Facts vs. Fantasy

[David Von Pein]

RALPH YATES SAID:

The reason Oswald ran away was because he was a CIA operative who knew he
was in the middle of something dangerous and had to escape in order to go
to his failsafe rendezvous at the Texas Theater.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just think folks -- Ralph actually thinks that the above imaginary
cloak-and-dagger tripe is more believable than merely accepting the fact
that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered John Kennedy and then also killed Officer
Tippit after fleeing the scene of the President's murder.

To people like Ralph Yates, fantasy and the "fantastic" always seem to be
preferred over true facts and logic.

Ralph probably also thinks Oswald never shot at General Walker. Right,
Ralph?

More.....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-889.html

[DR ZHIVAGO]

People want to see Oliver Stone's JFK. They are not interested in 4 Days
in November.

[mainframetech]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 10:33:11 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

As a matter of fact, Oswald didn't shoot at Walker. First, he never
practiced with his rifle, and second, if he had, he would have found the
faults in the rifle and had them fixed, neither of which happened.
Third, the police report noted that the bullet that was fired at Walker
was STEEL jacketed. Here's that report:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9nC-kt8dxgg/UH85l_CwkiI/AAAAAAAAAJc/lHpnNZTQS_c/s1600/WALKER+BULLET+STEEL+JACKETED.jpg

Walker himself saw the bullet that was fired at him. When he saw a
bullet shown to the public that looked like an MC rifle bullet (which
would accuse Oswald) he knew right away that the bullet shown wasn't the
one fired at him. He wrote letters to the authorities to withdraw the
phony bullet, but they ignored him and kept it. The phony evidence
against Oswald was more important, I guess. Here are the Walker letters:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Walker%20Shooting/Item%2005.pdf

Chris

[David Von Pein]

*UPDATE*---

DVP To Be Prosecuted For Believing In Lee Harvey Oswald's Lone Guilt!
Details and film at 11 on Eyewitness News!!....

http://www.amazon.com/review/R16JBYCTIAJ0K/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=1939521238&cdForum=Fx2571L2JB66RFO&cdMsgID=Mx3515XYMX0YM7W&cdMsgNo=51&cdPage=6&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2MZLN7VORPUP3&store=books#Mx3515XYMX0YM7W

[David Von Pein]

RALPH YATES SAID:

I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people. I think
we also need to figure out a way to move towards prosecuting them. These
persons are just in flagrant denial of the obvious evidence of Oswald's
CIA relationship.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh goodie! Now Ralph thinks I deserve to be prosecuted for believing in
Oswald's lone guilt.

Yikes! What a strange, mixed-up world Ralph Yates lives in.

(NOTE -- This will probably have to be my last post for a while, because I
can hear some footsteps on my porch. The FBI has arrived with a warrant
for my arrest. It looks like Ralph Yates' wish has become reality. The
charge --- "Believing That Lee Harvey Oswald Acted Alone". It strikes me
as a curious and odd reason for having three husky FBI men escort me to
the pokey. But there must be some new law on the books that makes it a
criminal offense to believe in the **known and documented facts** of a
particular murder case. Very strange indeed. I only hope my cell is next
to Vince Bugliosi's so we can have some nice chats. You see, Vince was
thrown in jail this morning on the same oddball charge.)


"BROTHER BRUCE" SAID:

You lone nutters have never had to worry about being persecuted, arrested,
strong-armed or murdered. History has shown that the folks who attempt to
tell the truth about the assassination are the ones who've been silenced
through threats and murder. Believing and espousing, as you do, that two
lone nuts were involved in the assassination insures that you'll be
coddled and supported by the murderers.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Whew! What a relief! Thank you, Bruce. Now at least I can be confident
that the three burly FBI agents who just arrested me (thanks to good ol'
Ralph Y.) won't be strapping me into a hot chair at any rate. I'll
probably just get 10 to 20.


"BROTHER BRUCE" SAID:

Does it please you to be in league with the liars and murderers?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If it in any way separates me from people like you, then yes, I'm pleased.
Very pleased.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R16JBYCTIAJ0K/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=1939521238&cdForum=Fx2571L2JB66RFO&cdMsgID=Mx3515XYMX0YM7W&cdMsgNo=51&cdPage=6&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2MZLN7VORPUP3&store=books#Mx3515XYMX0YM7W

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

One miserable nothing can change history.

People don't want to accept that. There must be larger forces at play.

Maybe if they realized the above their own lives would be better. One
person, with will and drive, can do a lot.

A lot of bad or a lot of good. It's up to you.

[DR ZHIVAGO]

Yes Rowdy Yates, Mr. Von Pein is guilty of a thought crime. Winston Smith:

" The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought
presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. Crimestop,
they called it in Newspeak.

He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with
propositions--'the Party says the earth is flat', 'the party says that ice
is heavier than water'--and trained himself in not seeing or not
understanding the arguments that contradicted them.

[DR ZHIVAGO]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 10:04:59 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

Big Brother Bruce must have read Emmanuel Goldstein's The Theory and
Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism. Crimestop means the faculty of
stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous
thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to
perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if
they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train
of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.

[OHLeeRedux]

mainframetech
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 10:33:11 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
- show quoted text -

As a matter of fact, Oswald didn't shoot at Walker. First, he never
practiced with his rifle, and second, if he had, he would have found the
faults in the rifle and had them fixed, neither of which happened.
Third, the police report noted that the bullet that was fired at Walker
was STEEL jacketed. Here's that report:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9nC-kt8dxgg/UH85l_CwkiI/AAAAAAAAAJc/lHpnNZTQS_c/s1600/WALKER+BULLET+STEEL+JACKETED.jpg

Walker himself saw the bullet that was fired at him. When he saw a
bullet shown to the public that looked like an MC rifle bullet (which
would accuse Oswald) he knew right away that the bullet shown wasn't the
one fired at him. He wrote letters to the authorities to withdraw the
phony bullet, but they ignored him and kept it. The phony evidence
against Oswald was more important, I guess. Here are the Walker letters:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Walker%20Shooting/Item%2005.pdf

Chris

Oswald never practiced with his rifle??? What did you do, Chris, follow
him around in 1963 like a hungry cat?

[mainframetech]

I suspect that your website hits have dropped off, since you've awakened
and began posting over here. It's usually in such a way that you put up
links to your site.

As well as your tactic of picking out bits of a conversation and
repeating them elsewhere, with you as the hero of the chat and including
them on your website.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 10:04:59 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

David, I hope when you get around to plea bargaining you won't roll over
on the rest of us.

[Mark Florio]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 9:04:59 PM UTC-6, David Von Pein wrote:
> RALPH YATES SAID:
>
> I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
> where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people. I think
> we also need to figure out a way to move towards prosecuting them. These
> persons are just in flagrant denial of the obvious evidence of Oswald's
> CIA relationship.
>

Where to begin to understand totalitarians? He's against censorship but
he's for it if you don't agree with him. I have to question if he's
serious, and if he is ask him to come on here, perhaps after reading the
constitution, and say that. Mark Florio.

[David Von Pein]

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1QZKL0GQ4DVZY/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=1939521238&cdForum=Fx2571L2JB66RFO&cdMsgID=Mx31IPWEQBJGL0J&cdMsgNo=3&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3AHT3SIZ8XS72&store=books#Mx31IPWEQBJGL0J

[David Emerling]

I am currently in hiding at an undisclosed location. :)

I think it is comical how a certain personality trait of these conspiracy
believers carries over into their debating methods. Their paranoid
worldview is pervasive. This is the way many of them think! This is how
they see the world. Dark forces are out to get us.

And yet, in this scenario, the "dark forces" are the federal government -
supposedly the one, according to many conspiracy theories, who ENCOURAGED
the thinking that Oswald acted alone. Now that same government is going to
detain those who are actually ADVOCATES for the same theory that the evil
government encouraged?

This is precious!

♫ Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line,
the men come and take you away ♫
(Buffalo Springfield, "For What It's Worth")

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

So each person can make only good things happen to him?
Is that part of Scientology?

[mainframetech]

No need. First, he never bought ammunition from the ad where he bought
the rifle, and it was an obvious ad. It also would have sold him a clip,
which we don't know if the rifle he bought had one. I didn't see one in
the rifle in the backyard photos. As well, the FBI looked all over the
place for any shop that may have sold ammunition to Oswald and there wee
only 2 that handled that type of ammo, and neither sold Oswald any
ammunition. Also, when Oswald got the rifle from Klein's, he took the
photos with it and then rolled it up in a blanket and threw it in a damp
garage. He couldn't care less about the rifle. He never went to practice
because the faults that the rifle had were never repaired, and if he had
practiced, he would have found out that the faults would make the rifle
almost unusable for rapid shooting, and he would have had to fix them.

