Looks Like Everybody Was Wrong -- The Shooting Would Have Taken 19 Seconds!! (LOL!)
David Von Pein
says that Italian "weapons experts" claim that Oswald could not have acted
alone...because (per these idiot "experts") a Model 91/38
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle like Lee Harvey Oswald's--get this!--took
NINETEEN (19!) SECONDS to fire three shots!
19 seconds to get off three rounds with the M-C rifle! Imagine that,
folks. I guess these Italian people have solved the case. (Either that or
these Italian experts were each 105 years old, with severe arthritis in
all fingers.)
It's absolutely unbelievably that a story like this "It Took 19 Seconds"
hunk of garbage would even make it into print. Well, at least it's good
for a healthy laugh.
Here's most of the very short UPI story:
=======================================
TERNI, Italy, June 29 (UPI) -- "Italian weapons experts say tests on the
type of rifle used to kill U.S. President John F. Kennedy show assassin
Lee Harvey Oswald could not have acted alone.
The Warren Commission report concluded that Oswald fired three shots with
a Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle in 7 seconds to kill Kennedy in Dallas
in 1963. However, tests supervised by the Italian Army showed it would
take 19 seconds to get off three shots with that type of gun, the Italian
news agency ANSA reported.
The tests were done in a former Carcano factory in Terni."
=======================================
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/06/29/italian_experts_test_jfk_assassination_gun/1113/
Dave Reitzes
>
> http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/news/news_06300701.htm
More breaking news from the experts. The time it would have taken
Oswald to descend the stairs to the lunchroom for his encounter with
Officer Marrion Baker? A week and a half.
Dave
WhiskyJoe
> But when the Italian team
> test-fired the identical
> model of gun, they were
> unable to load and fire
> three shots in less than
> 19 seconds - suggesting
> that a second gunman must
> have been present in Dealey
> Plaza, central Dallas, that day.
That's nothing. I predict that before the summer is out, someone will
break the 20 second barrier and will be a special guest speaker at
this year's Lancer convention.
And before this decade is out, it will be shown that getting off one
shot is impossible and that Oswald could not have even fired at
General Walker, but may have thrown a stone through the window
instead.
> They fired bullets through
> two large pieces of meat,
> in an attempt to simulate
> the assumed path of the
> magic bullet. In their
> test, the bullet was
> deformed, unlike the first
> bullet in the Kennedy
> assassination, which
> remained largely intact.
Yes, that will happen if it hits a significant bone in the first piece
of meat, or if it hits bone in the second and the first piece isn't
thick enough.
It's really very simple. Go through too little meat before it hits a
large bone, you get a bullet that is deformed too much, even
fragmented. Too much meat and the bullet will not be deformed at all.
Anthony Marsh
Could be a planted story.
David Von Pein
I'm certainly not one to cry "It's Planted" every 5 minutes, but when
a team of "experts" is claiming that it would take no less than 19
seconds to get off 3 rounds from an Oswald-like MC military rifle, it
makes me think you could be right in this "planted" regard. It's just
too ridiculous and stupid-sounding on its face to have any ring of
truth to it.
An Internet prankster perhaps? But could such a prank actually break
on the UPI wires?
~shrugs~
In any event, there's pretty much no doubt that even an old, feeble
110-year-old lady could fire 3 shots from ANY type rifle in less than
19 seconds....and probably in 10 seconds or less.
Ray
However, tests supervised by the Italian Army showed it would
take 19 seconds to get off three shots with that type of gun, the
Italian
news agency ANSA reported.
"Could be a planted story." says Mr. Marsh.
I nominate this for POST OF THE YEAR
eca...@tx.rr.com
MORE BREAKING NEWS: The Tippit murder was
committed 10 minutes before Oz arrived at
1026 in the cab..
Helen Markham and Mary Brock both admitted
they had lied when they ID'd Oswald. Brock
and Marina conspired to plant the jacket
(CE 162) under the car.
Frazier and Randle both admitted that all
Oz really had was a Roy Rogers lunch box.
Ruby admitted before he died that it was
him who sneaked into the Paine garage,
stole Oswald's MC, and planted it on the
6th floor.
