit on
> a President who double-crossed them.  James Files claims it was a
> Mafia hit all the way with two more snipers in the Dal-Tex Bldg and
> the GK.  Supposedly Carlos Marcello bragged to a cellmate he took care
> of Kennedy as a favor to Jimmy Hoffa.  The Mafia was upset JFK was not
> working hard enough to get rid of Castro so they could get their
> casinos going again in Havana.  As we all know Jack Ruby had contacts
> with the Mafia in Chicago, NO, Miami, and Havana.
>

A used Italian rifle may have many reasons to be purchased aside
from the Mafia connection. See below.

> Other than Mafia symbolism the choice of rifle was appears to be
> simply a cost decision by a low tech assassin who decided not to waste
> money on a rifle he was going to leave behind anyway.
>

He seemed not to have any money, and if he only wanted the rifle to
impress some Cuban revolutionaries with a picture of him carrying all
his weapons, why spend money he didn't have?

> As I've read, Oswald was to have come up with this plot on the spur of the
> moment. Cause nobody knew of the motorcade until published in the paper.
> There was no prior intent.
>

Oh someone knew of the motorcade, but they were on the inside. They
could have told someone on the outside, but we don't have any proof of
that. One the main parameters of the conspiracy people is that someone in
government was part of the conspiracy to murder, so they would have prior
notice of the motorcade. Oddly enough, there was a lady named Rose
Cheramie that was said to have predicted the very day and method of the
murder plot.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Rose_Cherami

> He only took one clip thinking 3-4 shots at a moving target was probably
> all he would use.
>
> Would you LNers make up your mind. Was it 3 or 4 for the money? And if it
> was 4 what happen to the shell Mr. Posner?
>

The argument of 3 or 4 shots comes from the onlookers who said the 2
different numbers.

> At close range any rifle is lethal so why waste money on a
> better rifle?  Marina Oswald testified he practiced with this rifle
> and kept it oiled, so LHO knew it was sufficient for such a close
> ambush.  The FBI fired 70+ rounds with this same rifle with no
> problems.
>

Of course, it was the second or third different version of testimony
of Marina's, and everything in it helped the authorities clean up
mistakes they made on the first go round. IMO she said what they
wanted from a fear of being deported to Russia.

> Yeak this was after the rifle was cleaned so it would function. Look at
> Fraziers testimony.
>

And the scope was shimmed up so it could be used and sighted in
properly.

> So a low tech sniper hit the intended target 2/3 times as
> the slow moving motorcade
>

Two experienced snipers tried to duplicate the shot from the 6th
floor and couldn't do it...they both said it was not a doable shot.

> You mean stopped in the street don't you. Then after the headshot Greer
> gunned it all the way to Parkland.
>
> passed under the sniper's perch in the 6th
> floor window overlooking the parade.  At this close range a scope
> wasn't necessary to hit human size targets.
>
> Then why didn't Oswald simply remove the loose scope? Seems none of you
> had the answer to my question, so I'll ask again. If the paper wrapping
> was used how come the wrapping didn't show signs of a the scope
> impression? And wouldn't the scope cause the "package" to have a
> significant buldge and the appearence of a much heavier and larger package
> than simple curtain rods?

Certainly a good point. But you'll have to let one of the WC
defenders handle that one.

Chris

[curtjester1]

If you are truy interested, there's a lot written on the subject.
Different' rifles, chain of evidences, to if a rifle was ordered by
mail order and lots of related topics. If you just type in something
like Oswald's Rifle in google or this groups index in the upper right,
you will find stuff. I found this as the first hit.

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

CJ

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/27/2013 1:09 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Apr 26, 10:31 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 4/26/2013 9:17 AM, Research wrote:
>>
>>> "BT George" <brock.geo...@st.com> wrote in message
>>> news:404b68c0-5325-46e3...@googlegroups.com...
>>> Hello,
>>
>>> I am new to this forum, though not new to the JFK case. There is
>>> something I am curious about from an "Oswald was innocent" conspriacy
>>> perspective. It is a matter of faith among many CT's that the Mannlicher
>>> Carcano (MC) said to be found on the 6th floor of the TSBD was not really
>>> used by Oswald nor was it even the real the murder weapon. Likewise,
>>> debates seem to rage endlessly whether he even owned such a rifle or over
>>> whether it was an effective enough instrument to really do what it was
>>> alleged to have done.
>>
>>> Its hard to conceive that the DPD claimed it was the weapon, but then didn't
>>> even do ballistics test to even see if it was fired. Maybe it was or maybe
>>
>> The DPD didn't have any such tests. When they found the rifle they
>> didn't even know that it was and one of them guessed it was a Mauser.
>>
> The DPD officers that identified the rifle as a 'Mauser 7.65'
> looked at it from 6-8 inches from the place on the rifle where it was
> stamped 'Mauser 7.65'. That's from a statement from Roger Craig,

Craig was lying to support Weitzman.

> deputy sheriff, and Seymour Weitzman, who signed an affidavit to the
> effect that it was a Mauser. Later they got Weitzman to say he had
> made a mistake and the rifle was an Italian MC 6.5 rifle, which was
> stamped that way. Roger Craig wouldn't change his statement. To see
> the related part, skip ahead to 4:30:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE
>

Don't keep repeating all the old myths which were long ago debunked.

Then why didn't you say that? Why the cutesy slang? Why should the
Mauser be Czechoslovakian?
And who assumed that?

[mainframetech]

On Apr 27, 11:21 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/27/2013 1:09 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 10:31 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 4/26/2013 9:17 AM, Research wrote:
>
> >>> "BT George" <brock.geo...@st.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:404b68c0-5325-46e3...@googlegroups.com...
> >>> Hello,
>
> >>> I am new to this forum, though not new to the JFK case.  There is
> >>> something I am curious about from an "Oswald was innocent" conspriacy
> >>> perspective.  It is a matter of faith among many CT's that the Mannlicher
> >>> Carcano (MC) said to be found on the 6th floor of the TSBD was not really
> >>> used by Oswald nor was it even the real the murder weapon.  Likewise,
> >>> debates seem to rage endlessly whether he even owned such a rifle or over
> >>> whether it was an effective enough instrument to really do what it was
> >>> alleged to have done.
>
> >>> Its hard to conceive that the DPD claimed it was the weapon, but then didn't
> >>> even do ballistics test to even see if it was fired. Maybe it was or maybe
>
> >> The DPD didn't have any such tests. When they found the rifle they
> >> didn't even know that it was and one of them guessed it was a Mauser.
>
> >     The DPD officers that identified the rifle as a 'Mauser 7.65'
> > looked at it from 6-8 inches from the place on the rifle where it was
> > stamped 'Mauser 7.65'.  That's from a statement from Roger Craig,
>
> Craig was lying to support Weitzman.
>

Ah! Once again you display your ability to read the mind of a long
dead witness! Amazing. Cites please. Craig stated that he saw
Weitzman look at the stamp '7.65 Mauser' on the rifle not more than
6-8 inches from his face. No need to lie. However, when they got
Weitzman to say he made a mistake, why didn't Craig go along with him
then? Because He also saw the stamp, which he also stated. Skip
forward to 4:30 for the relevant passage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE

> > deputy sheriff, and Seymour Weitzman, who signed an affidavit to the
> > effect that it was a Mauser.  Later they got Weitzman to say he had
> > made a mistake and the rifle was an Italian MC 6.5 rifle, which was
> > stamped that way.  Roger Craig wouldn't change his statement.  To see
> > the related part, skip ahead to 4:30:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE
>
> Don't keep repeating all the old myths which were long ago debunked.
>

I sure hate to tell you this, but this story hasn't been debunked.
If you want to try the old dodge that Craig was crazy, that's been
answered in another forum, which I copied here at the time a year or
two ago.

I have no idea who mentioned it, I just looked it up and put it here
for general info. (Chris)

[Research]

"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4dffca49-29ff-4b5b...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

I think it was Ronnie Fuller who actually found the bullet after it fell out
of the strecher. He then showed it to Thompson. Thompson didn't find it.

That's what I am saying. If Oswald was not an insider, he would not know
until it came out in the paper just a few days before. That's the premiss
the WC ran with.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Rose_Cherami


> He only took one clip thinking 3-4 shots at a moving target was probably
> all he would use.
>
> Would you LNers make up your mind. Was it 3 or 4 for the money? And if it
> was 4 what happen to the shell Mr. Posner?
>
The argument of 3 or 4 shots comes from the onlookers who said the 2
different numbers.

In one of those Who Killed... documentaries. It was Posner who I saw
spouting out how it took 8.3 seconds and a fourth shot. Now the LNer team
are dumbfounded that one of their own has a weird theory.

> At close range any rifle is lethal so why waste money on a
> better rifle? Marina Oswald testified he practiced with this rifle
> and kept it oiled, so LHO knew it was sufficient for such a close
> ambush. The FBI fired 70+ rounds with this same rifle with no
> problems.
>
Of course, it was the second or third different version of testimony
of Marina's, and everything in it helped the authorities clean up
mistakes they made on the first go round. IMO she said what they
wanted from a fear of being deported to Russia.

Yeah. Marina was the one claiming he was drunk and beat her. But then she
also claimed he never drank ever. She was the one who claimed he shot at
Walker. It was her testimony. But when shown the rifle, she said his rifle
was smaller? 36 inches? Nobody knows. Nobody has EVER asked her. When she
was shown the bullet, she said his was smaller. Maybe so she wouldn't be
implimented. Or maybe because it wasn't the right evidence. The DPD did have
the shirt and blanket. How hard would it have been? Just like the palmprint.
Day didn't have it until after Oswald was dead. And "agents" (unknown) came
to the furneral home and took prints, even though they knew who he was and
took prints when he was booked. Some have even claimed it was DPD officers.
I can't seem to find the evidence of who it was? Any ideas?

> Yeak this was after the rifle was cleaned so it would function. Look at
> Fraziers testimony.
>
And the scope was shimmed up so it could be used and sighted in
properly.

> So a low tech sniper hit the intended target 2/3 times as
> the slow moving motorcade
>
Two experienced snipers tried to duplicate the shot from the 6th
floor and couldn't do it...they both said it was not a doable shot.

> You mean stopped in the street don't you. Then after the headshot Greer
> gunned it all the way to Parkland.
>
> passed under the sniper's perch in the 6th
> floor window overlooking the parade. At this close range a scope
> wasn't necessary to hit human size targets.
>
> Then why didn't Oswald simply remove the loose scope? Seems none of you
> had the answer to my question, so I'll ask again. If the paper wrapping
> was used how come the wrapping didn't show signs of a the scope
> impression? And wouldn't the scope cause the "package" to have a
> significant buldge and the appearence of a much heavier and larger package
> than simple curtain rods?

Certainly a good point. But you'll have to let one of the WC
defenders handle that one.

Chris

There obviously a contingent that the package was small enough to fit under
Oswald armpit and cup the stock in his hand (Buell Frazier). The rifle
package was to long to do that. And I'm just wondering with the scope,
wouldn't it much to large to fit inside the creases in the wrapping. I have
a suspicion that it would not. And with the scope inside the wrapping, the
package would also be to bulky. And would appear heavier. But nobody else at
the depository saw the package. Even those who said they saw him einter the
building. Frazier may likewise have been worried about being implicated.

[Research]

"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:121b69a8-7d73-4fb8...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

> BT George,
>
> There are 3 CT scenarios on this subject:
>
> LHO was firing his rifle at the motorcade but missed. The other
> snipers in the Dal-Tex, TSBD, and GK did all the damage.
>

Out of the three this is the more probable.

>
> LHO was not on the 6th floor during the motorcade but someone else
> fired his rifle and murdered the President.
>

I'm not really convinced, YET, that he wasn't in the window.

>
> LHO was not on the 6th floor and his rifle was not used in firing on
> the parade, only planted there to frame LHO.
>

I would be inclined to dismiss this theory, IF... If there wasn't so much
doubt surrounding the rifle.

[Anthony Marsh]

Doubt fueled by deliberate misinformation.

[Anthony Marsh]

You are greatly confused. Thompson was not there on 11/22/63. He pieced
this together from records and testimony. Why not make up a theory that
little Ronnie Fuller was hit by the lost bullet?

>> The only possible reason to use a "defective" Italian made rifle is a
>> calling card from the Mafia to let the world know they did the hit on
>> a President who double-crossed them. James Files claims it was a
>> Mafia hit all the way with two more snipers in the Dal-Tex Bldg and
>> the GK. Supposedly Carlos Marcello bragged to a cellmate he took care
>> of Kennedy as a favor to Jimmy Hoffa. The Mafia was upset JFK was not
>> working hard enough to get rid of Castro so they could get their
>> casinos going again in Havana. As we all know Jack Ruby had contacts
>> with the Mafia in Chicago, NO, Miami, and Havana.
>>
> A used Italian rifle may have many reasons to be purchased aside
> from the Mafia connection. See below.
>
>> Other than Mafia symbolism the choice of rifle was appears to be
>> simply a cost decision by a low tech assassin who decided not to waste
>> money on a rifle he was going to leave behind anyway.
>>
> He seemed not to have any money, and if he only wanted the rifle to
> impress some Cuban revolutionaries with a picture of him carrying all
> his weapons, why spend money he didn't have?
>

He didn't show it to any Cuban revolutionaries.
He sent one to the Daily Worker.

>> As I've read, Oswald was to have come up with this plot on the spur of the
>> moment. Cause nobody knew of the motorcade until published in the paper.
>> There was no prior intent.
>>
> Oh someone knew of the motorcade, but they were on the inside. They
> could have told someone on the outside, but we don't have any proof of
> that. One the main parameters of the conspiracy people is that someone in
> government was part of the conspiracy to murder, so they would have prior
> notice of the motorcade. Oddly enough, there was a lady named Rose
> Cheramie that was said to have predicted the very day and method of the
> murder plot.
>

You keep missing the point that Oswald bought the Carcano especially to
kill Walker.

> That's what I am saying. If Oswald was not an insider, he would not know
> until it came out in the paper just a few days before. That's the premiss
> the WC ran with.
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Rose_Cherami
>
>
>> He only took one clip thinking 3-4 shots at a moving target was probably
>> all he would use.
>>
>> Would you LNers make up your mind. Was it 3 or 4 for the money? And if it
>> was 4 what happen to the shell Mr. Posner?
>>
> The argument of 3 or 4 shots comes from the onlookers who said the 2
> different numbers.
>

Only three shots were fired from the sniper's nest.

Shot #4 had to be fired from some other place. Hence conspiracy.

> In one of those Who Killed... documentaries. It was Posner who I saw
> spouting out how it took 8.3 seconds and a fourth shot. Now the LNer team
> are dumbfounded that one of their own has a weird theory.
>

No. He explaining the HSCA conclusions. Why can you people understand
that someone can explain the opponent's position without believing it
himself?
If you quote the WC to criticize it does that mean you believe it yourself?