Chris

[mainframetech]

As it turns out, Oswald didn't take a shot at Walker. The police that
investigated the Walker shooting found that the bullet that was fired at
him was STEEL jacketed, and was mangled beyond recognition. Here's the
Police Report:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9nC-kt8dxgg/UH85l_CwkiI/AAAAAAAAAJc/lHpnNZTQS_c/s1600/WALKER+BULLET+STEEL+JACKETED.jpg

As well, Walker had seen the bullet fired at him, and when the
authorities showed a bullet publicly, Walker saw immediately that what was
shown wasn't the right bullet. He sent letters through his attorney for
them to withdraw it, but they ignored him.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Walker%20Shooting/Item%2005.pdf

Get it together.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 6:42:46 PM UTC-6, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://www.amazon.com/review/R1QZKL0GQ4DVZY/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=1939521238&cdForum=Fx2571L2JB66RFO&cdMsgID=Mx31IPWEQBJGL0J&cdMsgNo=3&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3AHT3SIZ8XS72&store=books#Mx31IPWEQBJGL0J

That's a classic almost textbook example of the thinking: the CIA did bad
things "A" and "B", therefore they killed JFK. Ignoring the fact that
those operations by the CIA were done under direct orders of Eisenhower
and JFK. And the CIA had no role in the death of Lumumba in the Congo;
that was done by Congolese forces during their civil war after
independence.

Meanwhile, Robert Caro, about as distinguished a historian as one can
find, has spent 20+ years of his life studying LBJ's life and has found no
evidence that Johnson was involved in the assassination.

As someone once said: the assassination is like a political Rohrschacht
test. You see things in it that tell us more about your own political
views than it does about your understanding of what happened.

[David Von Pein]

David E.,

Maybe Ralph Yates is hoping to find another prosecutor like Jim Garrison,
who can be convinced to place all vocal LNers under arrest on the bogus
charge of "Advocating Oswald's Lone Guilt".

I guess Yates figures that since Garrison was able to fight city hall and
take an innocent man to court in 1969, maybe a D.A. here in Indiana will
be willing to buck the system and slap me in jail on a trumped-up charge
too.

Remember, hope springs eternal for conspiracy clowns. They're still
clinging to the idea that "the real killers" of JFK will someday will be
brought to justice.

[Mark Florio]

Is that your response to the fascist comments by Ralph Yates? Criticize
the messenger? Mark Florio.

[Mark Florio]

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 6:21:45 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:

Keep in mind the WC Believers Witness Protection program. Mark Florio.

[mainframetech]

Gee! And I always thought the founding fathers wanted us all to be
cautious about the government and distrust it too!

I suppose we'd all praise the government for its work at the Gulf of
Tonkin.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Yes, and if we start with getting down on the guy who has "flagrant
denial" of Oswald's connection to the CIA, what's next? People who are in
"Flagrant denial" of flaky dandruff? It'll be a vigilante world.

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

mainframetech
- hide quoted text -

So you did not follow Oswald around in 1963 and you do not know whether he
practiced with his rifle.

Very good. Carry on with your fantasies.

[BOZ]

Maybe OJ SIMPSON WILL LOOK FOR JFK's KILLERS TOO.

[BOZ]

THAT'S VERY GOOD>That's funny!

[Anthony Marsh]

I think a little paranoia is healthy when living in a dangerous world.
Your Pollyanna worldview is not born out by reality. Bad things happen.
Evil people conspire. You would have been one of the Jews who happily
took the German's offer of a free month at a summer camp and happily got
on the cattle car.

> And yet, in this scenario, the "dark forces" are the federal government -

No, stop saying that. The evil forces are not the government.
They overthrew the government.

> supposedly the one, according to many conspiracy theories, who ENCOURAGED
> the thinking that Oswald acted alone. Now that same government is going to
> detain those who are actually ADVOCATES for the same theory that the evil
> government encouraged?
>

Who said that?

> This is precious!
>
> ♫ Paranoia strikes deep
> Into your life it will creep
> It starts when you're always afraid
> You step out of line,
> the men come and take you away ♫
> (Buffalo Springfield, "For What It's Worth")
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

Typical WC defender. When you can't win an argument just call your
opponent crazy.

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
====== one has to know something in order to become a "messenger" ! ! ! !
===========================================================================
======

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
=====

yesh florio ! ! ! we call it posting under "aliases " ! ! !
===========================================================================

[BOZ]

The founding fathers would have seen that Oswald was not a New England
patriot.

[Anthony Marsh]

Why do I have to step in and defend the guy. He did not say that the
person did not have the right to say stupid things. He said we have the
right to ignore the guy.

[Mark Florio]

Fair enough, Chris, though it took a post about what a fascist Yates is
before you posted agreement. And I neglected the worst part of what he
believes: I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MOVE TOWARDS
PROSECUTING THEM. This guy is on your side of the debate, not mine, and
you CTs should be the first to call him out. Mark Florio.

[David Von Pein]

Marina Oswald testified in 1978 that Lee often went out to practice with
his rifle. She wasn't right there when Lee was "practicing", but she
claims he went out with his rifle to target shoot nonetheless....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/marina-oswald.html#HSCA-Testimony-Audio

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/3/2015 8:20 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> David E.,
>
> Maybe Ralph Yates is hoping to find another prosecutor like Jim Garrison,
> who can be convinced to place all vocal LNers under arrest on the bogus
> charge of "Advocating Oswald's Lone Guilt".
>
> I guess Yates figures that since Garrison was able to fight city hall and
> take an innocent man to court in 1969, maybe a D.A. here in Indiana will
> be willing to buck the system and slap me in jail on a trumped-up charge
> too.

You're starting to sound paranoid.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/3/2015 8:17 PM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 6:42:46 PM UTC-6, David Von Pein wrote:
>> http://www.amazon.com/review/R1QZKL0GQ4DVZY/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=1939521238&cdForum=Fx2571L2JB66RFO&cdMsgID=Mx31IPWEQBJGL0J&cdMsgNo=3&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3AHT3SIZ8XS72&store=books#Mx31IPWEQBJGL0J
>
> That's a classic almost textbook example of the thinking: the CIA did bad
> things "A" and "B", therefore they killed JFK. Ignoring the fact that
> those operations by the CIA were done under direct orders of Eisenhower
> and JFK. And the CIA had no role in the death of Lumumba in the Congo;
> that was done by Congolese forces during their civil war after
> independence.

The CIA had already sent its contract killer, but he got there too late.
JFK did not approve any assassination plans. You say that only because
you are a Kennedy hater. That's why you're here, to assassinate
Kennedy's legacy.

>
> Meanwhile, Robert Caro, about as distinguished a historian as one can
> find, has spent 20+ years of his life studying LBJ's life and has found no
> evidence that Johnson was involved in the assassination.
>

Fine, he wasn't. But he benefitted and went along with the agenda of the
military.

> As someone once said: the assassination is like a political Rohrschacht
> test. You see things in it that tell us more about your own political
> views than it does about your understanding of what happened.
>

Psychobabble invented by a Fascist.

>

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Not to sidetrack things but you keep mentioning the Gulf of Tonkin as an
example of a government coverup.

You do know the Vietnamese celebrate the Gulf of Tonkin battle as a great
victory? They did attack the US Maddox the first day; they've admitted it.
One can argue that the US lured them out or tricked them; but there is no
doubt that an attack by NV boats took place.

However, there was no second attack and the report from the Maddox was
wrong. But no one knew that at the time. It was the proverbial fog of war.

[bigdog]

Or bought any ammo.

> Very good. Carry on with your fantasies.

Don't worry. He will.

[Anthony Marsh]

It was the junky old SMI ammo. He didn't need 108 rounds just to kill
Walker. The rifle did not come with a clip. The ammo did. To get a clip
you had to buy the SMI ammo or find one at an ARMY/NAVY store.

> which we don't know if the rifle he bought had one. I didn't see one in
> the rifle in the backyard photos. As well, the FBI looked all over the

You wouldn't. Unless it starts slipping out it stays INSIDE the magazine
well.

> place for any shop that may have sold ammunition to Oswald and there wee
> only 2 that handled that type of ammo, and neither sold Oswald any
> ammunition. Also, when Oswald got the rifle from Klein's, he took the
> photos with it and then rolled it up in a blanket and threw it in a damp
> garage. He couldn't care less about the rifle. He never went to practice

Someone else said that. Are you copying him or are you also the other
person?
Or are you a WC defender who doesn't know how to QUOTE properly?

> because the faults that the rifle had were never repaired, and if he had
> practiced, he would have found out that the faults would make the rifle
> almost unusable for rapid shooting, and he would have had to fix them.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> So you did not follow Oswald around in 1963 and you do not know whether he
> practiced with his rifle.
>

What did he do with those other 15 rounds? Eat them?

> Very good. Carry on with your fantasies.
>

Go farther out to sea to improve your trolling.
No one's biting here.

[mainframetech]

A successful murder conspiracy is one where the conspirators all go
free, and some dumb sucker gets blamed for it.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 11:11:47 AM UTC-5, OHLeeRedux wrote:

Think it through. Most detectives have to work from a knowledge of
people when they don't have specific evidence about something. They have
to extrapolate and guess at things based on what little evidence they DO
have. In this case, we know the things that I listed for you as items of
record. Her chose NOT to buy ammunition from the ad that he bought the
rifle from, and it was clearly offered. The FBI tried to find places that
sold MC ammunition and there were only 2 of them, and they both said they
did not sell to Oswald.

So it's easy to extrapolate to where Oswald didn't buy any ammunition
because he had no intention of shooting anyone, and therefore he also
needed no practice for the same reason. It fit that Oswald bought the
rifle to impress people he wanted to get in with, and to prove that, he
got the rifle and the first thing he did with it was take his photo with
it, then he rolled it up in a blanket and threw it in a damp garage. Not
what you do wit ha rifle you want to shoot at someone. You clean it and
practice with it, and fix any problems it has before you shoot it at
someone.