MR ;~{ ED
1327Jul107
David Von Pein
That Ruby guy was all over the place, wasn't he? Along those same
"Ruby" lines, I offer this passage (from my book review of Vince
Bugliosi's book).......
=====================================
"In any event, even if Ruby was at Parkland, to assume he was there to
plant a bullet on Connally's stretcher to frame Oswald for Kennedy's
murder, making Ruby a part of the conspiracy to murder Kennedy, is...too
ludicrous for words. The philosophy of the zany conspiracy theorists is
that if something is theoretically possible (as most things are), then
it's not only probable, it happened." -- Vince B.; Page 450 of "RH"
endnotes
DVP Says --- Allow me to add this common-sense observation ..... If Ruby
had been planting a bullet on a stretcher at Parkland, would he have had
any desire whatsoever to draw attention to himself around the very time
he's engaging in this shady, conspiratorial activity by approaching
SOMEBODY WHO KNEW HIM ON SIGHT--Kantor--who could then, in turn, tell the
authorities, "Hey, I saw Jack Ruby out at Parkland around 1:30 PM on
Friday"?!
That sounds like screwy behavior for a member of the proverbial "Let's
Frame Oswald" conspiracy team...don't ya think?
VB adds a humorous addendum to this "Was Ruby At Parkland?" topic in the
endnotes, by telling his readers about a "looney bird" witness named Wilma
Tice (who was acquainted with two of Ruby's sisters). Per Wilma's account
of events, she saw Jack Ruby at Parkland on 11/22/63 and claimed that Ruby
was at the hospital in order to "give Governor Connally a kidney". (LOL
time.)
Jack Ruby was a busy bee that day, for sure....he was placing ads for his
club, he was calling gobs of friends on the phone, he was driving a
pick-up truck in Dealey Plaza (per Julia Mercer), he was running around
the Grassy Knoll just seconds after JFK was shot (per Jean Hill), he was
assassinating President Kennedy (per Tom Tilson), he was planting a bullet
on a hospital stretcher (per Oliver Stone and other conspiracy-loving
kooks), and he was attempting to donate one of his kidneys to the injured
Governor of Texas.
Whew! It's a good thing Jack closed his nightclubs that night. He probably
wouldn't have had time to oversee the Carousel Club (and toss his quota of
unruly patrons down the stairs) anyway. ;)
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Could be a planted story." <<<
>
>
> I'm certainly not one to cry "It's Planted" every 5 minutes, but when
> a team of "experts" is claiming that it would take no less than 19
> seconds to get off 3 rounds from an Oswald-like MC military rifle, it
> makes me think you could be right in this "planted" regard. It's just
> too ridiculous and stupid-sounding on its face to have any ring of
> truth to it.
>
> An Internet prankster perhaps? But could such a prank actually break
> on the UPI wires?
>
Could the KGB ever plant any stories in the Italian press? Consider the
location of the source.
cdddraftsman
> A goofball story has run on the UPI wire service (dated June 29th), which
> says that Italian "weapons experts" claim that Oswald could not have acted
> alone...because (per these idiot "experts") a Model 91/38
> Mannlicher-Carcano rifle like Lee Harvey Oswald's--get this!--took
> NINETEEN (19!) SECONDS to fire three shots!
>
>
>
>
Ray
This goes a long way in explaining why Italy lost the war ......:
That might depend on what kind of battle you mean:
>From The Battle-Field, by William Cullen Bryant (1794-1878)
Truth crushed to earth shall rise again,-
The eternal years of God are hers;
But Error, wounded, writhes with pain,
And dies among his worshippers.
R J Johnson
shot, take off running in retreat, hide behind something, check to see if
anyone is coming, then fire another shot. Then repeat this process again. 19
seconds must have been the elite team...
I've also heard their tanks had 5 gears. Four in reverse and one forward in
case they got attacked from the rear. :)
---- Robert J. Johnson
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1183246721.8...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
:A goofball story has run on the UPI wire service (dated June 29th), which
eca...@tx.rr.com
as some seem to think. And it was capable enough..