>> At close range any rifle is lethal so why waste money on a
>> better rifle? Marina Oswald testified he practiced with this rifle
>> and kept it oiled, so LHO knew it was sufficient for such a close
>> ambush. The FBI fired 70+ rounds with this same rifle with no
>> problems.
>>
> Of course, it was the second or third different version of testimony
> of Marina's, and everything in it helped the authorities clean up
> mistakes they made on the first go round. IMO she said what they
> wanted from a fear of being deported to Russia.
>
> Yeah. Marina was the one claiming he was drunk and beat her. But then she
> also claimed he never drank ever. She was the one who claimed he shot at
> Walker. It was her testimony. But when shown the rifle, she said his rifle
> was smaller? 36 inches? Nobody knows. Nobody has EVER asked her. When she
> was shown the bullet, she said his was smaller. Maybe so she wouldn't be
> implimented. Or maybe because it wasn't the right evidence. The DPD did have

Implicated? If you are going to debate here in English it would help you
effort to learn English. If you don't feel comfortable with English look
for a discussion group in your native language.

> the shirt and blanket. How hard would it have been? Just like the palmprint.
> Day didn't have it until after Oswald was dead. And "agents" (unknown) came

More misinformation. Day had the print that night.

> to the furneral home and took prints, even though they knew who he was and
> took prints when he was booked. Some have even claimed it was DPD officers.
> I can't seem to find the evidence of who it was? Any ideas?
>
>> Yeak this was after the rifle was cleaned so it would function. Look at
>> Fraziers testimony.
>>
> And the scope was shimmed up so it could be used and sighted in
> properly.
>

DIdn't help. It still could not be sighted in properly.

>> So a low tech sniper hit the intended target 2/3 times as
>> the slow moving motorcade
>>
> Two experienced snipers tried to duplicate the shot from the 6th
> floor and couldn't do it...they both said it was not a doable shot.
>

Balony.

>> You mean stopped in the street don't you. Then after the headshot Greer
>> gunned it all the way to Parkland.
>>
>> passed under the sniper's perch in the 6th
>> floor window overlooking the parade. At this close range a scope
>> wasn't necessary to hit human size targets.
>>
>> Then why didn't Oswald simply remove the loose scope? Seems none of you
>> had the answer to my question, so I'll ask again. If the paper wrapping
>> was used how come the wrapping didn't show signs of a the scope
>> impression? And wouldn't the scope cause the "package" to have a
>> significant buldge and the appearence of a much heavier and larger package
>> than simple curtain rods?
>
> Certainly a good point. But you'll have to let one of the WC
> defenders handle that one.
>
> Chris
>
> There obviously a contingent that the package was small enough to fit under
> Oswald armpit and cup the stock in his hand (Buell Frazier). The rifle
> package was to long to do that. And I'm just wondering with the scope,
> wouldn't it much to large to fit inside the creases in the wrapping. I have
> a suspicion that it would not. And with the scope inside the wrapping, the

The allegation was that the rifle could only fit into the bag when
disassembled.

> package would also be to bulky. And would appear heavier. But nobody else at
> the depository saw the package. Even those who said they saw him einter the
> building. Frazier may likewise have been worried about being implicated.
>

Or implimented.

>
>

[Walt]

Ronnie Fuller was not 10 years old.....My memory says was three, which
could be wrong, but he definitely was less than five years old. And I
believe Ronnie Fuller was the son of Mrs Chism and he was injured in
Dealey plaza during the shooting. ( At least they thought he had been hit
because he was bloody) There are several photos of the Chisms running
toward the triple underpass with a small boy in their arms just seconds
after the shooting. The look on their faces and the manner in which they
are carrying the little boy indicate that they believe he's been hit by a
bullet. He apparently was bleeding from an injury that was superficial
but they didn't know that until they got to Parkland hospital where he was
examined.

The story about Ronnie Fuller being injured at home by falling on a broken
bottle is just a cover story to hide the fact that the little boy may have
been injured by a ricochet........

[Walt]

On Apr 27, 10:21 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/27/2013 1:09 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 26, 10:31 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 4/26/2013 9:17 AM, Research wrote:
>
> >>> "BT George" <brock.geo...@st.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:404b68c0-5325-46e3...@googlegroups.com...
> >>> Hello,
>
> >>> I am new to this forum, though not new to the JFK case.  There is
> >>> something I am curious about from an "Oswald was innocent" conspriacy
> >>> perspective.  It is a matter of faith among many CT's that the Mannlicher
> >>> Carcano (MC) said to be found on the 6th floor of the TSBD was not really
> >>> used by Oswald nor was it even the real the murder weapon.  Likewise,
> >>> debates seem to rage endlessly whether he even owned such a rifle or over
> >>> whether it was an effective enough instrument to really do what it was
> >>> alleged to have done.
>
> >>> Its hard to conceive that the DPD claimed it was the weapon, but then didn't
> >>> even do ballistics test to even see if it was fired. Maybe it was or maybe
>
> >> The DPD didn't have any such tests. When they found the rifle they
> >> didn't even know that it was and one of them guessed it was a Mauser.
>
> >     The DPD officers that identified the rifle as a 'Mauser 7.65'
> > looked at it from 6-8 inches from the place on the rifle where it was
> > stamped 'Mauser 7.65'.  That's from a statement from Roger Craig,
>
> Craig was lying to support Weitzman.

Not so much to support Weitzman..... Craig was just a chronic liar.....
He may have told Weitzman that the rifle looked like a Mauser and Weitzman
concurred, and told Fritz that the rifle looked like a Mauser.

However it happened..... Weitzman did tell Fritz and Day that the rifle
looked like a Mauser....and Craig agreed and then made up stories to
support his contention. Stories like being "only six or eight inches from
the rifle" and seeing "stamped right there on the barrel was 7.65 Mauser".
Tom Alyea's video shows that Craig was several feet away from Fritz and
Day as they examine the rifle......

[Anthony Marsh]

No, Craig said he saw it stamped Mauser. He did not examine it up close.

> 6-8 inches from his face. No need to lie. However, when they got
> Weitzman to say he made a mistake, why didn't Craig go along with him
> then? Because He also saw the stamp, which he also stated. Skip
> forward to 4:30 for the relevant passage:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE
>

Craig lied. Once he started lying he had to keep lying.

>>> deputy sheriff, and Seymour Weitzman, who signed an affidavit to the
>>> effect that it was a Mauser. Later they got Weitzman to say he had
>>> made a mistake and the rifle was an Italian MC 6.5 rifle, which was
>>> stamped that way. Roger Craig wouldn't change his statement. To see
>>> the related part, skip ahead to 4:30:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE
>>
>> Don't keep repeating all the old myths which were long ago debunked.
>>
> I sure hate to tell you this, but this story hasn't been debunked.
> If you want to try the old dodge that Craig was crazy, that's been
> answered in another forum, which I copied here at the time a year or
> two ago.

I didn't say crazy. He was just doing what many cops do, tesilying,
lying to support his buddies lies.

Garbage. You are spreading misinformation.

[mainframetech]

On Apr 28, 10:20 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "mainframetech" <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Ronnie Fuller was a 10 year old child who had gone into the ER. Josiah
Thompson was a writer (Six Seconds in Dallas) who tracked down the
stretcher that the CE399 'magic' bullet was found on by a man named
Tomlinson. I hope that makes all the names more clear.

If you think THAT's a weird LN theory, just consider the wacky WC
theory of the murder and the Single Bullet Theory!! :)

With a rifle that had a scope that wasn't functional, from a perch that
2 snipers said was not doable, and with a rifle where the bolt was sticky
and the barrel was 'worn and corroded', fired by a ex- marine that never
cleaned his rifle and got 'Maggie's Drawers' often in training. Yup.

>   Two experienced snipers tried to duplicate the shot from the 6th
> floor and couldn't do it...they both said it was not a doable shot.
>
> > You mean stopped in the street don't you. Then after the headshot Greer
> > gunned it all the way to Parkland.
>
> > passed under the sniper's perch in the 6th
> > floor window overlooking the parade. At this close range a scope
> > wasn't necessary to hit human size targets.
>

I'm told by gun nuts that the iron sights weren't set for that range
either, and would have added inches to the mistakes the shooter might make
with it. But the scope was on the rifle when it was found, and it would
at least make shooting with the iron sights more difficult.

> > Then why didn't Oswald simply remove the loose scope? Seems none of you
> > had the answer to my question, so I'll ask again. If the paper wrapping
> > was used how come the wrapping didn't show signs of a the scope
> > impression? And wouldn't the scope cause the "package" to have a
> > significant buldge and the appearence of a much heavier and larger package
> > than simple curtain rods?
>
>    Certainly a good point.  But you'll have to let one of the WC

> defenders handle that one. To answer your question on why not remove the scope, well, the scope was on the rifle when it was found. Did the shooter take it off, shoot the rifle and then stop to put the scope back on the rifle before hiding it? No time for that stuff, the president has been shot and the crowd is howling, and the cops are running into the building.

>
> Chris
>
> There obviously a contingent that the package was small enough to fit under
> Oswald armpit and cup the stock in his hand (Buell Frazier). The rifle
> package was to long to do that. And I'm just wondering with the scope,
> wouldn't it much to large to fit inside the creases in the wrapping. I have
> a suspicion that it would not. And with the scope inside the wrapping, the
> package would also be to bulky. And would appear heavier. But nobody else at
> the depository saw the package. Even those who said they saw him einter the

> building. Frazier may likewise have been worried about being implicated.- Hide quoted text -

[mainframetech]

On Apr 28, 4:08 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/28/2013 10:20 AM, Research wrote:
>

> > "mainframetech" <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Ah! The old mind reading trick again. You haven't a clue whether
he showed a copy of the picture to a revolutionary or not. If he did,
he probably would advertise it or see to it that it was down on paper
somewhere.

> He sent one to the Daily Worker.
>

Would that never get to a Cuban revolutionary? Or is that just a fib
to sound like you know something? Cites please.

> >> As I've read, Oswald was to have come up with this plot on the spur of the
> >> moment. Cause nobody knew of the motorcade until published in the paper.
> >> There was no prior intent.
>
> >    Oh someone knew of the motorcade, but they were on the inside.  They
> > could have told someone on the outside, but we don't have any proof of
> > that.  One the main parameters of the conspiracy people is that someone in
> > government was part of the conspiracy to murder, so they would have prior
> > notice of the motorcade.  Oddly enough, there was a lady named Rose
> > Cheramie that was said to have predicted the very day and method of the
> > murder plot.
>
> You keep missing the point that Oswald bought the Carcano especially to
> kill Walker.
>

YOU keep missing the point that the rifle wasn't in any condition to
aim it when the FBI got it right after the murder. Someone else
probably fired at Walker and they let Oswald take the credit to look
good with the Cubans. Makes more sense.

And was that print freshly made or old?

> > to the furneral home and took prints, even though they knew who he was and
> > took prints when he was booked. Some have even claimed it was DPD officers.
> > I can't seem to find the evidence of who it was? Any ideas?
>
> >> Yeak this was after the rifle was cleaned so it would function. Look at
> >> Fraziers testimony.
>
> >     And the scope was shimmed up so it could be used and sighted in
> > properly.
>
> DIdn't help. It still could not be sighted in properly.
>
> >> So a low tech sniper hit the intended target 2/3 times as
> >> the slow moving motorcade
>
> >    Two experienced snipers tried to duplicate the shot from the 6th
> > floor and couldn't do it...they both said it was not a doable shot.
>
> Balony.
>

Prove it. I've proved it the other way around by giving the text
that covers both snipers as well you know.

Chris

[BT George]

claviger,

When I began my JFK odyssey I was undecided as to whether or not there was
a conspiracy, but leaned slightly to the belief that there probably was
some kind of conspiracy. However, I instictively doubted that any
conspiracy could have been of the huge & elaborate nature that seem quite
popular among the CT community. Alas, my research has led me to conclude
that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated Kennedy and most likely acted alone.

However, while that is my firm conviction I do not view myself as a
typical hard-line LNer in that I do not consider it to be some kind of
"holy" cause to be proved to others at all costs. Moreover, I do not
begrudge others who disagree, unless they are of the stripe (this applies
to LNers too) who give the strong impression that they're far less
concerned about what really happened in Dealey Plaza, than they do about
never having to revise their beliefs or admit to a mistake no matter how
obvious a revision seems to be in order. Even then, however, it is my
hope and prayer that I will always be as respectful as I can to others
even if they disagree with me sharply. Indeed, I would rather drop
posting a reply althogether than let myself decend into childish
name-calling or intentionally inflammatory language that only tends to
harden people in their positions rather than ever wins hearts or minds.

In answer to you query, if I were to buy into a CT scenario, the 1st one
you listed would be the one I would come closest to accepting---minus LHO
missing the mark altogether & belief in a GN shooter. (Other shooters in
the TSBD or Dal-Tex would be a less hard sell to me.) The main reasons
the other 2 theories would require MUCH stronger evidence for me to
accept, is because I personally believe the effort to "create" a
completely false case against LHO would require too many conspirators to
keep even vaguely under wraps for more than a few months (let alone years
or decades) and because many of Oswald's own statements and actions after
the assassination seem too well attested and too incriminating for me to
believe he was uninvolved or merely a framed patsy.

FYI, I will respond to additional postings from you and others whenever I
get the chance. I work in the Accounting arena and am headed into 2 very
busy weeks around month-end close so may not have a lot of time to answer
anything else in the meantime.

[Anthony Marsh]

It could be fired. In the general direction. That is all they needed.

It was in good condition when he shot at Walker.

[Anthony Marsh]

Which two snipers. Prove it.

[Research]

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:517d4a80$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

HA HA HA !) Now thats funny. You're saying I made up some theory where
Ronnie Fuller was hit by the lost bullet? That is funny. No actully I got
it from Thompson's own statement, where he said Ronnie Fuller showed the
bullet to him under the strecher, laying on the floor. Thompson never saw
the bullet fall out of the strecher like some people say he did. It was a
good try, to twist some words with mojumbo. :)

[Anthony Marsh]

So you think there is no way to find out by searching the InterNet?

Concurrent with the emergency medical work being done on Kennedy and
Connally, Parkland staff also treated a small child, Ronnie Fuller, aged
2 � years, who had been brought in with a nasty cut by his mother. He
apparently bled on the stretcher linens, and after he�d been placed on
the operating table, his stretcher was placed in the elevator vestibule
area with others.

> believe Ronnie Fuller was the son of Mrs Chism and he was injured in
> Dealey plaza during the shooting. ( At least they thought he had been hit
> because he was bloody) There are several photos of the Chisms running
> toward the triple underpass with a small boy in their arms just seconds
> after the shooting. The look on their faces and the manner in which they
> are carrying the little boy indicate that they believe he's been hit by a
> bullet. He apparently was bleeding from an injury that was superficial
> but they didn't know that until they got to Parkland hospital where he was
> examined.
>

That's why I suggested that the WC defenders come up with the theory
that Ronnie Fuller had been hit by the missed shot. On the 50th
anniversary I want to see Max Holland's National Geographic special
about this.

> The story about Ronnie Fuller being injured at home by falling on a broken
> bottle is just a cover story to hide the fact that the little boy may have
> been injured by a ricochet........
>

Go on. This is fun.

[Research]

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:517d4a80$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

The reason I personally can't get the depository headshot is Z312. Kennedy
had turned his head to the left. So the side entrance would have been out of
the aimed target area. The WC claimed he was sot in the back of the head and
it exited out the right side. Most likely if he was shot in the back of the
head with his head turned it would have exited his left side at the least
the front and not the oppisite right side. With direct trajectory.