Chris

[BOZ]

YESH? YOU ARE DEVELOPING A WRITING LISP!

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 5:18:42 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/2/2015 7:45 PM, David Emerling wrote:
>
> > And yet, in this scenario, the "dark forces" are the federal government -
>
> No, stop saying that. The evil forces are not the government.
> They overthrew the government.
>

Did anyone tell Obama?

[Mark Florio]

Marsh, this is getting damn old. Did you read what Yates wrote? And are
you able to understand it? "I think we also need to figure out a way to
move towards prosecuting them." You: "He said we have the right to ignore
the guy." No. He's saying we who believe Oswald by himself killed JFK
should be taken to court. Mark Florio.

[mainframetech]

Let me know when you find a way to disprove anything I just said above.

Chris

[mainframetech]

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was indeed a cover up of our intention to
get into the Vietnam war with both feet. It made it so that LBJ could
make a bill and get it passed that allowed us to insert ourselves into any
Asian country that we thought was doing 'communist aggression'. It was
only much later that the full truth came out that it was a phony from the
beginning to get into Vietnam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

Chris

[mainframetech]

Marina claimed many things, and was really trying to just get by with
all the authorities standing over her seeming to have power to send her
home. She also said that Oswald liked JFK.

However, we know that the MC rifle needed to be repaired before it would
shoot straight, and we know that Oswald never had it fixed, and the
evidence is that he never intended to shoot anyone, and never did. With
the faults still in the rifle when they tested it the next day, Oswald
never practiced because he never fixed the rifle, and was probably not
even aware that it was faulty.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Sorry Mark. I don't even know who Yates was (or is). I'm certainly not
going to claim him. The comments about him weren't from me.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

But you don't admit that the US launched sabotage missions which sparked
the reprisal.

> However, there was no second attack and the report from the Maddox was
> wrong. But no one knew that at the time. It was the proverbial fog of war.
>

Battle of the Pips.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yeah, shooting at the leaves. That's a good way to zero in the defective
scope. Maybe this accounts for the wild miss in Dealey Plaza.

[Anthony Marsh]

I call out the kooks on the conspiracy side all the time.
You never call out the kooks on your side. Vested interest?

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
=====we thought you said you liked Obama Corbett ! ! !
===========================================================================
=======

[Mark Florio]

Okay. But, I didn't say you claimed him, or you shared the mindset behind
his comments. I'll say this and move on. If an LN comes on here and says
our society should start thinking about prosecuting CTs, I will be the
first to call him or her what they are. Mark Florio.

[Mark Florio]

I have no idea where your worldview is anymore. You have Sandy McCroskey
protecting the CIA. And I'm vested in kooks on my side. If you or anyone
else would show me evidence that the right or left killed Kennedy, I would
be right there at the ramparts with you demanding justice be done. He was
the last inclusive president. Mark Florio.

[bigdog]

When you invent silly theories, the burden is on you to prove them. No one
else has the burden of disproving them. You don't establish something by
simply proposing it and then challenging others to disprove it. For
example, you have claimed Oswald did not buy any ammo. You have offered
nothing to support that. You have simply pointed out there is no record of
him purchasing ammo even though there is no expectation that there would
be such a record of him purchasing the ammo. The fact that we can neither
prove nor disprove Oswald bought ammo does not establish that he didn't
buy ammo. We do have evidence that he fired ammo at both Walker and JFK.
That establishes that somehow he obtained ammo. Where or when is not
impportant.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 9:12:29 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 7:28:12 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > Marina Oswald testified in 1978 that Lee often went out to practice with
> > his rifle. She wasn't right there when Lee was "practicing", but she
> > claims he went out with his rifle to target shoot nonetheless....
> >
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/marina-oswald.html#HSCA-Testimony-Audio
>
>
>
> Marina claimed many things, and was really trying to just get by with
> all the authorities standing over her seeming to have power to send her
> home. She also said that Oswald liked JFK.
>

She is now an American citizen and no one has the power to deport her. She
is free to recant any and all of the testimony she gave against Oswald.
She has never recanted any of it, including what she said about the
attempt on Walker's life.

> However, we know that the MC rifle needed to be repaired before it would
> shoot straight,

No it really didn't. The rifle was perfectly capable of firing a round in
the direction it was pointed. The scope was SLIGHTLY misalligned and we
don't know if it was in that condition when the shots were fired or when
it was dropped on the floor. Even if it was misalligned at the time of the
shooting, at that short a range, it would have fired a few inches high and
to the right. This would actually have been an advantage since he would
have needed to lead his target by aiming a few inches high and to the
right. What we do know through the ballistics matching is Oswald's rifle
fired the only bullets ever recovered from the assassination.

> and we know that Oswald never had it fixed, and the
> evidence is that he never intended to shoot anyone, and never did. With
> the faults still in the rifle when they tested it the next day, Oswald
> never practiced because he never fixed the rifle, and was probably not
> even aware that it was faulty.
>

Another case of you claiming something that is unproveable. We do have the
testimony of Marina that he would take it out and practice. That doesn't
establish that he practiced with absolute certainty, but it is a good
indicator.

Whatever the condition of the rifle was and whatever the state of Oswald's
skill set at the time of the assassination, we know through compelling
evidence that both were sufficient to get the job done.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/5/2015 9:12 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 7:28:12 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>> Marina Oswald testified in 1978 that Lee often went out to practice with
>> his rifle. She wasn't right there when Lee was "practicing", but she
>> claims he went out with his rifle to target shoot nonetheless....
>>
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/marina-oswald.html#HSCA-Testimony-Audio
>
>
>
> Marina claimed many things, and was really trying to just get by with
> all the authorities standing over her seeming to have power to send her
> home. She also said that Oswald liked JFK.
>
> However, we know that the MC rifle needed to be repaired before it would
> shoot straight, and we know that Oswald never had it fixed, and the

It never did shoot straight.

> evidence is that he never intended to shoot anyone, and never did. With
> the faults still in the rifle when they tested it the next day, Oswald
> never practiced because he never fixed the rifle, and was probably not
> even aware that it was faulty.
>

He didn't know how to fix it. The FBI couldn't even fix it.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

>>>> ??? Paranoia strikes deep

>>>> Into your life it will creep
>>>> It starts when you're always afraid
>>>> You step out of line,

>>>> the men come and take you away ???

>>>> (Buffalo Springfield, "For What It's Worth")
>>>>
>>>> David Emerling
>>>> Memphis, TN
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gee! And I always thought the founding fathers wanted us all to be
>>> cautious about the government and distrust it too!
>>>
>>> I suppose we'd all praise the government for its work at the Gulf of
>>> Tonkin.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>> Not to sidetrack things but you keep mentioning the Gulf of Tonkin as an
>> example of a government coverup.
>>
>> You do know the Vietnamese celebrate the Gulf of Tonkin battle as a great
>> victory? They did attack the US Maddox the first day; they've admitted it.
>> One can argue that the US lured them out or tricked them; but there is no
>> doubt that an attack by NV boats took place.
>>
>> However, there was no second attack and the report from the Maddox was
>> wrong. But no one knew that at the time. It was the proverbial fog of war.
>
>
>
> The Gulf of Tonkin incident was indeed a cover up of our intention to
> get into the Vietnam war with both feet. It made it so that LBJ could
> make a bill and get it passed that allowed us to insert ourselves into any
> Asian country that we thought was doing 'communist aggression'. It was
> only much later that the full truth came out that it was a phony from the
> beginning to get into Vietnam.
>

Well, sorta. The idea is to create an incident to rally support for war,
even if you have to make it up. Such as Hitler sending in his troops to
sabotage a German radio station Poland dressed up as Polish soldiers.
Operation Northwoods had a series of fake attacks planned to justify the
US invading Cuba. Some people think 9/11 was done by Bush to justify going
to war. The explosion in the USS Maine was blamed on the Spanish in order
to justify the Spanish American War. The ONI had a series of plans to
trick Japan into attacking the US since FDR had said that the US would not
start a war.

The fact is that the US had launched sabotage attacks on North Vietnam and
the North Vietnamese were pursuing the attacking boats who then hid behind
the skirts of the US ships.


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
>
> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/5/2015 8:48 PM, Mark Florio wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 4:44:19 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 2/2/2015 7:09 PM, Mark Florio wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 9:04:59 PM UTC-6, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> RALPH YATES SAID:
>>>>
>>>> I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
>>>> where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people. I think
>>>> we also need to figure out a way to move towards prosecuting them. These
>>>> persons are just in flagrant denial of the obvious evidence of Oswald's
>>>> CIA relationship.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where to begin to understand totalitarians? He's against censorship but
>>> he's for it if you don't agree with him. I have to question if he's
>>> serious, and if he is ask him to come on here, perhaps after reading the
>>> constitution, and say that. Mark Florio.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why do I have to step in and defend the guy. He did not say that the
>> person did not have the right to say stupid things. He said we have the
>> right to ignore the guy.
>
> Marsh, this is getting damn old. Did you read what Yates wrote? And are

Yates who? I don't even know any Yates.

> you able to understand it? "I think we also need to figure out a way to
> move towards prosecuting them." You: "He said we have the right to ignore
> the guy." No. He's saying we who believe Oswald by himself killed JFK
> should be taken to court. Mark Florio.
>

For obstruction of Justice because you KNOW it was a conspiracy?

[Anthony Marsh]

I doubt it. You never criticize a fellow WC defender or point out when
he is lying.