Somebody damn sure used a Mannlicher Carcano to
kill Kennedy. Here's an article on the Mannlicher
Carcano after researching it. I posted this article
in circa March 2003 if anyone wants a more in depth
perspective: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a535f576b345fe5e
MR ;~D
Ed Cage
1601Jul207
> > fragmented. Too much meat and the bullet will not be deformed at all.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
> The MC really wasn't a "junk bolt action rifle"
> as some seem to think. And it was capable enough..
Bugliosi says that the M-C is a piece of junk. Are you calling Bugliosi a
liar?
Gerry Simone (H)
for taking that long to take 3 shots :-)
Actually, in war time, if this were true, that weapon should be called 'the
suicidal rifle'.
There was a You Tube video showing Penn & Teller operating the bolt for 3
shots in 1/3 the time (no aiming at targets).
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1183314567.7...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone (H)
that nobody wanted to go to war (there's that Italian Academy foreign film
winner Mediterraneo that depicts some of this).
They did say that the MC should have been called 'the humanitarian rifle'.
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1183324127.4...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> Nobody liked Hitler and Mussolini was not supported by all, not to mention
> that nobody wanted to go to war (there's that Italian Academy foreign film
> winner Mediterraneo that depicts some of this).
>
Can you explain to the moderators how your ramblings about Hitler and
Mussoliini relate directly to the Kennedy assassination?
For historical interest, it must be remembered that Hitler won his
election with a clear plurality. Millions supported him. Millions
continue to support him.
Anthony Marsh
> Maybe that's why it was called the 'humanitarian rifle' by the Italian Army,
> for taking that long to take 3 shots :-)
>
No, that's just a joke. It has nothing to do with the timing. The issue
is either the accuracy or the neat wounds.
> Actually, in war time, if this were true, that weapon should be called 'the
> suicidal rifle'.
>
No, that slot was already taken by the M16.
> There was a You Tube video showing Penn & Teller operating the bolt for 3
> shots in 1/3 the time (no aiming at targets).
>
Dry firing?
Blakey fired two shot within 1.66 seconds.
Andrew Mason
> Gerry Simone (H) wrote:
>
>> Nobody liked Hitler and Mussolini was not supported by all, not to
>> mention that nobody wanted to go to war (there's that Italian Academy
>> foreign film winner Mediterraneo that depicts some of this).
>>
>
> Can you explain to the moderators how your ramblings about Hitler and
> Mussoliini relate directly to the Kennedy assassination?
> For historical interest, it must be remembered that Hitler won his
> election with a clear plurality.
But he did not have a majority. He was not given control of the German
parliament. The only way he was able to control the Reichstag was to burn
it down and appoint himself Chancellor and cancel all further elections.
He was not elected to do this.
> Millions supported him. Millions
> continue to support him.
I don't think so. Hitler is dead.
If millions still support the ideals of Nazism, there are much fewer
millions than in 1933 and they are widely distributed so they are not a
political force.
But I agree with your main poitn that this has nothing to do with JFK.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> Gerry Simone (H) wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody liked Hitler and Mussolini was not supported by all, not to
>>> mention that nobody wanted to go to war (there's that Italian Academy
>>> foreign film winner Mediterraneo that depicts some of this).
>>>
>>
>> Can you explain to the moderators how your ramblings about Hitler and
>> Mussoliini relate directly to the Kennedy assassination?
>> For historical interest, it must be remembered that Hitler won his
>> election with a clear plurality.
>
> But he did not have a majority. He was not given control of the German
That's why I said he had a plurality. He did not need a majority.
Neither does an American President.
Our current President did not win a majority of the votes. In fact he
didn't even get the plurality of the votes.
> parliament. The only way he was able to control the Reichstag was to
> burn it down and appoint himself Chancellor and cancel all further
> elections. He was not elected to do this.
>
Hitler lit the match? Where's your proof? That sounds like a kooky
conspiracy theory to me. And only to exonerate the Communists.
>> Millions supported him. Millions continue to support him.
>
> I don't think so. Hitler is dead.
>
Millions continue to worship him.
> If millions still support the ideals of Nazism, there are much fewer
> millions than in 1933 and they are widely distributed so they are not a
> political force.
>
How many fewer millions? Remember that Hitler was only supported by a
bare plurality who voted. And that the population has doubled since then.