>
>>> You mean stopped in the street don't you. Then after the headshot Greer
>>> gunned it all the way to Parkland.
>>>
>>> passed under the sniper's perch in the 6th
>>> floor window overlooking the parade. At this close range a scope
>>> wasn't necessary to hit human size targets.
>>>
>>> Then why didn't Oswald simply remove the loose scope? Seems none of you
>>> had the answer to my question, so I'll ask again. If the paper wrapping
>>> was used how come the wrapping didn't show signs of a the scope
>>> impression? And wouldn't the scope cause the "package" to have a
>>> significant buldge and the appearence of a much heavier and larger
>>> package
>>> than simple curtain rods?
>>
>> Certainly a good point. But you'll have to let one of the WC
>> defenders handle that one.
>

Just as I thought. All quite on the LNer front. Lost for words. Never seen
that before? !)

>>
>> Chris
>>
>> There obviously a contingent that the package was small enough to fit
>> under
>> Oswald armpit and cup the stock in his hand (Buell Frazier). The rifle
>> package was to long to do that. And I'm just wondering with the scope,
>> wouldn't it much to large to fit inside the creases in the wrapping. I
>> have
>> a suspicion that it would not. And with the scope inside the wrapping,
>> the
>
> The allegation was that the rifle could only fit into the bag when
> disassembled.
>
>> package would also be to bulky. And would appear heavier. But nobody else
>> at
>> the depository saw the package. Even those who said they saw him einter
>> the
>> building. Frazier may likewise have been worried about being implicated.
>>
>
> Or implimented.
>

I'll think about some more while yous guys ponder it over :)

[Research]

"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:9656529c-c170-4dfb...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

Yeah. I have it in records. I made a statement from memory. This isn't an
affidavid or even a term paper. So no footnote is needed. Everybody knows
what I was talking about. Tomlinson (spelling corrected:) didn;t find the
bullet, Ronnie Fuller did and showed it to Tomlinson.

Oh I have. !) !) I mean it just isn't me who thinks, like it was back in 63.
Welcome aboard:)

> > At close range any rifle is lethal so why waste money on a
> > better rifle? Marina Oswald testified he practiced with this rifle
> > and kept it oiled, so LHO knew it was sufficient for such a close
> > ambush. The FBI fired 70+ rounds with this same rifle with no
> > problems.
>

We all know Marina had no reason to lie? She said at the hearings that he
sat in the dark practicing. And he would spend hours with the rifle,
practicing and cleaning the rifle. She made a point to say he cleaned and
oiled it. (That gets me too. Cause oil does not evaporate.) If that was at
least true, where did all the rust and correction come from? If oil was used
the rifle wouldn't need to re-oiled for minium of 6 months. Roughly from
March to November, 8 months later. There shouldn't be any need for oil until
after it was fired. And there certainally shouldn't be corrosion or rust.
Then the FBI had to remove the corrosion and rust before it could be fired,
according to Frazier. So if it wasn't in working condiction when it was
found, how could it be working a week before? !>)

You read my mind.:)

> Two experienced snipers tried to duplicate the shot from the 6th
> floor and couldn't do it...they both said it was not a doable shot.
>
> > You mean stopped in the street don't you. Then after the headshot Greer
> > gunned it all the way to Parkland.
>
> > passed under the sniper's perch in the 6th
> > floor window overlooking the parade. At this close range a scope
> > wasn't necessary to hit human size targets.
>
I'm told by gun nuts that the iron sights weren't set for that range
either, and would have added inches to the mistakes the shooter might make

with it. I said the sights were misaligned and one of those LNers tried to
pick a fight. I try not to bully (doesn't allways work) So I didn't reply.

But the scope was on the rifle when it was found, and it would
at least make shooting with the iron sights more difficult.

Expecally when the bolt didn't function properly. And it was worn out, yet
Oswald did not have gunpowder on his face. But did on both hands? Just a
little fishy story.

> > Then why didn't Oswald simply remove the loose scope? Seems none of you
> > had the answer to my question, so I'll ask again. If the paper wrapping
> > was used how come the wrapping didn't show signs of a the scope
> > impression? And wouldn't the scope cause the "package" to have a
> > significant buldge and the appearence of a much heavier and larger
> > package
> > than simple curtain rods?
>
> Certainly a good point. But you'll have to let one of the WC
> defenders handle that one. To answer your question on why not remove the
> scope, well, the scope was on the rifle when it was found. Did the
> shooter take it off, shoot the rifle and then stop to put the scope back
> on the rifle before hiding it? No time for that stuff, the president has
> been shot and the crowd is howling, and the cops are running into the
> building.
>
> Chris
>
There obviously a contingent that the package was small enough to fit under
Oswald armpit and cup the stock in his hand (Buell Frazier). The rifle
package was to long to do that. And I'm just wondering with the scope,
wouldn't it much to large to fit inside the creases in the wrapping. I have
a suspicion that it would not. And with the scope inside the wrapping, the
package would also be to bulky. And would appear heavier. But nobody else at
the depository saw the package. Even those who said they saw him einter the

building. Frazier may likewise have been worried about being implicated,
same as Marina.

[mainframetech]

> >   Would that ever get to a Cuban revolutionary?  Or is that just a fib

> > to sound like you know something?  Cites please.
>

Dead Silence.

> >>>> As I've read, Oswald was to have come up with this plot on the spur of the
> >>>> moment. Cause nobody knew of the motorcade until published in the paper.
> >>>> There was no prior intent.
>
> >>>     Oh someone knew of the motorcade, but they were on the inside.  They
> >>> could have told someone on the outside, but we don't have any proof of
> >>> that.  One the main parameters of the conspiracy people is that someone in
> >>> government was part of the conspiracy to murder, so they would have prior
> >>> notice of the motorcade.  Oddly enough, there was a lady named Rose
> >>> Cheramie that was said to have predicted the very day and method of the
> >>> murder plot.
>
> >> You keep missing the point that Oswald bought the Carcano especially to
> >> kill Walker.
>
> >    YOU keep missing the point that the rifle wasn't in any condition to
> > aim it when the FBI got it right after the murder.  Someone else
> > probably fired at Walker and they let Oswald take the credit to look
> > good with the Cubans.  Makes more sense.
>
> It could be fired. In the general direction. That is all they needed.
>

So we don't really know that he fired at Walker then. He took
credit with Marina, but maybe he wanted her to take a more respectful
attitude toward him.

> It was in good condition when he shot at Walker.

No, it was in bad condition at that point. Do you think it was in
great condition when it came from Italian surplus from WW2? And then
deteriorated quickly while hidden in a blanket?

Dead Silence.

[mainframetech]

On Apr 29, 3:44 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

I've proved this to you with backups a few times now. I'm not going
through it all again just because you refuse to learn and save the
information that you learn.

[Anthony Marsh]

Craig was not there when Weitzman said it was a Mauser.
Weitzman was the first to identify the rifle.
Craig just went along.

> However it happened..... Weitzman did tell Fritz and Day that the rifle
> looked like a Mauser....and Craig agreed and then made up stories to
> support his contention. Stories like being "only six or eight inches from
> the rifle" and seeing "stamped right there on the barrel was 7.65 Mauser".
> Tom Alyea's video shows that Craig was several feet away from Fritz and
> Day as they examine the rifle......
>
>

Now we are getting somewhere. Do you have a frame from the Alyea film
showing that?

[BT George]

> Hey Walt,

Not quite sure I am following what you said above. Can you come again on
explaining how you think that killing Oswald in the TSBD would have
greatly aided in the cover-up? I'm probably missing something, but I'm
not sure I get how his dead body would have done much, but cause the
authorities to wonder WHO shot him? Unless, somehow you are suggesting
they could have framed someone in law enforcement as having taken the
assassin out in a gun battle or convinced someone in law enforcement to go
along with that version of event?

[BT George]

Thanks CJ. And yes. I have already seen TONS about the condition of the
rifle and, of course, each side flatly contradicts what the other side
claims about it, but for purposes of my original post I really was
focusing on the condition it was ACTUALLY in one way or the other.
Rather, it was more the logical reconciliation of what seems to me to be
competing claims made by some CT's to the effect that they hold that
Oswald was definately framed, but then some of the same CT's argue that
the rifle was really terrible and couldn't have done the deed. I say
"competing" because the validity of the first assertion seems somewhat
undermined when the same persons who defend fairly vehemently their belief
in an elaborate frame-up (elaborate even if not "flawless"), turn around
and defend just as vehemently what an inadequate murder weapon Oswald was
framed with.

Of course, I am not saying by any means that all CT's hold fiercly to both
ends of such a proposition, but it seems undeniable that some do and I
just don't "get it" as the proverbial saying goes.

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh, I know exactly what you are referring to, but you won't admit it and
the newbies have no idea what you mean. You mean Hathcock and Roberts.
They did not try to duplicate the shooting in Dealey Plaza.

[Anthony Marsh]

We do know, because he wrote a long note to Marina and one of his
bullets was found in Walker's house.

>> It was in good condition when he shot at Walker.
>
> No, it was in bad condition at that point. Do you think it was in
> great condition when it came from Italian surplus from WW2? And then
> deteriorated quickly while hidden in a blanket?
>

It was selected and refurbished by Riva and passed inspection.

[Anthony Marsh]

I know English is not your native language, but try to learn how tense
works.
I did not say that you HAD made up that theory. I suggested that you
SHOULD make up that theory. Past tense versus future tense.

[mainframetech]

On Apr 29, 6:18 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message

>
> news:517d4a80$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> > On 4/28/2013 10:20 AM, Research wrote:

> >> "mainframetech" <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Please try to get a grip and listen carefully...Thompson is the name
of an author that wrote a book about the murder. The name you want
that worked at Parkland hospital was Tomlinson, NOT Thompson. The
author said he tracked down the person that used the stretcher that
had the bullet on it, and that stretcher was used by a 10 year old
child named Ronnie Fuller. All the more reason to believe that the
CE399 'magic' bullet (that was on that wrong stretcher) was planted
there by someone that gained access to the ER areas, which was easy to
do.

[Research]

"BT George" <brock....@st.com> wrote in message
news:a38efafb-71b6-4d61...@googlegroups.com...

Thanks. I've felt the same way and just stopped posting all together. Some
of the poster are as you described. I've directly replied back to them about
their attitude. But they don't care. Some of their aims are to discredit by
intimidation and slander. McAdams' moderators allow this practice solely
because some of the posters support the site information.

In answer to you query, if I were to buy into a CT scenario, the 1st one
you listed would be the one I would come closest to accepting---minus LHO
missing the mark altogether & belief in a GN shooter. (Other shooters in
the TSBD or Dal-Tex would be a less hard sell to me.) The main reasons
the other 2 theories would require MUCH stronger evidence for me to
accept, is because I personally believe the effort to "create" a
completely false case against LHO would require too many conspirators to
keep even vaguely under wraps for more than a few months (let alone years
or decades) and because many of Oswald's own statements and actions after
the assassination seem too well attested and too incriminating for me to
believe he was uninvolved or merely a framed patsy.

I tried to investigate the case with an opened mind, leaning neither
direction. Had I found the lonenut to even believable, I'd lost intrest
years ago. And frankly, I wish I had found some conclusion, either way. The
evidence does not conclude or obsolve Oswald. There is much to say about
either thought. It's just there is SO much suspicion surrounding the LNer
camp, I simply not believe it.

[mainframetech]

On Apr 28, 7:13 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 10:21 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On 4/27/2013 1:09 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 26, 10:31 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> On 4/26/2013 9:17 AM, Research wrote:
>
> > >>> "BT George" <brock.geo...@st.com> wrote in message
> > >>>news:404b68c0-5325-46e3...@googlegroups.com...
> > >>> Hello,
>
> > >>> I am new to this forum, though not new to the JFK case.  There is
> > >>> something I am curious about from an "Oswald was innocent" conspriacy
> > >>> perspective.  It is a matter of faith among many CT's that the Mannlicher
> > >>> Carcano (MC) said to be found on the 6th floor of the TSBD was not really
> > >>> used by Oswald nor was it even the real the murder weapon.  Likewise,
> > >>> debates seem to rage endlessly whether he even owned such a rifle or over
> > >>> whether it was an effective enough instrument to really do what it was
> > >>> alleged to have done.
>
> > >>> Its hard to conceive that the DPD claimed it was the weapon, but then didn't
> > >>> even do ballistics test to even see if it was fired. Maybe it was or maybe
>
> > >> The DPD didn't have any such tests. When they found the rifle they
> > >> didn't even know that it was and one of them guessed it was a Mauser.
>
> > >     The DPD officers that identified the rifle as a 'Mauser 7.65'
> > > looked at it from 6-8 inches from the place on the rifle where it was
> > > stamped 'Mauser 7.65'.  That's from a statement from Roger Craig,
>
> > Craig was lying to support Weitzman.
>

Ah, we magically read the mind of the dead Craig and know that he
lied for Weitzman, who was the go-to guy to identify weapons. Sure.
And did Craig also lie on Weitzman's affidavit (that Weitzman signed)
that also said it was a Mauser 7.65?

> Not so much to support Weitzman.....  Craig was just a chronic liar.....
> He may have told Weitzman that the rifle looked like a Mauser and Weitzman
> concurred, and told Fritz that the rifle looked like a Mauser.
>

'May have this', may have that'. What told you that Craig was a
"chronic liar"? The guy that was made 'cop of the year' a couple
years before?

> However it happened..... Weitzman did tell Fritz and Day that the rifle
> looked like a Mauser....and Craig agreed and then made up stories to
> support his contention.  Stories like being "only six or eight inches from
> the rifle" and seeing "stamped right there on the barrel was 7.65 Mauser".
> Tom Alyea's video shows that Craig was several feet away from Fritz and
> Day as they examine the rifle......
>

More mind reading. And MAYBE they both saw the stamp on the Mauser
and didn't say it that way at first until there was doubt and Craig
made it clear. 'Maybe' many things. Weitzman knew what signing an
affidavit meant. He could lose a lot of reputation by being wrong and
signing his name to it. Same for Craig who had had 4 promotions.

> > > deputy sheriff, and Seymour Weitzman, who signed an affidavit to the
> > > effect that it was a Mauser.  Later they got Weitzman to say he had
> > > made a mistake and the rifle was an Italian MC 6.5 rifle, which was
> > > stamped that way.  Roger Craig wouldn't change his statement.  To see
> > > the related part, skip ahead to 4:30:
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE
>
> > Don't keep repeating all the old myths which were long ago debunked.
>

Obviously the stories haven't been debunked, you just need for them
to go away so that you can hug your cherished theory to your chest and
believe it through and through. If you're trying to refer to the
story that Craig was crazy, that was debunked on another forum. If
interested, ask, though I've already copied the info here for all.

[Anthony Marsh]

Shh! You're spoiling my fun. You know that and I know that, but maybe he
got the names mixed up and he really knows that.