[Anthony Marsh]

FYI, there are kooks on both sides.
I never said that McCroskey works for the CIA.
Someone can defend them without working for them.

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 9:11:20 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 12:20:59 AM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 11:11:47 AM UTC-5, OHLeeRedux
> > > wrote:
> > > > mainframetech
> > > > - hide quoted text -
> > > > On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 6:58:46 PM UTC-5, OHLeeRedux

> > > > wrote:=20
> > > > > mainframetech=20

> > > > > On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 10:33:11 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein

> > > > > wr=
> ote:=20
> > > > > - show quoted text -=20

> > > > > As a matter of fact, Oswald didn't shoot at Walker. First, he

> > > > > ne=
> ver=20

> > > > > practiced with his rifle, and second, if he had, he would have

> > > > > foun=
> d the=20

> > > > > faults in the rifle and had them fixed, neither of which

> > > > > happened. =
> =20

> > > > > Third, the police report noted that the bullet that was fired at

> > > > > Wa=
> lker=20
> > > > > was STEEL jacketed. Here's that report:=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9nC-kt8dxgg/UH85l_CwkiI/AAAAAAAAAJc/lHp
> > > > > nN=
> ZTQS_c/s1600/WALKER+BULLET+STEEL+JACKETED.jpg=20
> > > > >=20

> > > > > Walker himself saw the bullet that was fired at him. When he

> > > > > sa=
> w a=20

> > > > > bullet shown to the public that looked like an MC rifle bullet

> > > > > (whi=
> ch=20

> > > > > would accuse Oswald) he knew right away that the bullet shown

> > > > > wasn'=
> t the=20

> > > > > one fired at him. He wrote letters to the authorities to

> > > > > withdraw =
> the=20

> > > > > phony bullet, but they ignored him and kept it. The phony

> > > > > evidence=
> =20

> > > > > against Oswald was more important, I guess. Here are the Walker

> > > > > le=
> tters:=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files
> > > > > /W=
> %20Disk/Walker%20Shooting/Item%2005.pdf=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Chris=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > >=20

> > > > > Oswald never practiced with his rifle??? What did you do, Chris,

> > > > > fo=
> llow=20
> > > > > him around in 1963 like a hungry cat?=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20

> > > > No need. First, he never bought ammunition from the ad where he

> > > > bou=
> ght=20

> > > > the rifle, and it was an obvious ad. It also would have sold him a

> > > > c=
> lip,=20

> > > > which we don't know if the rifle he bought had one. I didn't see

> > > > one=
> in=20

> > > > the rifle in the backyard photos. As well, the FBI looked all over

> > > > t=
> he=20

> > > > place for any shop that may have sold ammunition to Oswald and

> > > > there =
> wee=20

> > > > only 2 that handled that type of ammo, and neither sold Oswald

> > > > any=20 ammunition. Also, when Oswald got the rifle from Klein's,
> > > > he took th=
> e=20

> > > > photos with it and then rolled it up in a blanket and threw it in a

> > > > d=
> amp=20

> > > > garage. He couldn't care less about the rifle. He never went to

> > > > pra=
> ctice=20

> > > > because the faults that the rifle had were never repaired, and if

> > > > he =
> had=20

> > > > practiced, he would have found out that the faults would make the

> > > > rif=
> le=20

> > > > almost unusable for rapid shooting, and he would have had to fix

> > > > them=
> .=20
> > > >=20
> > > > Chris=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20

> > > > So you did not follow Oswald around in 1963 and you do not know

> > > > wheth=
> er he=20
> > > > practiced with his rifle.
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > Or bought any ammo.
> > >=20

> > > > Very good. Carry on with your fantasies.

> > >=20

> > > Don't worry. He will.

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

> > Let me know when you find a way to disprove anything I just said

> > above=
> .
> >=20

>
> When you invent silly theories, the burden is on you to prove them. No
> one else has the burden of disproving them. You don't establish something
> by simply proposing it and then challenging others to disprove it. For
> example, you have claimed Oswald did not buy any ammo. You have offered
> nothing to support that. You have simply pointed out there is no record
> of him purchasing ammo even though there is no expectation that there
> would be such a record of him purchasing the ammo. The fact that we can
> neither prove nor disprove Oswald bought ammo does not establish that he
> didn't buy ammo. We do have evidence that he fired ammo at both Walker
> and JFK. That establishes that somehow he obtained ammo. Where or when is
> not impportant.

===========================================================================
==== NO HUMAN HAS EVER PROVEN THAT OSWALD HAS EVER BOUGHT ANY AMMO ! ! !
===========================================================================

[tom...@cox.net]

THE FBI TESTED THE RILE ON SATURDAY 11/23/63. IT FIRED HIGH AND TO THE
RIGHT MISSING THE TARGET BY 3THREE (3) INCHES AT 15 FEET FROM THE TARGET
AND, IT WAS BOLTED DOWN ! YOU DO THE MATH AT88 YARDS ! ! ! PS; IT WAS NOT
"THROWN DOWN, IT WAS CAREFULLY PLACED THERE BECAUSE THE SCOPE WAS UP (ON
TOP)

===========================================================================

=====bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 9:12:29 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 7:28:12 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein
> > wrote:
> > > Marina Oswald testified in 1978 that Lee often went out to practice

> > > wit=
> h=20

> > > his rifle. She wasn't right there when Lee was "practicing", but

> > > she=20 claims he went out with his rifle to target shoot
> > >nonetheless.... =20
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/marina-oswald.html#HSCA-Test
> > > im=
> ony-Audio
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20

> > Marina claimed many things, and was really trying to just get by

> > with=
> =20

> > all the authorities standing over her seeming to have power to send

> > her=
> =20

> > home. She also said that Oswald liked JFK.

> >=20

>
> She is now an American citizen and no one has the power to deport her.
> She is free to recant any and all of the testimony she gave against
> Oswald. She has never recanted any of it, including what she said about
> the attempt on Walker's life.
>
> > However, we know that the MC rifle needed to be repaired before it

> > woul=
> d=20
> > shoot straight,=20

>
> No it really didn't. The rifle was perfectly capable of firing a round in
> the direction it was pointed. The scope was SLIGHTLY misalligned and we
> don't know if it was in that condition when the shots were fired or when
> it was dropped on the floor. Even if it was misalligned at the time of
> the shooting, at that short a range, it would have fired a few inches
> high and to the right. This would actually have been an advantage since
> he would have needed to lead his target by aiming a few inches high and
> to the right. What we do know through the ballistics matching is Oswald's
> rifle fired the only bullets ever recovered from the assassination.
>

> > and we know that Oswald never had it fixed, and the=20

> > evidence is that he never intended to shoot anyone, and never did.

> > With=
> =20

> > the faults still in the rifle when they tested it the next day,

> > Oswald=20 never practiced because he never fixed the rifle, and was
> > probably not=20 even aware that it was faulty.
> >=20

>
> Another case of you claiming something that is unproveable. We do have
> the testimony of Marina that he would take it out and practice. That
> doesn't establish that he practiced with absolute certainty, but it is a
> good indicator.
>
> Whatever the condition of the rifle was and whatever the state of
> Oswald's skill set at the time of the assassination, we know through
> compelling evidence that both were sufficient to get the job done.

[mainframetech]

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 10:10:20 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 9:12:29 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 7:28:12 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > Marina Oswald testified in 1978 that Lee often went out to practice with
> > > his rifle. She wasn't right there when Lee was "practicing", but she
> > > claims he went out with his rifle to target shoot nonetheless....
> > >
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/marina-oswald.html#HSCA-Testimony-Audio
> >
> >
> >
> > Marina claimed many things, and was really trying to just get by with
> > all the authorities standing over her seeming to have power to send her
> > home. She also said that Oswald liked JFK.
> >
>
> She is now an American citizen and no one has the power to deport her. She
> is free to recant any and all of the testimony she gave against Oswald.
> She has never recanted any of it, including what she said about the
> attempt on Walker's life.
>

Nope. Wrong. She has since then said that Oswald didn't just 'like'
JFK, but actually LOVED him! So why would Oswald go and murder him? And
why would she recant if she can get by without having to recant anything?
Most people don't want to admit lies if they don't have to. She has also
come out and said she does not believe that Oswald murdered JFK.

Whatever is right, it's obviously not definite, since Marina has always
said all kinds of things, sometimes contradicting herself.

> > However, we know that the MC rifle needed to be repaired before it would
> > shoot straight,
>
> No it really didn't. The rifle was perfectly capable of firing a round in
> the direction it was pointed. The scope was SLIGHTLY misalligned and we
> don't know if it was in that condition when the shots were fired or when
> it was dropped on the floor. Even if it was misalligned at the time of the
> shooting, at that short a range, it would have fired a few inches high and
> to the right. This would actually have been an advantage since he would
> have needed to lead his target by aiming a few inches high and to the
> right. What we do know through the ballistics matching is Oswald's rifle
> fired the only bullets ever recovered from the assassination.
>

Wrong again! The scope wasn't just 'SLIGHTLY" misaligned. Simmons of
the army testing group stated under oath that the testers didn't feel safe
shooting the rifle until it had gone to the gunsmith, where he shimmed the
scope to bring it close to where they could sight it in. They also said
that they couldn't stay on target because of the sticky bolt, which threw
them off target every time they worked it.