Andrew Mason
> Andrew Mason wrote:
>
>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>>> Gerry Simone (H) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nobody liked Hitler and Mussolini was not supported by all, not to
>>>> mention that nobody wanted to go to war (there's that Italian
>>>> Academy foreign film winner Mediterraneo that depicts some of this).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can you explain to the moderators how your ramblings about Hitler and
>>> Mussoliini relate directly to the Kennedy assassination?
>>> For historical interest, it must be remembered that Hitler won his
>>> election with a clear plurality.
>>
>>
>> But he did not have a majority. He was not given control of the German
>
>
> That's why I said he had a plurality. He did not need a majority.
> Neither does an American President.
The Germans had a parliamentary system. To control the assembly, one
needs a majority of the seats. Hitler's Nazi party did not have a
majority of seats.
> Our current President did not win a majority of the votes. In fact he
> didn't even get the plurality of the votes.
>
>> parliament. The only way he was able to control the Reichstag was to
>> burn it down and appoint himself Chancellor and cancel all further
>> elections. He was not elected to do this.
>>
>
> Hitler lit the match? Where's your proof? That sounds like a kooky
> conspiracy theory to me. And only to exonerate the Communists.
It is believed by many, particularly Wm. Shirer, that the Nazis staged
the burning of the Reichstag to look like it was done by communists.
Goring even admitted it.
Hitler dissolved the Reichstag and suspended civil liberties the next
day for good. Seems pretty transparent to me.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
Andrew Mason wrote:
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Andrew Mason wrote:
>>
>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gerry Simone (H) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> mention that nobody wanted to go to war (there's that Italian=20
>>>>> Academy foreign film winner Mediterraneo that depicts some of this)=
.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you explain to the moderators how your ramblings about Hitler=20
>>>> and Mussoliini relate directly to the Kennedy assassination?
>>>> election with a clear plurality.=20
>>>
>>>
>>> But he did not have a majority. He was not given control of the Germa=
n=20
>>
>>
>> That's why I said he had a plurality. He did not need a majority.=20
>> Neither does an American President.
> The Germans had a parliamentary system. To control the assembly, one=20
> needs a majority of the seats. Hitler's Nazi party did not have a=20
> majority of seats.
>=20
Again the fact is that the Nazis only received a plurality, not a majority.
March 5, 1933
National elections give Nazis 44% plurality in the Reichstag. Herman
Goering [who later played a central role in the Nazi government and war
effort] declares that there is no further need for State governments.
44% is not a majority.
>> Our current President did not win a majority of the votes. In fact he=20
>> didn't even get the plurality of the votes.
>>
>>> parliament. The only way he was able to control the Reichstag was to=20
>>> burn it down and appoint himself Chancellor and cancel all further=20
>>> elections. He was not elected to do this.
>>>
>>
>> Hitler lit the match? Where's your proof? That sounds like a kooky=20
>> conspiracy theory to me. And only to exonerate the Communists.
>=20
> It is believed by many, particularly Wm. Shirer, that the Nazis staged=20
> the burning of the Reichstag to look like it was done by communists.=20
> Goring even admitted it.
>=20
Many people believe something. I asked you to PROVE it. 89% of Americans
believe Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. So you are going to accept
my citing that as proof?
Where did Goring admit it?
Hunt admitted that the CIA killed President Kennedy.
So that solves the case?
> Hitler dissolved the Reichstag and suspended civil liberties the next
> day for good. Seems pretty transparent to me.
>
Pretext does not prove who did it.
Van der Lubbe was found guilty and executed.
> Andrew Mason
>>
>>>> Millions supported him. Millions continue to support him.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think so. Hitler is dead.
>>>
>>
>> Millions continue to worship him.
>>
>>> If millions still support the ideals of Nazism, there are much fewer=20
>>> millions than in 1933 and they are widely distributed so they are not=
=20
>>> a political force.
>>>
>>
>> How many fewer millions? Remember that Hitler was only supported by a=20
>> bare plurality who voted. And that the population has doubled since th=
en.
>>
>>> But I agree with your main poitn that this has nothing to do with JFK=
.
>>>
>>> Andrew Mason
>>>
>>
>=20