> author said he tracked down the person that used the stretcher that
> had the bullet on it, and that stretcher was used by a 10 year old
> child named Ronnie Fuller. All the more reason to believe that the

Where? Where did Tink say that? Cite and quote for me.
You are such a phony. You don't even have his book, Six Seconds in
Dallas. Only bona fides researchers are allowed to have that book.
Page 161:

Ronald Fuller

In the Emergency Room Admission Records for
November 22 we find Governor Connally admitted at
12:40 P.M.; his chief complaint was list as "gunshot
wound" and he was given admission number 24744
(21H156). The next admission number, 24745, was
given to Roland Fuller, age two and one-half, chief
complaint: "fell" (21H156). Ronnie Fuller was ad-
mitted 14 minutes after the Governor at 12:54 P.M.
(21H156). It is one of history's final ironies that
Commission Exhibit 399 -- the bullet that supossedly
struck both President Kennedy and Governor Con-
nally -- was very likely found on a stretcher used for a
cut and bleeding two-and-one-half-year-old child.

21H156:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pages/WH_Vol21_0090b.gif

[claviger]

>    The point of the argument that the rifle wasn't in any condition to
> be used as a murder weapon from the TSBD is really saying that Oswald
> couldn't have done the murder with that weapon, which the WC defenders
> say was used.  It's one of many points that the evidence oriented
> doubters will bring up.  If indeed a Mauser was used, then the
> replacement also says that Oswald was the patsy because why go to such
> efforts to get him blamed otherwise?
>
>    As you read on, you will finds many different viewpoints, that
> generally boil down to the usual, did Oswald do it or not, or was it a
> 'lone nut' or a competent group of assassins.  If you keep an open
> mind the answers will be obvious.
>
> Chris

How about OS, one sniper named Lee Harvey Oswald a conspiracy motivated to
shoot the President? Isn't that the norm on a rifle hit? With only a
single sniper it could go either way, a self motivated sniper or a hit-man
hired by a group or mob. Using one sniper causes confusion and offers
plausible deniability. Multiple snipers don't prove conspiracy per se,
but does increase the probability there's a group effort involved.

[claviger]

BT,

> I tried to investigate the case with an opened mind, leaning neither
> direction.

So you're obviously not a CT.

> Had I found the lonenut to even believable, I'd lost intrest
> years ago. And frankly, I wish I had found some conclusion, either way. The
> evidence does not conclude or obsolve Oswald. There is much to say about
> either thought. It's just there is SO much suspicion surrounding the LNer
> camp, I simply not believe it.

Yes we LNs are all on the CIA payroll, or is it FBI? I sometimes forget.
Maybe bofum. I think they take turns. My check is late this month.
Damn sequestration!

What I find amazing is the USMC won the war in the Pacific, then helped
save South Korea, fought hard in Vietnam, and now the Middle East. They
fight in all kinds of terrain and make do with different kinds of weapons.
Marines brag about getting the hand-me-downs from the Army who always get
first pick. Amazing the USMC has survived this long since the average
Marine can't hit a human size target in a slow moving vehicle inside 100
yards with a milsurp rifle that served in two World Wars. How do we know?
Well CTs tell us so that's how.

Even GnySgt Carlos Hathcock, who held off a whole VC company one night and
made long range shots on targets 800+ yards couldn't hit a slow moving
target inside 100 yards at MCB Quantico rifle range with a bolt action
rifle, even though he used one in Vietnam and racked up 93 confirmed
kills. So it is preposterous that an ex-Marine could even come close to
hitting a target at 88 yards from an elevated position looking down into
an open Limousine. Must be a conspiracy using Army snipers, not Marines.

[BT George]

EDIT TO THE ABOVE -

[BT George]

On Monday, April 29, 2013 7:42:43 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:

EDIT TO THE ABOVE:

In my first paragraph the second sentence should have read "...but for
purposes of my original post I really was NOT focusing on the
condition...."

Afraid, that in my "vast" and intense editing efforts to make sure I craft
a brilliant and perfect English sentence every time, I often end up
accidentally omitting a word or putting a comma or period in a stupid
place. ...Sort of like going out on the town in your best suit, but
forgetting to zip your fly! :-)

[BT George]

Thanks for you perspectives. I may have elected a different direction
when confronted with the huge amount of facts, counter-facts, and
anomolies of this case, but there is no question that it's a tough one
figure out at times. Indeed, I think honest researchers everywhere surely
at many times just want to scream and pull their hair out when confronted
with the morass that is now the JFK Assassination Case. ...At least I
know I've felt that way at times! :-)

[BT George]

On Friday, April 26, 2013 9:31:48 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> On 4/26/2013 9:17 AM, Research wrote:
>
> > "BT George" <brock....@st.com> wrote in message
>

> > news:404b68c0-5325-46e3...@googlegroups.com...

>
> > Hello,
>
> >
>
> > I am new to this forum, though not new to the JFK case. There is
>
> > something I am curious about from an "Oswald was innocent" conspriacy
>
> > perspective. It is a matter of faith among many CT's that the Mannlicher
>
> > Carcano (MC) said to be found on the 6th floor of the TSBD was not really
>
> > used by Oswald nor was it even the real the murder weapon. Likewise,
>
> > debates seem to rage endlessly whether he even owned such a rifle or over
>
> > whether it was an effective enough instrument to really do what it was
>
> > alleged to have done.
>
> >
>

> > Its hard to conceive that the DPD claimed it was the weapon, but then didn't
>
> > even do ballistics test to even see if it was fired. Maybe it was or maybe
>
>
>
> The DPD didn't have any such tests. When they found the rifle they
>
> didn't even know that it was and one of them guessed it was a Mauser.
>
>
>

> > wasn't. We simply don't know, cause of the slap shot investigative methods
>
> > used. And they found a paper bag wrapping supposedly used to smuggle the
>
> > rifle into the building. Just how many curtain rods would have been needed
>
> > in that tiny room? The rifle was longer than the folds on the bag.
>
>
>
> One set of curtain rods. You can see them in the National Archives.
>
>
>
> > We were disguessing the scope in another post. Which does seem to fit into
>
> > the paper wrapping story. What about the scope and the wrapping? Wouldn't
>
> > the scope cause a large bulge in the middle of the wrapping? Wouldn't it
>
> > seem by the sear size that the package would appear to weigh more than a
>
> > couple curtian rods?
>
> >
>
>
>
> You are not allowed to ask any questions about the rifle parts leaving
>
> impressions in the bag. What are you, a terrorist?
>
>
>

> > I think that most persons (wether CT or LN) would at least agree that a MC
>
> > would not normally be an assassin's weapon of choice. Leaving the behind
>
>
>

> It is the perfect weapon for a guy who is broke and knows nothing about
>
> WWII rifles.
>
> I assume that you are no naive that you think it would make sense if
>
> Oswald had a $5,000 custom made CIA assassination rifle.
>
>

Tony, Nope. Not even vaguely suggesting a $5,000 rifle (not that I think
any rifle anywhere was probably such an astronomical price in 1963).
However, there is no need to go to such an extreme. Surely there was a
surplus rifle somewhere that was more reliable thant the MC he was alleged
to have been framed with, that would have still been within his meager
means, let's say in the $50-$100 range.

Now I know the MC was only supposed to have cost about $19 bucks, but if
you think about it, wouldn't it have been infinitely easier to try getting
people to believe that even the penny-penching Oswald COULD have chosen to
pay more for his assassin's rifle, than to try to do what many persons
insist they chose to do instead? ....Namely, trying to convince everyone
that he could have done the deed with a rifle that was so bad---at least
per many CT's---that it could barely fire! (Not to mention their need to
then explain just how this laughably inadequate instrument of death, was
supposedly the murder weapon LHO used to pull off what many vehemently
insist was a nearly impossible feat of marksmanship.)

>
> > the arguments about the legitimacy of the evidence that it was the actual
>
> > murder weapon or whether Oswald actually fired it, the LN response to the
>
> > subject of its deficiencies, is typically to note that it was good enough
>
> > to be a standard Italian military rifle during WWII and that when in
>
> > working order is plenty capable of dealing out death and destruction.
>
> > All that is needed is that the aim of the shooter be good...or that he at
>
> > least gets lucky and hits what he is aiming at. Of course, whether that
>
> > answer is adequate is in the eye of the beholder, but from an LN
>
> > perspective the use of a MC as the apparent murder weapon, simply
>
> > reinforces the lone-assassin conclusion. (I.e., it's the kind of cheap
>
> > weapon one would only expect to see if the shooter was poor, lone
>
> > malcontent like Lee Oswald in late 1963.)
>
> >
>
>
>

> One hit out of three is pretty good.
>
> The other question the WC defenders refuse to discuss is how often the
>
> rifle jams during reloading.
>
>
>
> > Another point here is the rusty condiction of the rifle. It had to be
>
> > cleaned before the test shots as so it could function. And even then the
>
>
>
> Not a problem.
>
>
>

> > bolt action was difficult. But the clincher was the timing of the shots.
>
> > Many depository witnesses (those saying the shots came from the depository)
>
> > claimed the last two shots were on top of each other. The dictabelt showd
>
> > they were about 1/2 seconds apart. Working the difficult bolt and re-siting
>
> > the target would certainly take more time than that. Even if the bolt wasn't
>
> > worn and rusty. But the LNer side can't explain than. So the argue and
>
> > deflect.
>
>
>
> Not the same shots. Some witnesses said shots two and three were bunched
>
> at the end. The acoustics shows that the last two shots of the four they
>
> found were bunched by less than a second.
>
> No one ever said the last two shots separated by less than a second were
>
> both fired by the same rifle. That is physically impossible. Which led
>
> them to find that one the last two shots was fired from a different
>
> location.
>
>
>
> >
>

> > However, from an "Oswald was an innocent patsy" perspective, IOW what
>
> > would be the logic of choosing such a weapon to frame him with? It just
>
>
>

> So indeed you think they can frame a chronically unemployed loser with a
>
> $5,000 custom made CIA assassination rifle and people would fall for it.
>
>
>

> > seems strange that plotters who were sophisticated enough to frame Oswald
>
> > to the degree that is often claimed, would ever choose THAT rifle to frame
>
> > him with. Would not another rifle (like the Mauser early reports
>
>
>

> The Mauser report was the simple mistake of a dumb cop who didn't know
>
> the difference and admitted his mistake. Get over it already.
>
>
>

> > indicated was discovered) be a better choice? For that matter, if there
>
> > was a frame-up involving governmental authorities either actively or
>
> > passively enabling it, I can't help but wonder why they didn't just stick
>
> > to the early reports and frame him with a Mauser?
>
> >
>
>
>

> Because Oswald did not buy a Mauser. He bought a Carcano.
>
>
>
> > The first two officers who found the rifle reported it as a Mauser. Another
>
> > man not connected to the shooting claimed to have seen the rifle, claimed it
>
> > was a Checo Mauser. And was shipped into and out of the building in a wooden
>
>
>
> Who is this man and what the Hell is a "Checo" Mauser?
>
>
>

> > box. Of course immediately after the shooting he was committed to a nut
>
> > house. But was there any kind of collaboring evidence? We have to ask Henry
>
> > Hurt for that answer. Seems to more than reasonable doubt. Doesn't it?
>
> >
>

> > While I doubt I will ever be a high volume poster on this or any other JFK
>
> > forum, I would love to better understand the resolution of the seemingly
>
> > inherent tension within the propositions: "We know the rifle was not up to
>
> > the task." "We also know that they (elaborately) chose to frame him with
>
> > it." Any thoughts?
>
> >
>
>
>

[Walt]

If Lee had been on the sixth floor as they had planned A "sharp eyed"
law enforcement officer would have shot Lee dead. The plotters
thought the security guards would open fire when they heard "Look! up
there a rifle" and then they could open fire and shoot the assassin.
Lee didn't stick around on the sixth floor and that threw a hitch in
their plot. If he had been killed immediately he would not have been
able to introduce the doubt that still rages to this very day.....

 Unless, somehow you are suggesting
> they could have framed someone in law enforcement as having taken the

> assassin out in a gun battle or convinced someone in law ...
>
> read more »

[Walt]

If I showed you absolute proof that Lee was framed.... I'll bet you
wouldn't believe it........And I can show you that proof

[claviger]

Join the club. Proof reading requires discipline and even then we
allow a damnable "of" slip in when it should be "on"!

[Anthony Marsh]

Nope. Nobody could have made a shot like that.

If Hickey had reacted faster he could have sprayed the building with
automatic fire and killed the three Negroes on the fifth floor.

> thought the security guards would open fire when they heard "Look! up
> there a rifle" and then they could open fire and shoot the assassin.
> Lee didn't stick around on the sixth floor and that threw a hitch in
> their plot. If he had been killed immediately he would not have been
> able to introduce the doubt that still rages to this very day.....
>
>
>
>
>
> Unless, somehow you are suggesting
>> they could have framed someone in law enforcement as having taken the
>> assassin out in a gun battle or convinced someone in law ...
>>

>> read more �
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Sure. There was a very nice M-1 in the same ad, but he couldn't afford it.

> Now I know the MC was only supposed to have cost about $19 bucks, but if
> you think about it, wouldn't it have been infinitely easier to try getting
> people to believe that even the penny-penching Oswald COULD have chosen to
> pay more for his assassin's rifle, than to try to do what many persons

Oswald practically broke when he ordered the rifle.

> insist they chose to do instead? ....Namely, trying to convince everyone
> that he could have done the deed with a rifle that was so bad---at least
> per many CT's---that it could barely fire! (Not to mention their need to
> then explain just how this laughably inadequate instrument of death, was
> supposedly the murder weapon LHO used to pull off what many vehemently
> insist was a nearly impossible feat of marksmanship.)
>

No problem. The public is so gullible that they would believe that JFK was
shot in the throat by a shot from behind or that one bullet went through
two men and broke several bones and came out looking in good condition.
You know the government pays people big bucks for propaganda. Anyone
raises questions just call them kooks.

[claviger]

Anthony,

> No problem. The public is so gullible that they would believe that JFK was
> shot in the throat by a shot from behind or that one bullet went through
> two men and broke several bones and came out looking in good condition.
> You know the government pays people big bucks for propaganda. Anyone
> raises questions just call them kooks.

Hunters, police, and soldiers already knew bullets can penetrate more
than one target, but the Aussies proved it using field testing
protocol according to the Scientific Method, so it is now a proven
fact.

[Anthony Marsh]

Spell checkers do not catch everything. Sometimes when I am typing way
and watch TV instead of the computer screen the computer freezes up for
a second and I didn't notice that whole words did not show up.

[claviger]

BT,

> Tony, Nope. Not even vaguely suggesting a $5,000 rifle (not that I think
> any rifle anywhere was probably such an astronomical price in 1963).
> However, there is no need to go to such an extreme.  Surely there was a
> surplus rifle somewhere that was more reliable thant the MC he was alleged
> to have been framed with, that would have still been within his meager
> means, let's say in the $50-$100 range.
>
> Now I know the MC was only supposed to have cost about $19 bucks, but if
> you think about it, wouldn't it have been infinitely easier to try getting
> people to believe that even the penny-penching Oswald COULD have chosen to
> pay more for his assassin's rifle, than to try to do what many persons
> insist they chose to do instead?  ....Namely, trying to convince everyone
> that he could have done the deed with a rifle that was so bad---at least
> per many CT's---that it could barely fire!

That is not the case, simply a CT myth.

> (Not to mention their need to then explain just how this laughably inadequate
> instrument of death, was supposedly the murder weapon LHO used to pull off
> what many vehemently insist was a nearly impossible feat of marksmanship.)