I don't know how you have the cojones to say that the rifle fired the
"only bullets ever recovered" in the case. As you well know there were a
number of bullets and fragments that were recovered, and subsequently were
'disappeared'. I guess you'll try anything to cover up this stuff.

> > and we know that Oswald never had it fixed, and the
> > evidence is that he never intended to shoot anyone, and never did. With
> > the faults still in the rifle when they tested it the next day, Oswald
> > never practiced because he never fixed the rifle, and was probably not
> > even aware that it was faulty.
> >
>
> Another case of you claiming something that is unproveable. We do have the
> testimony of Marina that he would take it out and practice. That doesn't
> establish that he practiced with absolute certainty, but it is a good
> indicator.
>

Wrong! It's provable, you just don't want to believe it...:) All the
facts I've laid out make sense, and come to a particular conclusion that
also makes sense. That's the proof. Perfect? Nope. But close.
Detectives on a murder case would love to have as much. And having Marina
saying anything when she was under pressure to say things back in the 60's
and 70's doesn't help your case a bit.

> Whatever the condition of the rifle was and whatever the state of Oswald's
> skill set at the time of the assassination, we know through compelling
> evidence that both were sufficient to get the job done.

There's no compelling anything except your deep love for the WCR. The
state of Oswald's shooting ability doesn't enter in to it, since he didn't
do any shooting on the big day. And since the evidence has all kinds of
holes in it for Oswald's guilt, and the evidence for his innocence is
there, we can say that he was a 'patsy' as he thought.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! As to "inventing silly theories", since you have aligned
yourself with the WC and their "silly theories", it behooves YOU to
explain them, and a lot better than the weak efforts you've made in the
past. Your explanation for how the 2 bullets from the MC rifle ever hurt
anyone was weak and foolish and needs to be tightened up some.

An example is your saying that I've offered no proof that Oswald didn't
buy ammunition, yet I've done so many times. You lack of memory is very
useful for you to live with yourself, but using it out here with us is
another story. You've been given a number of reasons to believe that
Oswald didn't buy ammunition. First, he chose not to buy any from Klein's
when he got the rifle, and the ad itself mentioned clearly the ammunition
and even a clip, which we don't know if he had. And second, the FBI
searched the area for anyone that might have the right kind of ammunition,
of which there were 2 places, and both of them did not sell to Oswald.
Third, Oswald never did any practicing with the rifle because it was still
in faulty condition when it was tested the day after the murder. Another
fact that points to his not using the rifle or intending to.

So this shows that you've been told these facts often, and I wonder if
you have a true physical impediment to memory, or it's something you
choose to do.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 6:05:16 PM UTC-5, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 5:18:42 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > > On 2/2/2015 7:45 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> > >
> > > > And yet, in this scenario, the "dark forces" are the federal
> > > > government -
> > >
> > > No, stop saying that. The evil forces are not the government.
> > > They overthrew the government.
> > >
> >
> > Did anyone tell Obama?
> ===========================================================================
> =====we thought you said you liked Obama Corbett ! ! !
> ===========================================================================

You thought wrong. I don't dislike him as a person, but as a President,
I'm not sure we could have done much worse.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Right. And Mark said, "You have Sandy McCroskey protecting the CIA."
He didn't say you had me working for the CIA.
"Protecting," "defending"--what's the difference, Marsh?
When was the last time you read a post correctly?

[Mark Florio]

Now we know in the World According to Cliff Clavin, there would be no US
Constitution. Mark Florio.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/6/2015 10:10 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 9:12:29 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 7:28:12 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> Marina Oswald testified in 1978 that Lee often went out to practice with
>>> his rifle. She wasn't right there when Lee was "practicing", but she
>>> claims he went out with his rifle to target shoot nonetheless....
>>>
>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/marina-oswald.html#HSCA-Testimony-Audio
>>
>>
>>
>> Marina claimed many things, and was really trying to just get by with
>> all the authorities standing over her seeming to have power to send her
>> home. She also said that Oswald liked JFK.
>>
>
> She is now an American citizen and no one has the power to deport her. She
> is free to recant any and all of the testimony she gave against Oswald.

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

> She has never recanted any of it, including what she said about the
> attempt on Walker's life.
>
>> However, we know that the MC rifle needed to be repaired before it would
>> shoot straight,
>
> No it really didn't. The rifle was perfectly capable of firing a round in
> the direction it was pointed. The scope was SLIGHTLY misalligned and we
> don't know if it was in that condition when the shots were fired or when
> it was dropped on the floor. Even if it was misalligned at the time of the
> shooting, at that short a range, it would have fired a few inches high and
> to the right. This would actually have been an advantage since he would
> have needed to lead his target by aiming a few inches high and to the
> right. What we do know through the ballistics matching is Oswald's rifle
> fired the only bullets ever recovered from the assassination.
>

So you admit that it could not fire accurately, but you turn that into
an asset. Was the rifle always jamming an asset for rapid fire?

>> and we know that Oswald never had it fixed, and the
>> evidence is that he never intended to shoot anyone, and never did. With
>> the faults still in the rifle when they tested it the next day, Oswald
>> never practiced because he never fixed the rifle, and was probably not
>> even aware that it was faulty.
>>
>
> Another case of you claiming something that is unproveable. We do have the
> testimony of Marina that he would take it out and practice. That doesn't
> establish that he practiced with absolute certainty, but it is a good
> indicator.
>
> Whatever the condition of the rifle was and whatever the state of Oswald's
> skill set at the time of the assassination, we know through compelling
> evidence that both were sufficient to get the job done.
>

Again you are begging the question.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/7/2015 1:44 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> THE FBI TESTED THE RILE ON SATURDAY 11/23/63. IT FIRED HIGH AND TO THE
> RIGHT MISSING THE TARGET BY 3THREE (3) INCHES AT 15 FEET FROM THE TARGET
> AND, IT WAS BOLTED DOWN ! YOU DO THE MATH AT88 YARDS ! ! ! PS; IT WAS NOT
> "THROWN DOWN, IT WAS CAREFULLY PLACED THERE BECAUSE THE SCOPE WAS UP (ON
> TOP)
>

Inaccurate. That rifle would naturally miss high at closer ranges even
when it is bang on at 200 yards.

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
===== I SEE; NIXON GETTING CAUGHT REALLY BROKE YOUR HEART DID HE ! ! !

[bigdog]

Can you prove that John Wilkes Booth bought the bullet that killed
Lincoln. If not, I guess we have to declare him innocent.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 1:44:58 PM UTC-5, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> THE FBI TESTED THE RILE ON SATURDAY 11/23/63. IT FIRED HIGH AND TO THE
> RIGHT MISSING THE TARGET BY 3THREE (3) INCHES AT 15 FEET FROM THE TARGET
> AND, IT WAS BOLTED DOWN ! YOU DO THE MATH AT88 YARDS ! ! !
>

Of course the bullet is going to hit high at 15 feet. The fixed sights
were zeroed for 200 yards. I don't know what range the scope was set for,
but I seriously doubt it was 15 feet. Bullets don't fly in a straight
line. They arc. The arc is very slight but has to be taken into account.
It does not follow that a bullet hitting 3 inches high at 15 feet is going
to continue on a straight line trajectory at 88 yards and hit 52.8 inches
high (See. I did do the math). Gravity will cause the bullet to arc below
that initial trajectory.

> PS; IT WAS NOT "THROWN DOWN, IT WAS CAREFULLY PLACED THERE BECAUSE THE SCOPE > WAS UP (ON TOP)

I'm sure Oswald would have carefully laid the rifle down because he
planned on coming back and using it again. <snicker> The rifle was up
against a row of boxes. That is why it was oriented like it was. Do you
really think Oswald carefully placed it so that the scope would be on top.

It really doesn't matter if the scope was misalligned before or after the
shooting because we know that during the shooting, the rifle somehow
managed to put two rounds on the intended target (assuming of course JFK
was the intended target). That much is true no matter who did the
shooting. So the condition of the rifle and the scope is a non-issue.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:25:17 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/6/2015 10:10 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 9:12:29 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> >>
> >> Marina claimed many things, and was really trying to just get by with
> >> all the authorities standing over her seeming to have power to send her
> >> home. She also said that Oswald liked JFK.
> >>
> >
> > She is now an American citizen and no one has the power to deport her. She
> > is free to recant any and all of the testimony she gave against Oswald.
>
> How would you know? You've never talked to her.
>

If you have information that she has recanted any of her sworn testimony,
why don't you post it. Of course we all know there is no chance of that.
You prefer to resort to innuendo. That way if challenged to back it up,
you can resort to denying you ever claimed that she had. We know your act
all too well. We've seen this movie dozens of times.

> > She has never recanted any of it, including what she said about the
> > attempt on Walker's life.
> >
> >> However, we know that the MC rifle needed to be repaired before it would
> >> shoot straight,
> >
> > No it really didn't. The rifle was perfectly capable of firing a round in
> > the direction it was pointed. The scope was SLIGHTLY misalligned and we
> > don't know if it was in that condition when the shots were fired or when
> > it was dropped on the floor. Even if it was misalligned at the time of the
> > shooting, at that short a range, it would have fired a few inches high and
> > to the right. This would actually have been an advantage since he would
> > have needed to lead his target by aiming a few inches high and to the
> > right. What we do know through the ballistics matching is Oswald's rifle
> > fired the only bullets ever recovered from the assassination.
> >
>
> So you admit that it could not fire accurately,

If fired accurately enough.