The shot was inside 100 yards, considered close range. The closer a
shooter is to a target the luckier they get.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you think it was just a coincide that two lone nuts both picked the
same time and place to shoot the President. That's what the WC defenders
on the HSCA said.
You need 100 snipers to prove conspiracy?

[mainframetech]

This information will mean nothing to those that support the WC
faith.

> 21H156:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pages/WH_Vol21_0...

The acoustics study said one bullet came from the Grassy Knoll.
Surprisingly, there were really at least 6 bullets fired based on the
acoustics report. The other two were fired from an unknown location
because the HSCA said to look at 2 places, the GK and the 6th floor
TSBD. So they only set up tests for the 2 specified locations. They
reported on the two extra shots, but the HSCA decided to leave them
out of their own report. For obvious reasons, IMO.

[mainframetech]

On Apr 28, 7:14 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/28/2013 10:18 AM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Apr 27, 11:21 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 4/27/2013 1:09 PM, mainframetech wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 26, 10:31 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 4/26/2013 9:17 AM, Research wrote:
>

> >>>>> "BT George" <brock.geo...@st.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:404b68c0-5325-46e3...@googlegroups.com...

> >>>>> Hello,
>
> >>>>> I am new to this forum, though not new to the JFK case.  There is
> >>>>> something I am curious about from an "Oswald was innocent" conspriacy
> >>>>> perspective.  It is a matter of faith among many CT's that the Mannlicher
> >>>>> Carcano (MC) said to be found on the 6th floor of the TSBD was not really
> >>>>> used by Oswald nor was it even the real the murder weapon.  Likewise,
> >>>>> debates seem to rage endlessly whether he even owned such a rifle or over
> >>>>> whether it was an effective enough instrument to really do what it was
> >>>>> alleged to have done.
>

> >>>>> Its hard to conceive that the DPD claimed it was the weapon, but then didn't
> >>>>> even do ballistics test to even see if it was fired. Maybe it was or maybe
>
> >>>> The DPD didn't have any such tests. When they found the rifle they
> >>>> didn't even know that it was and one of them guessed it was a Mauser.
>

> >>>      The DPD officers that identified the rifle as a 'Mauser 7.65'
> >>> looked at it from 6-8 inches from the place on the rifle where it was
> >>> stamped 'Mauser 7.65'.  That's from a statement from Roger Craig,
>
> >> Craig was lying to support Weitzman.
>

> >     Ah!  Once again you display your ability to read the mind of a long
> > dead witness!  Amazing.  Cites please.  Craig stated that he saw
> > Weitzman look at the stamp '7.65 Mauser' on the rifle not more than
>
> No, Craig said he saw it stamped Mauser. He did not examine it up close.
>
Check out the other talk he gave for "Two Men in Dallas Part 2". By
this time Craig had heard from all the people that wanted him to
change his story or that tried to say he lied, so he was careful and
told it all. Skip ahead to 4:00.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE

Craig was the guy who made cop of the year a couple years before,
and had gotten 4 promotions by this time. Not the sort that goes
around and gets a reputation for lying.

> > 6-8 inches from his face.  No need to lie.  However, when they got
> > Weitzman to say he made a mistake, why didn't Craig go along with him
> > then?  Because He also saw the stamp, which he also stated.  Skip
> > forward to 4:00 for the relevant passage:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE
>
> Craig lied. Once he started lying he had to keep lying.
>
That's nice. Calling a man a liar and not backing it up. Cites
please.

Dead Silence.

> >>> deputy sheriff, and Seymour Weitzman, who signed an affidavit to the
> >>> effect that it was a Mauser.  Later they got Weitzman to say he had
> >>> made a mistake and the rifle was an Italian MC 6.5 rifle, which was
> >>> stamped that way.  Roger Craig wouldn't change his statement.  To see
> >>> the related part, skip ahead to 4:30:
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE
>
> >> Don't keep repeating all the old myths which were long ago debunked.
>

> >    I sure hate to tell you this, but this story hasn't been debunked.
> > If you want to try the old dodge that Craig was crazy, that's been
> > answered in another forum, which I copied here at the time a year or
> > two ago.
>
> I didn't say crazy. He was just doing what many cops do, tesilying,
> lying to support his buddies lies.
>
Ah! And how did you determine that? You have some evidence we
haven't seen? Don't be shy...put it out. Or were you voted the
psychiatrist of the year because of your incisive ability to determine
a lie? Cites please, or will you give us dead silence?

>
>
> >>>    a mannlicher-Carcano would have a stamp that said

> >>>>> wasn't. We simply don't know, cause of the slap shot investigative methods
> >>>>> used. And they found a paper bag wrapping supposedly used to smuggle the
> >>>>> rifle into the building. Just how many curtain rods would have been needed
> >>>>> in that tiny room? The rifle was longer than the folds on the bag.
>
> >>>> One set of curtain rods. You can see them in the National Archives.
>
> >>>>> We were disguessing the scope in another post. Which does seem to fit into
> >>>>> the paper wrapping story. What about the scope and the wrapping? Wouldn't
> >>>>> the scope cause a large bulge in the middle of the wrapping? Wouldn't it
> >>>>> seem by the sear size that the package would appear to weigh more than a
> >>>>> couple curtian rods?
>
> >>>> You are not allowed to ask any questions about the rifle parts leaving
> >>>> impressions in the bag. What are you, a terrorist?
>

> >>>>> I think that most persons (wether CT or LN) would at least agree that a MC
> >>>>> would not normally be an assassin's weapon of choice.  Leaving the behind
>

> >>>> It is the perfect weapon for a guy who is broke and knows nothing about
> >>>> WWII rifles.
> >>>> I assume that you are no naive that you think it would make sense if
> >>>> Oswald had a $5,000 custom made CIA assassination rifle.
>

> >>>     It's also a perfect weapon for a guy that has no intention of
> >>> shooting anyone, but wants to take a few pictures with the rifle to
> >>> look like a revolutionary for the Cubans he was trying to infiltrate.
> >>> He bought the rifle without a clip, and we don't know how a clip and
> >>> ammunition were acquired, but they were found in the TSBD.
>

> >>>>> the arguments about the legitimacy of the evidence that it was the actual
> >>>>> murder weapon or whether Oswald actually fired it, the LN response to the
> >>>>> subject of its deficiencies, is typically to note that it was good enough
> >>>>> to be a standard Italian military rifle during WWII and that when in
> >>>>> working order is plenty capable of dealing out death and destruction.
> >>>>> All that is needed is that the aim of the shooter be good...or that he at
> >>>>> least gets lucky and hits what he is aiming at.  Of course, whether that
> >>>>> answer is adequate is in the eye of the beholder, but from an LN
> >>>>> perspective the use of a MC as the apparent murder weapon, simply
> >>>>> reinforces the lone-assassin conclusion. (I.e., it's the kind of cheap
> >>>>> weapon one would only expect to see if the shooter was poor, lone
> >>>>> malcontent like Lee Oswald in late 1963.)
>

> >>>> One hit out of three is pretty good.
> >>>> The other question the WC defenders refuse to discuss is how often the
> >>>> rifle jams during reloading.
>
> >>>>> Another point here is the rusty condiction of the rifle. It had to be
> >>>>> cleaned before the test shots as so it could function. And even then the
>
> >>>> Not a problem.
>

> >>>     More than that, the scope had to be shimmed up by the gunsmith
> >>> before they could aim the rifle.
>

> >>>>> bolt action was difficult. But the clincher was the timing of the shots.
> >>>>> Many depository witnesses (those saying the shots came from the depository)
> >>>>> claimed the last two shots were on top of each other. The dictabelt showd
> >>>>> they were about 1/2 seconds apart. Working the difficult bolt and re-siting
> >>>>> the target would certainly take more time than that. Even if the bolt wasn't
> >>>>> worn and rusty. But the LNer side can't explain than. So the argue and
> >>>>> deflect.
>
> >>>> Not the same shots. Some witnesses said shots two and three were bunched
> >>>> at the end. The acoustics shows that the last two shots of the four they
> >>>> found were bunched by less than a second.
> >>>> No one ever said the last two shots separated by less than a second were
> >>>> both fired by the same rifle. That is physically impossible. Which led
> >>>> them to find that one the last two shots was fired from a different
> >>>> location.
>

> >>>>> However, from an "Oswald was an innocent patsy" perspective, IOW what
> >>>>> would be the logic of choosing such a weapon to frame him with?  It just
>

> >>>> So indeed you think they can frame a chronically unemployed loser with a
> >>>> $5,000 custom made CIA assassination rifle and people would fall for it.
>

> >>>>> seems strange that plotters who were sophisticated enough to frame Oswald
> >>>>> to the degree that is often claimed, would ever choose THAT rifle to frame
> >>>>> him with.  Would not another rifle (like the Mauser early reports
>

> >>>> The Mauser report was the simple mistake of a dumb cop who didn't know
> >>>> the difference and admitted his mistake. Get over it already.
>

> >>>     The cop who identified the rifle as a 'Mauser 7.65' was NOT a dumb
> >>> cop, he was the go-to guy when gun identification was needed.  He ran
> >>> a sports shop for a while and was familiar with many types of guns.
> >>> It was stated by another cop that watched the identification, that the
> >>> 'dumb cop' (Seymour Weitzman) was 6-8 inches from the stamp on the
> >>> rifle that said 'Mauser 7.65'.  After signing an affidavit as to the
> >>> type of rifle, the next day Weitzman said he made a mistake and it was
> >>> an MC 6.5 rifle.  The other cop never changed his statement:
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE
> >>>      Skip to 4:30 to get the related part.
>

> >>>>> indicated was discovered) be a better choice?  For that matter, if there
> >>>>> was a frame-up involving governmental authorities either actively or
> >>>>> passively enabling it, I can't help but wonder why they didn't just stick
> >>>>> to the early reports and frame him with a Mauser?
>

> >>>> Because Oswald did not buy a Mauser. He bought a Carcano.
>
> >>>>> The first two officers who found the rifle reported it as a Mauser. Another
> >>>>> man not connected to the shooting claimed to have seen the rifle, claimed it
> >>>>> was a Checo Mauser. And was shipped into and out of the building in a wooden
>
> >>>> Who is this man and what the Hell is a "Checo" Mauser?
>

> >>>     Checo means 'Czechoslovakian'.  I assume that's where the guy
> >>> thought the rifle was made for the Mauser company.
>
> >> Then why didn't you say that? Why the cutesy slang? Why should the
> >> Mauser be Czechoslovakian?
> >> And who assumed that?
>

> >    I have no idea who mentioned it, I just looked it up and put it here
> > for general info. (Chris)
>
> Garbage. You are spreading misinformation.
>
Marsh, stuff your ridiculous insults. I do NOT spread any
misinformation. And if I had done so accidentally, I would apologize
immediately and correct the error. I haven't seen you apologize for
all the mistakes you've made that I've had to correct. You just go
blithely along. Now, listen carefully. Someone here recently asked
what 'checo Mauser' meant in speaking of the Mauser rifle. I looked
it up on Google Translate, and in Spanish it means Czech Mauser. The
phrase was mentioned to be said in Spain.

I'm constantly having to correct your mistakes, and here we go
again. If you know anything about 'Google Tranlate' try it yourself.
Put in 'checo Mauser' and you will get out Czech Mauser. Sheesh!

> >>>>> box. Of course immediately after the shooting he was committed to a nut
> >>>>> house. But was there any kind of collaboring evidence? We have to ask Henry
> >>>>> Hurt for that answer. Seems to more than reasonable doubt. Doesn't it?
>

> >>>>> While I doubt I will ever be a high volume poster on this or any other JFK
> >>>>> forum, I would love to better understand the resolution of the seemingly
> >>>>> inherent tension within the propositions: "We know the rifle was not up to
> >>>>> the task."  "We also know that they (elaborately) chose to frame him with
> >>>>> it."  Any thoughts?
>

> >>>> It is hard to frame someone with a gun the suspect never owned. Local
> >>>> cops can do that by planting throw away guns on the suspects they kill.
> >>>> But in a major crime with such an unusual weapon it is much harder to
> >>>> do. Do you understand that they put serial numbers on the weapons?
>
> >>>>> BT George

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/30/2013 9:20 PM, claviger wrote:
> BT,
>
>> I tried to investigate the case with an opened mind, leaning neither
>> direction.
>
> So you're obviously not a CT.
>
>> Had I found the lonenut to even believable, I'd lost intrest
>> years ago. And frankly, I wish I had found some conclusion, either way. The
>> evidence does not conclude or obsolve Oswald. There is much to say about
>> either thought. It's just there is SO much suspicion surrounding the LNer
>> camp, I simply not believe it.
>
> Yes we LNs are all on the CIA payroll, or is it FBI? I sometimes forget.
> Maybe bofum. I think they take turns. My check is late this month.
> Damn sequestration!
>
> What I find amazing is the USMC won the war in the Pacific, then helped
> save South Korea, fought hard in Vietnam, and now the Middle East. They
> fight in all kinds of terrain and make do with different kinds of weapons.
> Marines brag about getting the hand-me-downs from the Army who always get
> first pick. Amazing the USMC has survived this long since the average
> Marine can't hit a human size target in a slow moving vehicle inside 100
> yards with a milsurp rifle that served in two World Wars. How do we know?
> Well CTs tell us so that's how.
>

The Marines are smart enough to let the Army beta test new weapons
before they are proven safe. Remember the first M-16s in Vietnam?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/30/2013 9:20 PM, claviger wrote:

> BT,
>
>> I tried to investigate the case with an opened mind, leaning neither
>> direction.
>
> So you're obviously not a CT.
>
>> Had I found the lonenut to even believable, I'd lost intrest
>> years ago. And frankly, I wish I had found some conclusion, either way. The
>> evidence does not conclude or obsolve Oswald. There is much to say about
>> either thought. It's just there is SO much suspicion surrounding the LNer
>> camp, I simply not believe it.
>
> Yes we LNs are all on the CIA payroll, or is it FBI? I sometimes forget.
> Maybe bofum. I think they take turns. My check is late this month.
> Damn sequestration!
>
> What I find amazing is the USMC won the war in the Pacific, then helped
> save South Korea, fought hard in Vietnam, and now the Middle East. They
> fight in all kinds of terrain and make do with different kinds of weapons.
> Marines brag about getting the hand-me-downs from the Army who always get
> first pick. Amazing the USMC has survived this long since the average
> Marine can't hit a human size target in a slow moving vehicle inside 100
> yards with a milsurp rifle that served in two World Wars. How do we know?
> Well CTs tell us so that's how.
>
> Even GnySgt Carlos Hathcock, who held off a whole VC company one night and
> made long range shots on targets 800+ yards couldn't hit a slow moving
> target inside 100 yards at MCB Quantico rifle range with a bolt action

Which rifle. Name it.

[mainframetech]

On Apr 29, 8:02 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/28/2013 7:13 PM, Walt wrote:

>
> > On Apr 27, 10:21 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 4/27/2013 1:09 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 26, 10:31 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 4/26/2013 9:17 AM, Research wrote:
>
> >>>>> "BT George" <brock.geo...@st.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:404b68c0-5325-46e3...@googlegroups.com...
> >>>>> Hello,
>
> >>>>> I am new to this forum, though not new to the JFK case.  There is
> >>>>> something I am curious about from an "Oswald was innocent" conspriacy
> >>>>> perspective.  It is a matter of faith among many CT's that the Mannlicher
> >>>>> Carcano (MC) said to be found on the 6th floor of the TSBD was not really
> >>>>> used by Oswald nor was it even the real the murder weapon.  Likewise,
> >>>>> debates seem to rage endlessly whether he even owned such a rifle or over
> >>>>> whether it was an effective enough instrument to really do what it was
> >>>>> alleged to have done.
>
> >>>>> Its hard to conceive that the DPD claimed it was the weapon, but then didn't
> >>>>> even do ballistics test to even see if it was fired. Maybe it was or maybe
>
> >>>> The DPD didn't have any such tests. When they found the rifle they
> >>>> didn't even know that it was and one of them guessed it was a Mauser.
>
> >>>      The DPD officers that identified the rifle as a 'Mauser 7.65'
> >>> looked at it from 6-8 inches from the place on the rifle where it was
> >>> stamped 'Mauser 7.65'.  That's from a statement from Roger Craig,
>
> >> Craig was lying to support Weitzman.
>

> > Not so much to support Weitzman.....  Craig was just a chronic liar.....
> > He may have told Weitzman that the rifle looked like a Mauser and Weitzman
> > concurred, and told Fritz that the rifle looked like a Mauser.
>

> Craig was not there when Weitzman said it was a Mauser.
> Weitzman was the first to identify the rifle.
> Craig just went along.
>
Amazing how your own falsehoods get you going further and telling more
and more baloney. You weren't there. Whose affidavit or statement are
you working with? Why do you want Craig to be lying so much? Do you have
some theory that gets mashed? Skip ahead to 4:00.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE

> > However it happened..... Weitzman did tell Fritz and Day that the rifle
> > looked like a Mauser....and Craig agreed and then made up stories to
> > support his contention.  Stories like being "only six or eight inches from
> > the rifle" and seeing "stamped right there on the barrel was 7.65 Mauser".
> > Tom Alyea's video shows that Craig was several feet away from Fritz and
> > Day as they examine the rifle......
>

How did you determine that Craig was making up stories because at one
moment a video showed them separated? I looked at the Alyea video and it
was taken AFTER the find and when many people had collected and were
discussing the situation. The actual finding of the rifle wasn't there,
and the immediate time when Fritz and Day looked at the rifle with
Weitzman and Craig and Boone wasn't there either. You're attempting to
use evidence that isn't. So Craig's statement stands.Skip ahead to 4:00:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE



> Now we are getting somewhere. Do you have a frame from the Alyea film
> showing that?
>
Not a chance.

> >>> deputy sheriff, and Seymour Weitzman, who signed an affidavit to the
> >>> effect that it was a Mauser.  Later they got Weitzman to say he had
> >>> made a mistake and the rifle was an Italian MC 6.5 rifle, which was
> >>> stamped that way.  Roger Craig wouldn't change his statement.  To see
> >>> the related part, skip ahead to 4:30:
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE
>
> >> Don't keep repeating all the old myths which were long ago debunked.
>

> >>>>> box. Of course immediately after the shooting he was committed to a nut
> >>>>> house. But was there any kind of collaboring evidence? We have to ask Henry
> >>>>> Hurt for that answer. Seems to more than reasonable doubt. Doesn't it?
>
> >>>>> While I doubt I will ever be a high volume poster on this or any other JFK
> >>>>> forum, I would love to better understand the resolution of the seemingly
> >>>>> inherent tension within the propositions: "We know the rifle was not up to
> >>>>> the task."  "We also know that they (elaborately) chose to frame him with
> >>>>> it."  Any thoughts?
>
> >>>> It is hard to frame someone with a gun the suspect never owned. Local
> >>>> cops can do that by planting throw away guns on the suspects they kill.
> >>>> But in a major crime with such an unusual weapon it is much harder to
> >>>> do. Do you understand that they put serial numbers on the weapons?
>

> >>>>> BT George- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Apr 30, 10:29 pm, BT George <brock.geo...@st.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 26, 2013 9:31:48 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 4/26/2013 9:17 AM, Research wrote:
>

> > > "BT George" <brock.geo...@st.com> wrote in message

The lousy condition of the MC rifle didn't come from CTs, it came from
the testimony of Robert Frazier and Ronald Simmons of the FBI in front of
the WC. It was stated that the rifle had to be sent to the gunsmith and
he shimmed up the scope so it could be used. The bolt was also found to
be hard to work, causing aim to take longer as working it took the gun
farther off target. And for a crime that needed the fastest speed at
working the bolt of a rifle, that's not so good. Frazier said the lands
and grooves in the barrel were worn, and the rifle in general was 'worn
and corroded'. Oswald was known as a guy that didn't take good care of
his rifle in the marines.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 1, 12:19 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/30/2013 10:29 PM, BT George wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Friday, April 26, 2013 9:31:48 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 4/26/2013 9:17 AM, Research wrote:
>

> >>> "BT George" <brock.geo...@st.com> wrote in message

I've even seen that method used here by a few people to escape from
truth...:)

> >>> BT George- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[claviger]

It is LNs who are skeptics about the Invisible Giant Conspiracy, as in the
old saying, "I'm from Missouri. Show me!" It is CTs who believe in the IGC
sight unseen, with no proof of existence. You just gotta Beelieeeeeeve
with no proof in sight. Being a CT is like joining a cult. After 50 years
no proof, no evidence, but keep on believing anyway. All those Presidents
in between, four of them Liberal Democrats and now the most Liberal of
all, why won't they tell the American people what really happened and
release ALL remaining documents? On this 50th Anniversary is the perfect
time for the President of the United States tell the world what really
happened, if the Kennedy family will give him permission. Otherwise
silence confirms the WCR got it right the first time.

[Anthony Marsh]

Exactly the sort that goes around lying. Welcome to the real world. Cops
always lie.

>>> 6-8 inches from his face. No need to lie. However, when they got
>>> Weitzman to say he made a mistake, why didn't Craig go along with him
>>> then? Because He also saw the stamp, which he also stated. Skip
>>> forward to 4:00 for the relevant passage:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE
>>
>> Craig lied. Once he started lying he had to keep lying.
>>
> That's nice. Calling a man a liar and not backing it up. Cites
> please.
>
> Dead Silence.
>

Never any evidence from you.

>>>>> deputy sheriff, and Seymour Weitzman, who signed an affidavit to the
>>>>> effect that it was a Mauser. Later they got Weitzman to say he had
>>>>> made a mistake and the rifle was an Italian MC 6.5 rifle, which was
>>>>> stamped that way. Roger Craig wouldn't change his statement. To see
>>>>> the related part, skip ahead to 4:30:
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE
>>
>>>> Don't keep repeating all the old myths which were long ago debunked.
>>
>>> I sure hate to tell you this, but this story hasn't been debunked.
>>> If you want to try the old dodge that Craig was crazy, that's been
>>> answered in another forum, which I copied here at the time a year or
>>> two ago.
>>
>> I didn't say crazy. He was just doing what many cops do, tesilying,
>> lying to support his buddies lies.
>>
> Ah! And how did you determine that? You have some evidence we
> haven't seen? Don't be shy...put it out. Or were you voted the
> psychiatrist of the year because of your incisive ability to determine
> a lie? Cites please, or will you give us dead silence?

Yes, because I have actually read the testimonies and watched the
interviews.

You don't have the moral authority to correct me about anything.
Tell us why you think it had to be a Czech Mauser.
You are just picking any country at random.
SHOW ME your Czech Mauser that is stamped "MAUSER" on the barrel.

[Anthony Marsh]

That is not why I quoted it. I quoted it to refute the lies of certain
conspiracy kooks who kept saying that Tink said Ronnie Fuller was a 10
year old. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't give a fig about what the
moron WC defenders think. Part of my work here is to police my own side
and stop conspiracy believers from lying about the evidence. However I
would like to see one of the conspiracy kooks claim that Ricky Chism was
hit by the miss shot and they lied to Parkland and told them he was Ronnie
Fuller because the Chisms did not have insurance. The kooks have let me
down by not being kooky enough. They need some help.

[Research]

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:517df853$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 4/28/2013 10:17 PM, mainframetech wrote:

>>>>> The only possible reason to use a "defective" Italian made rifle is a
>>>>> calling card from the Mafia to let the world know they did the hit on
>>>>> a President who double-crossed them. James Files claims it was a
>>>>> Mafia hit all the way with two more snipers in the Dal-Tex Bldg and
>>>>> the GK. Supposedly Carlos Marcello bragged to a cellmate he took care
>>>>> of Kennedy as a favor to Jimmy Hoffa. The Mafia was upset JFK was not
>>>>> working hard enough to get rid of Castro so they could get their
>>>>> casinos going again in Havana. As we all know Jack Ruby had contacts
>>>>> with the Mafia in Chicago, NO, Miami, and Havana.
>>>
>>>> A used Italian rifle may have many reasons to be purchased aside
>>>> from the Mafia connection. See below.
>>>
>>>>> Other than Mafia symbolism the choice of rifle was appears to be
>>>>> simply a cost decision by a low tech assassin who decided not to waste
>>>>> money on a rifle he was going to leave behind anyway.
>>>
>>>> He seemed not to have any money, and if he only wanted the rifle to
>>>> impress some Cuban revolutionaries with a picture of him carrying all
>>>> his weapons, why spend money he didn't have?
>>>
>>> He didn't show it to any Cuban revolutionaries.
>>

>> Ah! The old mind reading trick again. You haven't a clue whether
>> he showed a copy of the picture to a revolutionary or not. If he did,
>> he probably would advertise it or see to it that it was down on paper
>> somewhere.

>>
>>> He sent one to the Daily Worker.
>>>

>> Would that never get to a Cuban revolutionary? Or is that just a fib
>> to sound like you know something? Cites please.

>>
>>
>>>>> As I've read, Oswald was to have come up with this plot on the spur of
>>>>> the
>>>>> moment. Cause nobody knew of the motorcade until published in the
>>>>> paper.
>>>>> There was no prior intent.
>>>
>>>> Oh someone knew of the motorcade, but they were on the inside.
>>>> They
>>>> could have told someone on the outside, but we don't have any proof of
>>>> that. One the main parameters of the conspiracy people is that someone
>>>> in
>>>> government was part of the conspiracy to murder, so they would have
>>>> prior
>>>> notice of the motorcade. Oddly enough, there was a lady named Rose
>>>> Cheramie that was said to have predicted the very day and method of the
>>>> murder plot.
>>>
>>> You keep missing the point that Oswald bought the Carcano especially to
>>> kill Walker.
>>>

>> YOU keep missing the point that the rifle wasn't in any condition to
>> aim it when the FBI got it right after the murder. Someone else
>> probably fired at Walker and they let Oswald take the credit to look
>> good with the Cubans. Makes more sense.
>>
>
> It could be fired. In the general direction. That is all they needed.
>

Well well. Another half baked nonscene. And you say other people have
"silly" theories. Why did Frazier clean and oil it then? That is before it
could even be fired?

>
> It was in good condition when he shot at Walker.
>

You ONLY HAVE Marina's word for that. What else is there? Did Oswald
confess to that. I don't remember any kind of confession. Maybe you can
give us the amazing source so the world will know of this guilt. Maybe
more trumpt up charges like the Tippit murder.

>
>>>> That's what I am saying. If Oswald was not an insider, he would not
>>>> know
>>>> until it came out in the paper just a few days before. That's the
>>>> premiss
>>>> the WC ran with.
>>>
>>>> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Rose_Cherami
>>>
>>>>> He only took one clip thinking 3-4 shots at a moving target was
>>>>> probably
>>>>> all he would use.
>>>
>>>>> Would you LNers make up your mind. Was it 3 or 4 for the money? And if
>>>>> it
>>>>> was 4 what happen to the shell Mr. Posner?
>>>
>>>> The argument of 3 or 4 shots comes from the onlookers who said the
>>>> 2
>>>> different numbers.
>>>
>>> Only three shots were fired from the sniper's nest.
>>>
>>> Shot #4 had to be fired from some other place. Hence conspiracy.
>>>

>> And was that print freshly made or old?

>>
>>>> to the furneral home and took prints, even though they knew who he was
>>>> and
>>>> took prints when he was booked. Some have even claimed it was DPD
>>>> officers.
>>>> I can't seem to find the evidence of who it was? Any ideas?
>>>
>>>>> Yeak this was after the rifle was cleaned so it would function. Look
>>>>> at
>>>>> Fraziers testimony.
>>>
>>>> And the scope was shimmed up so it could be used and sighted in
>>>> properly.
>>>
>>> DIdn't help. It still could not be sighted in properly.
>>>
>>>>> So a low tech sniper hit the intended target 2/3 times as
>>>>> the slow moving motorcade
>>>
>>>> Two experienced snipers tried to duplicate the shot from the 6th
>>>> floor and couldn't do it...they both said it was not a doable shot.
>>>
>>> Balony.
>>>

>> Prove it. I've proved it the other way around by giving the text
>> that covers both snipers as well you know.

>> Chris
>>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Luck? Even McAdams, as much of a klutz as he is, could not manage to
miss the target at 120 feet. Oswald did when he tried to shoot Walker.
I bet you could miss at 50 yards. Frazier did.

[Research]

"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:149ea872-66fe-47fa...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

> > Would that ever get to a Cuban revolutionary? Or is that just a fib

> > to sound like you know something? Cites please.
>

Dead Silence.

> >>>> As I've read, Oswald was to have come up with this plot on the spur
> >>>> of the
> >>>> moment. Cause nobody knew of the motorcade until published in the
> >>>> paper.
> >>>> There was no prior intent.
>
> >>> Oh someone knew of the motorcade, but they were on the inside.

I meant the general public. Not the assassin insiders or who ever.

They
> >>> could have told someone on the outside, but we don't have any proof of
> >>> that. One the main parameters of the conspiracy people is that someone
> >>> in
> >>> government was part of the conspiracy to murder, so they would have
> >>> prior
> >>> notice of the motorcade. Oddly enough, there was a lady named Rose
> >>> Cheramie that was said to have predicted the very day and method of
> >>> the
> >>> murder plot.

Yeah also Strugis' girlfriend was riding in the car. She went to the
police to no avail. Wally Watson, Ruby's bartender backed up Cheramine. He
said she only got one thing wrong. He said there was three cars, not two.
So there must have been a bigger bunch.

>
> >> You keep missing the point that Oswald bought the Carcano especially to
> >> kill Walker.
>
> > YOU keep missing the point that the rifle wasn't in any condition to
> > aim it when the FBI got it right after the murder. Someone else
> > probably fired at Walker and they let Oswald take the credit to look
> > good with the Cubans. Makes more sense.
>
> It could be fired. In the general direction. That is all they needed.
>

So we don't really know that he fired at Walker then. He took
credit with Marina, but maybe he wanted her to take a more respectful
attitude toward him.

> It was in good condition when he shot at Walker.

No, it was in bad condition at that point. Do you think it was in
great condition when it came from Italian surplus from WW2? And then
deteriorated quickly while hidden in a blanket?