> but you turn that into
> an asset. Was the rifle always jamming an asset for rapid fire?
>

The rifle didn't always jam and there is no evidence it jammed during the
assassination. That is something you have dreamed up out of thin air.

> >> and we know that Oswald never had it fixed, and the
> >> evidence is that he never intended to shoot anyone, and never did. With
> >> the faults still in the rifle when they tested it the next day, Oswald
> >> never practiced because he never fixed the rifle, and was probably not
> >> even aware that it was faulty.
> >>
> >
> > Another case of you claiming something that is unproveable. We do have the
> > testimony of Marina that he would take it out and practice. That doesn't
> > establish that he practiced with absolute certainty, but it is a good
> > indicator.
> >
> > Whatever the condition of the rifle was and whatever the state of Oswald's
> > skill set at the time of the assassination, we know through compelling
> > evidence that both were sufficient to get the job done.
> >
> Again you are begging the question.

What was the question?

[David Von Pein]

Re: Marina's "deportation".....

I want someone to tell me why being sent back to Russia would have been a
fate worse than death for Mrs. Marina Oswald in 1964?

She should probably have been *anxious* to get back to her homeland after
the assassination. She had very few friends in the USA. She couldn't speak
English very well. She had no job. So why on Earth would she fear being
"deported" so much, as many CTers seem to believe?

I would think she'd be wanting to hop on the very first plane headed for
her home. (But maybe I'm just nuts to think that way.)

[BOZ]

CAREFULLY PLACED THERE BY WHOM, TOM?

[Anthony Marsh]

Where did you get that from? The Constitution mentions Treason.

[tom...@cox.net]

YOU KEEP MAKING ASS-U-MPTIONS CORBETT


NOBODY SAID OSWALD PLACED THERIFLE THERE ! ! !
===========================================================================

==== bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 1:44:58 PM UTC-5, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > THE FBI TESTED THE RILE ON SATURDAY 11/23/63. IT FIRED HIGH AND TO

> > THE=
> =20

> > RIGHT MISSING THE TARGET BY 3THREE (3) INCHES AT 15 FEET FROM THE

> > TARGET=
> =20
> > AND, IT WAS BOLTED DOWN ! YOU DO THE MATH AT88 YARDS ! ! ! =20
> >=20

>
> Of course the bullet is going to hit high at 15 feet. The fixed sights
> were zeroed for 200 yards. I don't know what range the scope was set for,
> but I seriously doubt it was 15 feet. Bullets don't fly in a straight
> line. They arc. The arc is very slight but has to be taken into account.
> It does not follow that a bullet hitting 3 inches high at 15 feet is
> going to continue on a straight line trajectory at 88 yards and hit 52.8
> inches high (See. I did do the math). Gravity will cause the bullet to
> arc below that initial trajectory.
>
> > PS; IT WAS NOT "THROWN DOWN, IT WAS CAREFULLY PLACED THERE BECAUSE THE

> > SC=
> OPE > WAS UP (ON TOP)=20

>
> I'm sure Oswald would have carefully laid the rifle down because he
> planned on coming back and using it again. <snicker> The rifle was up
> against a row of boxes. That is why it was oriented like it was. Do you
> really think Oswald carefully placed it so that the scope would be on
> top.
>
> It really doesn't matter if the scope was misalligned before or after the
> shooting because we know that during the shooting, the rifle somehow
> managed to put two rounds on the intended target (assuming of course JFK
> was the intended target). That much is true no matter who did the
> shooting. So the condition of the rifle and the scope is a non-issue.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 6:56:48 PM UTC-5, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ===========================================================================
> ===== I SEE; NIXON GETTING CAUGHT REALLY BROKE YOUR HEART DID HE ! ! !
>

Not really. I was glad we got rid of him. Still am.

[Anthony Marsh]

Florio is making up a straw man argument to accuse me of saying
something that I never said. That's what you WC defenders do. Because
you can't argue honestly.

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 7:58:27 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:

> On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 1:44:58 PM UTC-5, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > THE FBI TESTED THE RILE ON SATURDAY 11/23/63. IT FIRED HIGH AND TO THE
> > RIGHT MISSING THE TARGET BY 3THREE (3) INCHES AT 15 FEET FROM THE TARGET
> > AND, IT WAS BOLTED DOWN ! YOU DO THE MATH AT88 YARDS ! ! !
> >
>
> Of course the bullet is going to hit high at 15 feet. The fixed sights
> were zeroed for 200 yards. I don't know what range the scope was set for,
> but I seriously doubt it was 15 feet. Bullets don't fly in a straight
> line. They arc. The arc is very slight but has to be taken into account.
> It does not follow that a bullet hitting 3 inches high at 15 feet is going
> to continue on a straight line trajectory at 88 yards and hit 52.8 inches
> high (See. I did do the math). Gravity will cause the bullet to arc below
> that initial trajectory.
>

Wrong as usual! The MC rifle had more than just the scope wrong with
it. It also had a sticky bolt that threw off the tester's aim each time
they chambered a bullet. And it had a double-pull trigger. All these
faults would make rapid shooting impossible while aiming too.

> > PS; IT WAS NOT "THROWN DOWN, IT WAS CAREFULLY PLACED THERE BECAUSE THE SCOPE > WAS UP (ON TOP)
>
> I'm sure Oswald would have carefully laid the rifle down because he
> planned on coming back and using it again. <snicker> The rifle was up
> against a row of boxes. That is why it was oriented like it was. Do you
> really think Oswald carefully placed it so that the scope would be on top.
>
> It really doesn't matter if the scope was misalligned before or after the
> shooting because we know that during the shooting, the rifle somehow
> managed to put two rounds on the intended target (assuming of course JFK
> was the intended target). That much is true no matter who did the
> shooting. So the condition of the rifle and the scope is a non-issue.

Nope, wrong again! We DO NOT know that Oswald put "two rounds on the
intended target". There is no proof whatsoever that ANY MC bullet hit or
hurt anyone, and you've failed when you tried to prove otherwise.

In one respect the faults with the MC rifle were indeed non-issues,
since the purpose of shooting it out the window was only to satisfy the
forensics, and to make it known to folks in the plaza that the shooter was
in the TSBD building, when there really were shooters all over the place,
one o which fired the actual kill shot from forward of the limo.

All that can be backed up if anyone wants the links or proofs.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Oh, give it up! Completely different situation. In the JFK case there
is all kinds of doubt as to the bullets and what (if anything) they did to
anyone. Where they were found is in doubt and what they did are unknown.
One bullet (CE399) is shown to be a test bullet and ID of it was refused
by 4 men that had handled the original bullet that was no longer in
custody. The other probably hit the chrome bar over the windshield and
broke into 2 parts, which fell don into the front seat of the limo.

The issue is also outstanding that there were other shooters in the JFK
case, there fore the bullets become more important.

Chris

[BOZ]

This is injurious treatment of a sacred person. Mr Von Pein should be
prosecuted for this one.

[BOZ]

Marina wanted to stay in Texas.

[Anthony Marsh]

It is a logical fallacy to demand that someone prove a negative.
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

> useful for you to live with yourself, but using it out here with us is
> another story. You've been given a number of reasons to believe that
> Oswald didn't buy ammunition. First, he chose not to buy any from Klein's
> when he got the rifle, and the ad itself mentioned clearly the ammunition
> and even a clip, which we don't know if he had. And second, the FBI
> searched the area for anyone that might have the right kind of ammunition,
> of which there were 2 places, and both of them did not sell to Oswald.
> Third, Oswald never did any practicing with the rifle because it was still
> in faulty condition when it was tested the day after the murder. Another
> fact that points to his not using the rifle or intending to.
>

We don't know what the condition of the rifle was during the
assassination. We just know that it was a cheap piece of junk.

[mainframetech]

Apparently you had no clue how life was in Russia in 1963. While there
were some benefits from a communist society, in the long run communism
doesn't work with humans, only ants and bees. Life was bleak and
colorless. The pictures should tell you that. Marina had plenty of time
here in the states, and had children too, and she knew what she had living
here. When she got married, did she talk her new husband into going to
Russia? No.

The prospect is ridiculous!

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 1:24:55 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:25:17 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 2/6/2015 10:10 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 9:12:29 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Marina claimed many things, and was really trying to just get by with
> > >> all the authorities standing over her seeming to have power to send her
> > >> home. She also said that Oswald liked JFK.
> > >>
> > >
> > > She is now an American citizen and no one has the power to deport her. She
> > > is free to recant any and all of the testimony she gave against Oswald.
> >
> > How would you know? You've never talked to her.
> >
>
> If you have information that she has recanted any of her sworn testimony,
> why don't you post it. Of course we all know there is no chance of that.
> You prefer to resort to innuendo. That way if challenged to back it up,
> you can resort to denying you ever claimed that she had. We know your act
> all too well. We've seen this movie dozens of times.
>

Why would she recant? Most people won't correct their lies if they got
by with them. She isn't being threatened in any way for lying, why go back
and admit that she was lying through her teeth and was a sucker for the
authorities back then?