Oh come on Marck. No evidence or even an educated reply. You LNer you. ?)
Oh thats right you get Russian mixed up with English! ')

>
> >>> the shirt and blanket. How hard would it have been? Just like the
> >>> palmprint.
> >>> Day didn't have it until after Oswald was dead. And "agents" (unknown)
> >>> came
>
> >> More misinformation. Day had the print that night.

Why wasn't it entered into evidence until the 29th. After he turned over
the rifle evidence to the FBI.

>
> > And was that print freshly made or old?
>

Dead Silence.

The rust built up so bad while it was in between the boxes because of the
damp air from all the opened windows on the sixth floor. Yeah I solved the
case. Everybody can sleep tonight.

> >>> to the furneral home and took prints, even though they knew who he was
> >>> and
> >>> took prints when he was booked. Some have even claimed it was DPD
> >>> officers.
> >>> I can't seem to find the evidence of who it was? Any ideas?
>
> >>>> Yeak this was after the rifle was cleaned so it would function. Look
> >>>> at
> >>>> Fraziers testimony.
>
> >>> And the scope was shimmed up so it could be used and sighted in
> >>> properly.
>
> >> DIdn't help. It still could not be sighted in properly.

THEN the iron sites were misaligned, so how could anybody hit the side of
the barn. But when the FBI re-enacted the rifle feat. I see they didn't
use the Oswald rifle. Especially in the same condiction. They used other
rifles.

[Research]

"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:d232c41e-409e-482e...@y12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 29, 6:18 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:517d4a80$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>

> HA HA HA !) Now thats funny. You're saying I made up some theory where
> Ronnie Fuller was hit by the lost bullet? That is funny. No actully I got
> it from Thompson's own statement, where he said Ronnie Fuller showed the
> bullet to him under the strecher, laying on the floor. Thompson never saw
> the bullet fall out of the strecher like some people say he did. It was a
> good try, to twist some words with mojumbo. :)
>
Please try to get a grip and listen carefully...Thompson is the name
of an author that wrote a book about the murder. The name you want
that worked at Parkland hospital was Tomlinson, NOT Thompson. The

author said he tracked down the person that used the stretcher that
had the bullet on it, and that stretcher was used by a 10 year old
child named Ronnie Fuller. All the more reason to believe that the

CE399 'magic' bullet (that was on that wrong stretcher) was planted
there by someone that gained access to the ER areas, which was easy to
do.

Hey I think it was planted too. But not because of where it came from. It
was marked by the agents and placed into evidence. But when they were called
(just like the Tippit shells) they couldn't find their marks. So sorry I
said Thompson. I was just ribbing Maesh. Pretty good one, huh. >)

> >>> The only possible reason to use a "defective" Italian made rifle is a
> >>> calling card from the Mafia to let the world know they did the hit on
> >>> a President who double-crossed them. James Files claims it was a
> >>> Mafia hit all the way with two more snipers in the Dal-Tex Bldg and
> >>> the GK. Supposedly Carlos Marcello bragged to a cellmate he took care
> >>> of Kennedy as a favor to Jimmy Hoffa. The Mafia was upset JFK was not
> >>> working hard enough to get rid of Castro so they could get their
> >>> casinos going again in Havana. As we all know Jack Ruby had contacts
> >>> with the Mafia in Chicago, NO, Miami, and Havana.
>
> >> A used Italian rifle may have many reasons to be purchased aside
> >> from the Mafia connection. See below.
>
> >>> Other than Mafia symbolism the choice of rifle was appears to be
> >>> simply a cost decision by a low tech assassin who decided not to waste
> >>> money on a rifle he was going to leave behind anyway.
>
> >> He seemed not to have any money, and if he only wanted the rifle to
> >> impress some Cuban revolutionaries with a picture of him carrying all
> >> his weapons, why spend money he didn't have?
>
> > He didn't show it to any Cuban revolutionaries.

> > He sent one to the Daily Worker.
>

> >>> As I've read, Oswald was to have come up with this plot on the spur of
> >>> the
> >>> moment. Cause nobody knew of the motorcade until published in the
> >>> paper.
> >>> There was no prior intent.
>

> >> Oh someone knew of the motorcade, but they were on the inside. They

> >> could have told someone on the outside, but we don't have any proof of
> >> that. One the main parameters of the conspiracy people is that someone
> >> in
> >> government was part of the conspiracy to murder, so they would have
> >> prior
> >> notice of the motorcade. Oddly enough, there was a lady named Rose
> >> Cheramie that was said to have predicted the very day and method of the
> >> murder plot.
>

> > You keep missing the point that Oswald bought the Carcano especially to
> > kill Walker.
>

> >> the shirt and blanket. How hard would it have been? Just like the
> >> palmprint.
> >> Day didn't have it until after Oswald was dead. And "agents" (unknown)
> >> came
>
> > More misinformation. Day had the print that night.
>

> >> to the furneral home and took prints, even though they knew who he was
> >> and
> >> took prints when he was booked. Some have even claimed it was DPD
> >> officers.
> >> I can't seem to find the evidence of who it was? Any ideas?
>
> >>> Yeak this was after the rifle was cleaned so it would function. Look
> >>> at
> >>> Fraziers testimony.
>
> >> And the scope was shimmed up so it could be used and sighted in
> >> properly.
>
> > DIdn't help. It still could not be sighted in properly.
>

> >>> So a low tech sniper hit the intended target 2/3 times as
> >>> the slow moving motorcade
>
> >> Two experienced snipers tried to duplicate the shot from the 6th
> >> floor and couldn't do it...they both said it was not a doable shot.
>
> > Balony.
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Everyone knew that. That is not the issue. The issue is the exact
injuries and path of the SBT. WC defenders are too lazy to prove it.
Some type of SBT is possible, but none of the ones proposed so far.

[Walt]

A shot like WHAT?.. Where did the plotters think Lee would be? We don't
know.... But if he was the person who planted the spent shells to make it
look like he had taken a shot at JFK (just like he "appeared" to have
tried to kill Walker) Then perhaps Lee wasn't supposed to plant the
shells until he heard the firecracker....and then he'd have been at that
window where they could have shot him.

Maybe Lee thought that he'd plant the shells and the rifle before the
motorcade arrived......Who would know that he had planted them early?

>
> If Hickey had reacted faster he could have sprayed the building with
> automatic fire and killed the three Negroes on the fifth floor.> thought the security guards would open fire when they heard "Look! up
> > there a rifle" and then they could open fire and shoot the assassin.
> > Lee didn't stick around on the sixth floor and that threw a hitch in
> > their plot.  If he had been killed immediately he would not have been
> > able to introduce the doubt that still rages to this very day.....
>
> >   Unless, somehow you are suggesting
> >> they could have framed someone in law enforcement as having taken the
> >> assassin out in a gun battle or convinced someone in law ...
>

> >> read more »

[Walt]

On Apr 30, 11:19 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/30/2013 10:29 PM, BT George wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Friday, April 26, 2013 9:31:48 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 4/26/2013 9:17 AM, Research wrote:
>

> >>> "BT George" <brock.geo...@st.com> wrote in message

That's worth repeating.......

No problem. The public is so gullible that they would believe that JFK
was shot in the throat by a shot from behind or that one bullet went
through two men and broke several bones and came out looking in good
condition. You know the government pays people big bucks for
propaganda. Anyone raises questions just call them kooks.

Even if the person raising the questions happens to be a widely
recognized clear thinking venerated person Like Dr Ceril Wecht .....
Just call him a nut, and dump all of the lies on him, as if they are
the facts......

the government pays people big bucks for propaganda.

Yes indeed.... Dan Rather became a multi millionaire as did Arlen
Specter.....

[Walt]

On Apr 30, 8:21 pm, BT George <brock.geo...@st.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 29, 2013 7:42:43 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 27, 2013 9:31:33 PM UTC-5, curtjester1 wrote:
>

> > > On Apr 25, 11:37 pm, BT George <brock.geo...@st.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Hello,
>
> > > > I am new to this forum, though not new to the JFK case.  There is
>
> > > > something I am curious about from an "Oswald was innocent" conspriacy
>
> > > > perspective.  It is a matter of faith among many CT's that the Mannlicher
>
> > > > Carcano (MC) said to be found on the 6th floor of the TSBD was not really
>
> > > > used by Oswald nor was it even the real the murder weapon.  Likewise,
>
> > > > debates seem to rage endlessly whether he even owned such a rifle or over
>
> > > > whether it was an effective enough instrument to really do what it was
>
> > > > alleged to have done.
>

> > > > I think that most persons (wether CT or LN) would at least agree that a MC
>
> > > > would not normally be an assassin's weapon of choice.  Leaving the behind
>

> > > > the arguments about the legitimacy of the evidence that it was the actual
>
> > > > murder weapon or whether Oswald actually fired it, the LN response to the
>
> > > > subject of its deficiencies, is typically to note that it was good enough
>
> > > > to be a standard Italian military rifle during WWII and that when in
>
> > > > working order is plenty capable of dealing out death and destruction.
>
> > > > All that is needed is that the aim of the shooter be good...or that he at
>
> > > > least gets lucky and hits what he is aiming at.  Of course, whether that
>
> > > > answer is adequate is in the eye of the beholder, but from an LN
>
> > > > perspective the use of a MC as the apparent murder weapon, simply
>
> > > > reinforces the lone-assassin conclusion. (I.e., it's the kind of cheap
>
> > > > weapon one would only expect to see if the shooter was poor, lone
>
> > > > malcontent like Lee Oswald in late 1963.)
>

> > > > However, from an "Oswald was an innocent patsy" perspective, IOW what
>
> > > > would be the logic of choosing such a weapon to frame him with?  It just
>

> > > > seems strange that plotters who were sophisticated enough to frame Oswald
>
> > > > to the degree that is often claimed, would ever choose THAT rifle to frame
>
> > > > him with.  Would not another rifle (like the Mauser early reports
>

> > > > indicated was discovered) be a better choice?  For that matter, if there
>
> > > > was a frame-up involving governmental authorities either actively or
>
> > > > passively enabling it, I can't help but wonder why they didn't just stick
>
> > > > to the early reports and frame him with a Mauser?
>

> > > > While I doubt I will ever be a high volume poster on this or any other JFK
>
> > > > forum, I would love to better understand the resolution of the seemingly
>
> > > > inherent tension within the propositions: "We know the rifle was not up to
>
> > > > the task."  "We also know that they (elaborately) chose to frame him with
>
> > > > it."  Any thoughts?
>

You shouldn't worry about small things......

[Walt]

In Alyea's video Fritz and Day atr in the foreground examining the rifle
and Roger Craig can be seen in the background several feet away from the
rifle.....He could not have been "six or eight inches" from the rifle....

> ...
>
> read more »

[claviger]

He basically used the Winchester Model 70 .30-06 civilian sporting
rifle.

_______________________________________________________________
WikiAnswers

"Initially his preferred rifle was a pre 1964 (Winchester quality
after this time declined) Model 70 Winchester M40 bolt action in 30-06
(he preferred the 30-06 over the, then, current 7.62x51 Nato(aka .308
Win). He did not reload his own ammunition but used issue, 168gr Ball,
Match ammo. His 'number two', when needed, usually used an M14, semi
automatic, in 7.62x51 Nato. Thus two seperate types of ammunition were
required for any sortie."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_sniper_rifle_did_carlos_hathcock_use
_______________________________________________________________
American Rifleman

"As for rifles, Land first scrounged 12 Model 70 sporting rifles that
had been procured by Special Services for deer hunting at Camp
Pendleton. Through the PX system in Okinwa, Land’s NCOs bought mounts,
rings and scopes.

The second lot of rifles used by Land and his teams in Vietnam were
also Winchester Model 70 target guns in 30-’06 Sprg. that had been
originally purchased as “across-the course” bolt guns for the National
Matches. They were mothballed after NRA changed match rules to limit
service personnel to shooting service rifles. Among them were arms
with heavy barrels and sporter stocks. Some of these rifles were
equipped with 20X Unertl scopes and mounts, which were originally
procured as long-range match optics.

At the time Land was organizing his first sniper teams, then-Major Cam
Hayden (USMC), who was first officer in charge of Marine Marksmanship
training, discovered the Model 70s and scopes listed as surplus
property. (Like Land, Maj. Hayden made a lifelong career of NRA after
leaving the Marine Corps.) Hayden, who calls his find “serendipity,”
also searched Marine Corps inventories and came up with 8X Unertl
optics. The rifles were worked over by Marine armorers—glass-bedded
and wood removed from barrel channels to free-float the target-weight
barrels.

Among these was the rifle that Carlos Hathcock used during his first
tour in Vietnam, but Land says Carlos’ rifle was anything but a tack-
driver:

“Snipers today talk about half-minute of angle. Carlos Hathcock’s
rifle barrel looked like it had been sandblasted. On the inspection
sheet, you’d say, ‘Slight pits throughout.’ His rifle would hold about
two minutes of angle. That’s 20 inches at 1,000 yards and that’s what
he had to work with.

“We had M1Cs and M1Ds available that would hold a minute of angle, but
they didn’t maintain their zero.

“But Carlos’ rifle maintained its zero day in and day out.”

Land said the Unertl scopes would not have lasted an hour in the hands
of regular Marines.

“Carlos had excellent results with that scope, but it was only because
he understood it and he knew how to take care of it, and he was very
meticulous in doing so. The major problem they had with it was that if
you got careless, it would fog up on you. Anytime we came back off of
a patrol, the scopes would be put in a hot box to dry them out.”

The other problem was crosshairs blowing out under recoil. Land said
one of the armorers, Vic Johnson, kept a box of spiders to spin the
filaments for replacement crosshairs as a field expedient.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/usmc-sniper-rifles/
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/usmc-sniper-rifles-2/
_______________________________________________________________

[Walt]

The conspiracy wasn't "Invisible".... It wasn't "Giant" ....

It's the faithful believers in the ridiculous theoretical story that
was handed down by LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon Committee that ask us to
believe that tripe, eventhough not one item of evidence is solid proof
that Lee Oswald was guilty.

[BT George]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 7:27:36 AM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> BT,
>
>
>
> > Tony, Nope. Not even vaguely suggesting a $5,000 rifle (not that I think
>
> > any rifle anywhere was probably such an astronomical price in 1963).
>
> > However, there is no need to go to such an extreme.  Surely there was a
>
> > surplus rifle somewhere that was more reliable thant the MC he was alleged
>
> > to have been framed with, that would have still been within his meager
>
> > means, let's say in the $50-$100 range.
>
> >
>
> > Now I know the MC was only supposed to have cost about $19 bucks, but if
>
> > you think about it, wouldn't it have been infinitely easier to try getting
>
> > people to believe that even the penny-penching Oswald COULD have chosen to
>
> > pay more for his assassin's rifle, than to try to do what many persons
>
> > insist they chose to do instead?  ....Namely, trying to convince everyone
>
> > that he could have done the deed with a rifle that was so bad---at least
>
> > per many CT's---that it could barely fire!
>
>
>
> That is not the case, simply a CT myth.
>

> Yes. I too believe most of the reported deficiencies are outright myths, exagerrations, or could have happened after-the-fact. (Like the damage to the scope which many LN's suggest happened when Lee rapidly stuffed it between the boxes after the assassination.) But as I've said elsewhere, this is a whole debate thread (or 20) in itself. For this thread, I'm just focusing on the incongruity of the purported condition vs. plausibility of it being "sold" as the murder weapon despite the painfully obvious defects that so many others do assert existed in it from the beginning.