>
> > > She has never recanted any of it, including what she said about the
> > > attempt on Walker's life.
> > >
> > >> However, we know that the MC rifle needed to be repaired before it would
> > >> shoot straight,
> > >
> > > No it really didn't. The rifle was perfectly capable of firing a round in
> > > the direction it was pointed. The scope was SLIGHTLY misalligned and we
> > > don't know if it was in that condition when the shots were fired or when
> > > it was dropped on the floor. Even if it was misalligned at the time of the
> > > shooting, at that short a range, it would have fired a few inches high and
> > > to the right. This would actually have been an advantage since he would
> > > have needed to lead his target by aiming a few inches high and to the
> > > right. What we do know through the ballistics matching is Oswald's rifle
> > > fired the only bullets ever recovered from the assassination.
> > >
> >
> > So you admit that it could not fire accurately,
>
> If fired accurately enough.
>

Not really, but it didn't matter, because the conspirators didn't care
if they hit anything with the MC rifle or not. As long as it was seen
from the street and fired shots into Dealey Plaza, they were happy. They
had other shooters to do the deed.

> > but you turn that into
> > an asset. Was the rifle always jamming an asset for rapid fire?
> >
>
> The rifle didn't always jam and there is no evidence it jammed during the
> assassination. That is something you have dreamed up out of thin air.
>

True, but then it didn't have to hit anyone or be accurate. There were
other shooters to take care of that.

> > >> and we know that Oswald never had it fixed, and the
> > >> evidence is that he never intended to shoot anyone, and never did. With
> > >> the faults still in the rifle when they tested it the next day, Oswald
> > >> never practiced because he never fixed the rifle, and was probably not
> > >> even aware that it was faulty.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Another case of you claiming something that is unproveable. We do have the
> > > testimony of Marina that he would take it out and practice. That doesn't
> > > establish that he practiced with absolute certainty, but it is a good
> > > indicator.
> > >
> > > Whatever the condition of the rifle was and whatever the state of Oswald's
> > > skill set at the time of the assassination, we know through compelling
> > > evidence that both were sufficient to get the job done.
> > >
> > Again you are begging the question.
>
> What was the question?

The question that hangs over your head. How did the killing get
accomplished? Which has been (for the most part) been answered for you.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/9/2015 1:37 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> Re: Marina's "deportation".....
>
> I want someone to tell me why being sent back to Russia would have been a
> fate worse than death for Mrs. Marina Oswald in 1964?
>

Do we really have to explain to you how miserable life was in Russia and
why so many people wanted to leave? And maybe it was death itself that
she feared. Or prison in a Gulag.

> She should probably have been *anxious* to get back to her homeland after
> the assassination. She had very few friends in the USA. She couldn't speak
> English very well. She had no job. So why on Earth would she fear being
> "deported" so much, as many CTers seem to believe?
>

I see you've never been to Russia.
Why do you think so many Russians defected to the West and only a
handful defected TO Russia?

> I would think she'd be wanting to hop on the very first plane headed for
> her home. (But maybe I'm just nuts to think that way.)
>

Like the Jews eagerly getting on the cattle cars for their free vacation
in Treblinka?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/9/2015 1:24 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:25:17 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 2/6/2015 10:10 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 9:12:29 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Marina claimed many things, and was really trying to just get by with
>>>> all the authorities standing over her seeming to have power to send her
>>>> home. She also said that Oswald liked JFK.
>>>>
>>>
>>> She is now an American citizen and no one has the power to deport her. She
>>> is free to recant any and all of the testimony she gave against Oswald.
>>
>> How would you know? You've never talked to her.
>>
>
> If you have information that she has recanted any of her sworn testimony,

Recant what? What YOU imagine?

> why don't you post it. Of course we all know there is no chance of that.
> You prefer to resort to innuendo. That way if challenged to back it up,
> you can resort to denying you ever claimed that she had. We know your act
> all too well. We've seen this movie dozens of times.
>

You prefer to be vague. Somewhere about 223.
That way when challenged you can deny everything.

>
>>> She has never recanted any of it, including what she said about the
>>> attempt on Walker's life.
>>>
>>>> However, we know that the MC rifle needed to be repaired before it would
>>>> shoot straight,
>>>
>>> No it really didn't. The rifle was perfectly capable of firing a round in
>>> the direction it was pointed. The scope was SLIGHTLY misalligned and we
>>> don't know if it was in that condition when the shots were fired or when
>>> it was dropped on the floor. Even if it was misalligned at the time of the
>>> shooting, at that short a range, it would have fired a few inches high and
>>> to the right. This would actually have been an advantage since he would
>>> have needed to lead his target by aiming a few inches high and to the
>>> right. What we do know through the ballistics matching is Oswald's rifle
>>> fired the only bullets ever recovered from the assassination.
>>>
>>
>> So you admit that it could not fire accurately,
>
> If fired accurately enough.
>
>> but you turn that into
>> an asset. Was the rifle always jamming an asset for rapid fire?
>>
>
> The rifle didn't always jam and there is no evidence it jammed during the
> assassination. That is something you have dreamed up out of thin air.
>

I didn't say always. Just for rapid fire.

>>>> and we know that Oswald never had it fixed, and the
>>>> evidence is that he never intended to shoot anyone, and never did. With
>>>> the faults still in the rifle when they tested it the next day, Oswald
>>>> never practiced because he never fixed the rifle, and was probably not
>>>> even aware that it was faulty.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Another case of you claiming something that is unproveable. We do have the
>>> testimony of Marina that he would take it out and practice. That doesn't
>>> establish that he practiced with absolute certainty, but it is a good
>>> indicator.
>>>
>>> Whatever the condition of the rifle was and whatever the state of Oswald's
>>> skill set at the time of the assassination, we know through compelling
>>> evidence that both were sufficient to get the job done.
>>>
>> Again you are begging the question.
>
> What was the question?

Your false conclusion that Oswald was the shooter.

>
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

No, anybody can see that you are the one claiming that he said something
that he clearly did not.

I'm amazed that you so brazenly deny something that is obvious to anyone
who cares to read the thread.

You must be assuming that very few people care what you say, and you
would be right about that.

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:25:17 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 2/6/2015 10:10 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 9:12:29 PM UTC-5, mainframetech
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Marina claimed many things, and was really trying to just get by

> > >> w=

> ith
> > >> all the authorities standing over her seeming to have power to send

> > >> he=

> r
> > >> home. She also said that Oswald liked JFK.
> > >>
> > >
> > > She is now an American citizen and no one has the power to deport

> > > her. =

> She
> > > is free to recant any and all of the testimony she gave against
> > > Oswald.

> >=20

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

> >=20

>
> If you have information that she has recanted any of her sworn testimony,
> why don't you post it. Of course we all know there is no chance of that.
> You prefer to resort to innuendo. That way if challenged to back it up,
> you can resort to denying you ever claimed that she had. We know your act
> all too well. We've seen this movie dozens of times.
>

> =20

> > > She has never recanted any of it, including what she said about the
> > > attempt on Walker's life.
> > >
> > >> However, we know that the MC rifle needed to be repaired before

> > >> it =

> would
> > >> shoot straight,
> > >
> > > No it really didn't. The rifle was perfectly capable of firing a

> > > round =

> in
> > > the direction it was pointed. The scope was SLIGHTLY misalligned and
> > > we don't know if it was in that condition when the shots were fired

> > > or whe=

> n
> > > it was dropped on the floor. Even if it was misalligned at the time

> > > of =

> the
> > > shooting, at that short a range, it would have fired a few inches

> > > high =

> and
> > > to the right. This would actually have been an advantage since he
> > > would have needed to lead his target by aiming a few inches high and
> > > to the right. What we do know through the ballistics matching is

> > > Oswald's rifl=

> e
> > > fired the only bullets ever recovered from the assassination.
> > >

> >=20
> > So you admit that it could not fire accurately,=20
>
> If fired accurately enough.
>
> > but you turn that into=20

> > an asset. Was the rifle always jamming an asset for rapid fire?

> >=20

>
> The rifle didn't always jam and there is no evidence it jammed during the
> assassination. That is something you have dreamed up out of thin air.
>
> > >> and we know that Oswald never had it fixed, and the
> > >> evidence is that he never intended to shoot anyone, and never did.

> > >> Wi=

> th
> > >> the faults still in the rifle when they tested it the next day,
> > >> Oswald never practiced because he never fixed the rifle, and was
> > >> probably not even aware that it was faulty.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Another case of you claiming something that is unproveable. We do

> > > have =

> the
> > > testimony of Marina that he would take it out and practice. That

> > > doesn'=

> t
> > > establish that he practiced with absolute certainty, but it is a good
> > > indicator.
> > >
> > > Whatever the condition of the rifle was and whatever the state of

> > > Oswal=

> d's
> > > skill set at the time of the assassination, we know through
> > > compelling evidence that both were sufficient to get the job done.
> > >
> > Again you are begging the question.
>
> What was the question

===========================================================================
==== =THE QUESTION TO YOU IS; HAVE YOU EVER RED FBI AGENT ROBERT FRAZIER'S
TESTIMONY THAT CE-139 WAS "N OT" FIRED ON FRIDAY 11-22-63 ? ? ? ?
===========================================================================
======

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
= YOUR CLAIM OF DISRESPPECT OF RICHARD NIXON IN NOT BELIEVABLE ! ! !
===========================================================================
=====

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
===== NOBODY KNOWS DEAG;E ! ! !
===========================================================================
======

[bigdog]

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 5:18:37 PM UTC-5, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> YOU KEEP MAKING ASS-U-MPTIONS CORBETT
>
>
> NOBODY SAID OSWALD PLACED THERIFLE THERE ! ! !