>
> > (Not to mention their need to then explain just how this laughably inadequate
>
> > instrument of death, was supposedly the murder weapon LHO used to pull off
>
> > what many vehemently insist was a nearly impossible feat of marksmanship.)
>
>
>
> The shot was inside 100 yards, considered close range. The closer a
>
> shooter is to a target the luckier they get.

I couldn't agree more. Living in the DFW area and having visited the
assassination site many times, the first thing that always strikes me is
just how much closer that famous 6th floor window is than if often looks
on film or in pictures. I am no crack shot, but I feel some degree of
confidence that with any formal training in handling a bolt action rifle,
that even I could probably land at least one lucky shot at such close
range. While this doesn't prove LHO or anyone else was actually able to
hit 2 of 3 shots in a short time-frame under pressure on 11-22-63 even if
the rifle being used was up to snuff, I do believe the close confines make
arguments about Oswald's alleged marksmanship deficiencies less relevent
than other aspects like the condition of the rifle and/or the time between
shots.

[BT George]

I believe your point is a lot stronger than many persons will realize or
grant. Even before I decided for sure what I believed about the JFK
assassination, I always wondered how several different presidents,
numerous houses of Congress, and countless government beaurocrats could
have come and gone since '63 and yet still be hiding something. After
enough time had passed IOW'd what was in it for them to keep doing so?
Till this day I really can't think of any satisfying answer. (Unless, of
course, they've concluded that best way to make sure they're never harmed
by a "Coup d'etat" is to keep covering for the one that some CT's insist
took out Kennedy!)

[Anthony Marsh]

The GIANT conspiracy is a myth created by the cover-up.

> sight unseen, with no proof of existence. You just gotta Beelieeeeeeve
> with no proof in sight. Being a CT is like joining a cult. After 50 years
> no proof, no evidence, but keep on believing anyway. All those Presidents
> in between, four of them Liberal Democrats and now the most Liberal of
> all, why won't they tell the American people what really happened and
> release ALL remaining documents? On this 50th Anniversary is the perfect
> time for the President of the United States tell the world what really
> happened, if the Kennedy family will give him permission. Otherwise
> silence confirms the WCR got it right the first time.
>

Why won't the CIA release the files? Why do you cover-up for them?

[Anthony Marsh]

Prove that Frazier cleaned and oiled it.

[mainframetech]

Lordee! So your basing your incisive analysis of the Craig
testimony on the belief that 'cops always lie'? But then what about
Fritz and Day and Weitzman who all came out and said it was an MC
rifle? They're cops, and so they must have lied! Thank you sir! A
marvelous analysis. And now we know it was a Mauser based on your
words.

> >>> 6-8 inches from his face.  No need to lie.  However, when they got
> >>> Weitzman to say he made a mistake, why didn't Craig go along with him
> >>> then?  Because He also saw the stamp, which he also stated.  Skip
> >>> forward to 4:00 for the relevant passage:
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE
>
> >> Craig lied. Once he started lying he had to keep lying.
>
> >    That's nice.  Calling a man a liar and not backing it up.  Cites
> > please.
>
> >     Dead Silence.
>
> Never any evidence from you.
>

LOL! Well, that is supposed to cover your wild statements? I put
out plenty and when asked for cites, I give them. Usually I supply
them anyway knowing I need to prove my contentions, whereas you have a
tendency to blow off some expletive and say nothing more, even when
prompted. How many times in one day do you get caught saying
something that there is no proof or reasoning behind? Still waiting
for the cites proving Craig was lying, or was a liar. He took a lot
of punishment for his belief in telling the truth, and now you come
along and dump on him with NO backup.

> >>>>> deputy sheriff, and Seymour Weitzman, who signed an affidavit to the
> >>>>> effect that it was a Mauser.  Later they got Weitzman to say he had
> >>>>> made a mistake and the rifle was an Italian MC 6.5 rifle, which was
> >>>>> stamped that way.  Roger Craig wouldn't change his statement.  To see
> >>>>> the related part, skip ahead to 4:30:
> >>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE
>
> >>>> Don't keep repeating all the old myths which were long ago debunked.
>
> >>>     I sure hate to tell you this, but this story hasn't been debunked.
> >>> If you want to try the old dodge that Craig was crazy, that's been
> >>> answered in another forum, which I copied here at the time a year or
> >>> two ago.
>
> >> I didn't say crazy. He was just doing what many cops do, tesilying,
> >> lying to support his buddies lies.
>
> >     Ah!  And how did you determine that?  You have some evidence we
> > haven't seen?  Don't be shy...put it out.  Or were you voted the
> > psychiatrist of the year because of your incisive ability to determine
> > a lie?  Cites please, or will you give us dead silence?
>
> Yes, because I have actually read the testimonies and watched the
> interviews.
>

Yes, the testimonies. Interesting. And yet you're still trying to
say he lied. I've seen them too, and I believe him when he said he
saw Weitzman and the stamp saying 'Mauser 7.65'. And now why do you
think he kept with his story when Weitzman changed his? Why go
against the whole police force of Dallas instead of saying 'I made a
mistake' like Weitzman did? There was time for him to do that, yet he
stuck with his story. And let's go a little further. Check the
testimony of Eugene Boone, who was present at the discovery of the
rifle. Not a single time did he mention the name Roger Craig, yet
Craig was there. Do you suppose that he was told by the attorney NOT
to mention that name? Maybe because he would enter truthful testimony
and screw things up? And looking further into Boone's testimony, we
hear him say that Capt. Fritz was the one who identified the rifle as
a '7.65 Mauser', when it was Weitzman that had made the ID.

What is wrong with you? Are you unable to read? I've explained to
you where the term came from and what I did with it. Try using your
head on this one and not some other part. You have the ability to
search this thread as well as anyone here. And as to your morals, I'm
not here to correct your morals, though I would do so if you get too
far out of norm in that area. I'm here to correct you on the facts
and statements and other evidence in this case, including logic and
common sense, and I will do so anytime I see fit, as I expect everyone
else here will do, and as they have had to do for as long as I've been
here. Since you make so many errors and may send a newbie off into
the wilderness for nothing with a statement with no foundation, which
you tend to make, we find it necessary.

Now let's take care of some of the lacks you demonstrated in the
'checo' situation. I will have to correct you yet again on your
jumping without reading carefully. I did NOT say the rifle "had to be
a Czech Mauser". UI did NOT pick country "at random", which you could
have checked with Google Translate yourself if you knew how to use
it. And I gave you some preliminary instructions for doing that.
Apparently you either didn't note my comment, or simply ignored it and
then you came out with your silly attack on ME saying I lied, and that
I had given false information. Well, time to pay the piper. Here's
the Mauser logo:
http://www.mauser.com/uploads/media/mauser_logo_1680x1050_01.jpg
Now here's a Czech Mauser pictured. Look carefully and you will
see in the third picture down where the rifle has stamped on it:
"Ceskoslovenska" meaning Czechoslovakia. Almost halfway down you will
then see the Mauser logo (see above):
http://www.littlegun.info/arme%20tchecoslovaque/a%20brno%20vz%2024%20gb.htm

Now that you have tarnished your reputation, do you have any more
insults for me? Or are we done with this batch?

[mainframetech]

> silence confirms the WCR got it right the first time.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

This is a typical message. From one who thinks there has been no
evidence of a conspiracy. Odd that they completely close their eyes
and see, hear or speak nothing that would go against the faith of the
WC. Of course, that means they miss the evidence (yes, evidence, NOT
theories, like the WC puts out) that has been shoved in their faces
for many years.

Let's see...do we have any evidence that was thrown out by the LNs
to protect the purity of the faith in the WC theories? Of course! We
have the HSCA who decided from the acoustic evidence that at least one
bullet came from the Grassy Knoll. Actually there were 6 bullets
fired, but they covered up a couple of them. So they had no choice
but to decide that it was probably a conspiracy. Now we have maybe 40
people altogether that saw a large hole in the BOH of JFK indicative
of a shot from the front, proving a conspiracy, 26 from the autopsy
observers, and all of the Parkland medical staff and Clint Hill and
the mortician who handled the body too saw the large hole. And then
there was Saundra Kay Spencer with the special White House set of
pictures that she developed that had a large hole in the BOH. All
these witnesses were completely ignored by the determined LNs, yet it
was EVIDENCE, not theory. After all the complaining about theories,
like the ones the WC put out, including the SBT (a joke, surely), and
you give them evidence and they refuse to look at it.

On and on the march of witnesses goes, all having seen the large
hole indicative of a shot from the front, and Tom Robinson, the
mortician having also seen the small bullet entry in the right temple
just in the hairline! The press secretary announcing the
assassination pointing to his head at the right temple with his
finger. How would he know where the bullet went in unless he saw the
wound, or heard about it from the doctors? And all these righteous
LNs sitting around saying isn't it terrible, those dumb CTs never show
any evidence. Uh-huh.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Time for a further reply to Anthony Marsh on the issue he raised
about a 'checo' Mauser.

Marsh, look at a post by user name 'Research' dated April 26, 2013
at 9:17am and you will see the first mention of a 'checo' Mauser.
Couple this with the information I have given you previously and I
will hope to hear no more out of you on that topic.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Ah good. It's good to see you agree and provide backup for the
child on the stretcher where the phony CE399 bullet was found.
Thanks!

[mainframetech]

On May 1, 11:05 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message

I'm not aware that Frazier stated that he oiled or cleaned the rifle
before his people tested it.

[mainframetech]

The FBI report of the boy who saw 2 men hurrying to separate cars
near Walker's house might be of interest:
http://www.giljesus.com/Walker/witness.htm

The story sounds like it may have been part of the reason that
Oswald didn't shoot at Walker, but someone else did with Oswald with
him. Not really proof, but the 2 men were probably not there for a
church function because others stayed inside when the 2 men left
hurriedly in their cars.

[mainframetech]

I can think of a reason. Those in power in government want very
much for the people ruled to be quiescent and peaceful. No raging
complaints and so on. If it were proven that government had lied
about such an important event, and had actually been part of the
murder conspiracy, then they would have further trouble with people
believing what the government said after that. The honesty of the
government is strained now as it is. I believe they are actually
spending money to help promote belief in the government versions of
various events such as the JFK murder.

Be good little people and listen to your government and do like they
tell you and believe what they say.

Chris

[Walt]

> Till this day I really can't think of any satisfying answer. ...


Are you serious???..... You can't imagine how the nation would
react if the citizens learned that a mafia gangster named Lyndon
bumped off the President?....and then created a outrageous lie to be
handed out to the stupid suckers.

Don't you realize that it's in the interest of "national security" to
perpetuate the lie? Who in a position of power would be so stupid
as to reveal the truth and risk the wrath of the stupid suckers with
guns???




>
> read more »

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, that's exactly what the TSBD shooter did.
One lucky hit out of three shots. Do you think you could miss everything
on the planet with one of the shots? Not even McAdams could try as hard
as he could.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not the Carcano. And maybe it was the first time he shot it.
Didn't you see the kook in the desert hit targets at 1,000 yards with
his Carcano?

> _______________________________________________________________
> WikiAnswers
>
> "Initially his preferred rifle was a pre 1964 (Winchester quality
> after this time declined) Model 70 Winchester M40 bolt action in 30-06
> (he preferred the 30-06 over the, then, current 7.62x51 Nato(aka .308
> Win). He did not reload his own ammunition but used issue, 168gr Ball,
> Match ammo. His 'number two', when needed, usually used an M14, semi
> automatic, in 7.62x51 Nato. Thus two seperate types of ammunition were
> required for any sortie."
> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_sniper_rifle_did_carlos_hathcock_use
> _______________________________________________________________

Not a bad sniper rifle. But you claim Hathcock couldn't even hit a slow
moving target with that rifle at 100 yards?

> American Rifleman
>
> "As for rifles, Land first scrounged 12 Model 70 sporting rifles that
> had been procured by Special Services for deer hunting at Camp

> Pendleton. Through the PX system in Okinwa, Land�s NCOs bought mounts,

> rings and scopes.
>
> The second lot of rifles used by Land and his teams in Vietnam were

> also Winchester Model 70 target guns in 30-�06 Sprg. that had been
> originally purchased as �across-the course� bolt guns for the National

> Matches. They were mothballed after NRA changed match rules to limit
> service personnel to shooting service rifles. Among them were arms
> with heavy barrels and sporter stocks. Some of these rifles were
> equipped with 20X Unertl scopes and mounts, which were originally
> procured as long-range match optics.
>
> At the time Land was organizing his first sniper teams, then-Major Cam
> Hayden (USMC), who was first officer in charge of Marine Marksmanship
> training, discovered the Model 70s and scopes listed as surplus
> property. (Like Land, Maj. Hayden made a lifelong career of NRA after

> leaving the Marine Corps.) Hayden, who calls his find �serendipity,�

> also searched Marine Corps inventories and came up with 8X Unertl

> optics. The rifles were worked over by Marine armorers�glass-bedded

> and wood removed from barrel channels to free-float the target-weight
> barrels.
>
> Among these was the rifle that Carlos Hathcock used during his first

> tour in Vietnam, but Land says Carlos� rifle was anything but a tack-
> driver:
>
> �Snipers today talk about half-minute of angle. Carlos Hathcock�s

> rifle barrel looked like it had been sandblasted. On the inspection

> sheet, you�d say, �Slight pits throughout.� His rifle would hold about
> two minutes of angle. That�s 20 inches at 1,000 yards and that�s what

> he had to work with.
>

> �We had M1Cs and M1Ds available that would hold a minute of angle, but
> they didn�t maintain their zero.
>
> �But Carlos� rifle maintained its zero day in and day out.�

>
> Land said the Unertl scopes would not have lasted an hour in the hands
> of regular Marines.
>

> �Carlos had excellent results with that scope, but it was only because

> he understood it and he knew how to take care of it, and he was very
> meticulous in doing so. The major problem they had with it was that if
> you got careless, it would fog up on you. Anytime we came back off of

> a patrol, the scopes would be put in a hot box to dry them out.�

[Anthony Marsh]

A SS agent shooting Oswald in the sniper's nest from the SS car.

> know.... But if he was the person who planted the spent shells to make it
> look like he had taken a shot at JFK (just like he "appeared" to have
> tried to kill Walker) Then perhaps Lee wasn't supposed to plant the
> shells until he heard the firecracker....and then he'd have been at that
> window where they could have shot him.
>
> Maybe Lee thought that he'd plant the shells and the rifle before the
> motorcade arrived......Who would know that he had planted them early?
>
>>
>> If Hickey had reacted faster he could have sprayed the building with
>> automatic fire and killed the three Negroes on the fifth floor.> thought the security guards would open fire when they heard "Look! up
>>> there a rifle" and then they could open fire and shoot the assassin.
>>> Lee didn't stick around on the sixth floor and that threw a hitch in
>>> their plot. If he had been killed immediately he would not have been
>>> able to introduce the doubt that still rages to this very day.....
>>
>>> Unless, somehow you are suggesting
>>>> they could have framed someone in law enforcement as having taken the
>>>> assassin out in a gun battle or convinced someone in law ...
>>

>>>> read more �
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

No, not the iron sights [sic]. Frazier was talking about the scope. So
was I.