It's not an assumption. Oswald placed the rifle there shortly after he
shot JFK with it. We have ample evidence to establish that and it's all in
your "official records".

[bigdog]

IRONY ALERT!!! IRONY ALERT!!! IRONY ALERT!!!

THIS IS NOT A DRILL!!!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/8/2015 7:58 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 1:44:58 PM UTC-5, tom...@cox.net wrote:
>> THE FBI TESTED THE RILE ON SATURDAY 11/23/63. IT FIRED HIGH AND TO THE
>> RIGHT MISSING THE TARGET BY 3THREE (3) INCHES AT 15 FEET FROM THE TARGET
>> AND, IT WAS BOLTED DOWN ! YOU DO THE MATH AT88 YARDS ! ! !
>>
>
> Of course the bullet is going to hit high at 15 feet. The fixed sights
> were zeroed for 200 yards. I don't know what range the scope was set for,

Wrong. We do know that the scope was set for 200 meters. In case you
didn't know it meters are not the same as yards.

> but I seriously doubt it was 15 feet. Bullets don't fly in a straight
> line. They arc. The arc is very slight but has to be taken into account.

For the Carcano the arc is very high and has to be taken into account.
Dave Emary on the Carcano:

SHOOTING THE 6.5 X 52 mm, 7.35 x 51mm CARTRIDGES AND THE CARCANO RIFLES

October 2002





The 6.5 X 52 mm cartridge has been largely ignored by both the shooting
public and the industry despite large numbers of rifles in the publics
hands. The 7.35 x 51 mm cartridge is even more obscure because of its’
step child status in history and its’ virtual total lack of interest by
the shooting industry. The Carcano rifles have been largely ignored by
military rifle collectors and have unjustly received much unfavorable
press and commentary. This article will discuss the characteristics of
the 6.5 X 52 mm and 7.35 x 51mm cartridges as well as the Carcano rifles
and how to extract the most performance from each. Misunderstood
characteristics of the Carcano rifles and unsubstantiated claims about
safety and quality of the rifles will be discussed. Methods and
components used by the author to extract the best accuracy and shooting
pleasure from the ammunition and rifles will be detailed. The shooting
and loading characteristics discussed will be from the view point of a
collector desiring to reproduce the military specification performance
as closely as possible with available components, striving for best
accuracy.





THE CARTRIDGES:



6.5 X 52 mm:



The 6.5 X 52 mm cartridge was the primary small arms cartridge of the
Italian military from the late 19th century until 1945 and was used in a
reserve capacity well into the 1970’s. The cartridge was the first in a
series of 6.5 mm military cartridges designed in the 1890’s. It was the
first military cartridge to use a low errosivity, smokeless propellant,
called Solenite. The cartridge was initially loaded with a double base
propellant that was licensed from Dynamit Nobel called Ballistite.
Ballistite had a very high percentage of nitroglycerine and it was found
early on that the high flame temperature of the Ballistite caused
excessive throat erosion. The Ballistite also showed problems with
propellant stability at temperature extremes, which was unacceptable for
a military applications. Solenite was also a double base propellant but
with a significantly lower percentage of nitroglyserine. The lower
nitroglycerine and other additives dramatically improved the errosivity
of Solenite and it was adopted as the standard propellant in 1896. It is
interesting to note that a nearly identical propellant was adopted by
Great Britain in 1901 known as Cordite. The primary loading for the
cartridge throughout its service was a 162-grain full metal jacket,
round nose bullet measuring nominally .267” diameter, and 35.2 grains of
Solenite. It is interesting to note the method I believe was used to
load cartridges. I had long wondered how the extremely course large
grain propellant was loaded in the small 6.5 mm neck. After doing some
research I found that the British loaded the .303 round by loading the
Cordite in a straight wall cartridge, then necking the cartridge to it’s
final dimensions and then loading the bullet. This would have obviously
been the same method the Italians used to load the 6.5 X 52.

A strain gage was fitted to a TERNI 91/41 rifle with an excellent
condition bore and several lots of military surplus ammunition were
tested. Measured pressures varied from 40,000 to 42,000 psi. Nominal
muzzle velocities of the military ammunition vary from 2,130 fps / 649
m/s in the 17 3/4” barreled carbines to 2,295 fps / 700 m/s in the 30
11/16” barreled M91 rifle. The same ammunition was tested in a Committee
Internationale Permannette (CIP) minimum specification test barrel with
a piezo electric transducer and the ammunition tested 50,000 to 52,000 psi.

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

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





7.35 x 51 mm



In 1938 the Italians introduced the new M38 Series of rifles and
carbines, as well as a new cartridge the 7.35 X 51mm. The cartridge is
simply the 6.5 X 52 necked up to .30 caliber. The cartridge is a true
.30 caliber, with the military issue ammunition having a nominal bullet
diameter of .299” - .300”. The cartridge came about as a result of the
desire for a flatter shooting more lethal round. To facilitate these
ends the bullet employed an aluminum core in the tip of the bullet,
above a core of lead. This type of bullet design had been more than
demonstrated by the British in the 174 grain bullet used in the .303
service round. This moved the center of gravity towards the rear of the
bullet thereby causing the bullet to be substantially less stable. The
bullets tumbled easily on impact causing far more traumatic wounds than
the 160 grain round nose of the 6.5 X 52.

The pressure specification for the 7.35 X 51 was identical to the 6.5 X
52. The round was loaded with a 128 grain full metal jacket spitzer
bullet and nominally 40.9 grains of a single base, extruded propellant.
This type of propellant is essentially the same as the U.S. IMR type
propellants. The single base, low flame temperature propellant along
with the modest operating pressures made for very long barrel life. The
round produced velocities of approximately 2,480 fps / 756 m/s in an M38
Short Rifle and approximately 2,410 fps / 735 m/s in the M38 Cavalry and
T.S. carbines.

The Italian Army planned to convert to the 7.35 X 51 caliber but stopped
in 1940, not being prepared for the War to begin as soon as it did. They
could not logistically support both calibers of weapons and could not
build 7.35 mm rifles fast enough to meet the demand once the war began.
According to Dick Hobb’s research, units of the Italian 8th Army going
into Russia in 1942 were issued 7.35 caliber Carcanos, but the guns were
immediately exchanged for 6.5 caliber weapons. Subsequently most of the
existing 7.35 M38 Short Rifles were given to the Finnish army and put to
good use by the Finns. All T.S. and Cavalry carbines were retained in
Italy. The M38 Cavalry carbines were given to a paramilitary youth
organization for training.

The 7.35 X 51 is ballistically nearly identical to the .30-30 in terms
of energy but shoots flatter because of the higher velocity and higher
ballistic coefficient bullet. Had the Italians been able to field the
7.35 X 51 mm it would certainly have proved a very effective combat
rifle for the time. The guns were light and easy to carry the wounding
capabilities of the bullet were substantial. The ammunition produced
mild recoil and essentially was the precursor to modern assault rifle
ammunition, first fielded by the Germans in the 7.9 X 33mm. The design
criteria being, a lightweight bullet/round fired at a modest velocity,
larger quantities of ammunition carried by the soldier, and easy for
anyone to shoot.





CARCANO RIFLES:



I will not attempt to make any detailed discussion of the many varieties
of Carcano rifles. For those interested in that I will refer them to
Richard Hobbs’ excellent book “The Carcano, Italy’s Military Rifle”. I
will discuss some specific characteristics of the Carcano design in
general and show how out of ignorance some of these have led to much of
the bad press this rifle has received.

To begin this discussion the caliber of a rifle refers to the diameter
of the bore of the barrel, or the diameter across the lands of the
rifling. In the case of the Carcano rifles and for that matter every
other 6.50mm caliber rifle this dimension is generally accepted as
.257”. The CIP minimum specification diameter for the 6.5 mm Carcano
barrel is .256 in / 6.50mm. The groove diameter of the barrel is where a
considerable amount of ignorance arises in the Carcano rifle. Nearly
every other 6.5mm caliber has a groove diameter of .263 - .264”. The
exceptions to this are the 6.5 X 54 MS with a .266” groove and the
Carcano with a CIP minimum specification groove diameter of .2677” /
6.80mm. I do not know what the production tolerances were for the
Carcano, but based on my knowledge of current rifle manufacturing
practice a tolerance of at least +.001” would be used for these
dimensions. I have slugged the barrels of approximately 20 different
types of Carcano rifles from 3 different manufacturers and have found
barrel diameters in good condition rifles typically running from .2680”
to .2690”. I have a 91-24 that has a groove diameter of .2710”. This
rifle still has strong rifling and a somewhat shiny bore, but has seen a
lot of use. Until very recently this bit of information has totally
escaped the shooting sports industry. No bullets of the correct size
were available, with the exception of only a few small bullet makers.
This problem almost entirely has resulted in the Carcano being
categorically called an inaccurate, poorly manufactured rifle. In fact
noting could be further from the truth. 6.5 Carcano owners now have
available to them as of the summer of 2002 an excellent .2675” 160 round
nose bullet specifically designed for the 6.5 Carcano. This bullet is
being offered by Hornady Manufacturing. The bullet is also being offered
in ammunition loaded by Hornady for Graf & Sons.

A similar discussion applies to the 7.35 X 51 mm cartridge. The diameter
of the grooves of the 7.35 X 51 mm typically run .300” - .301”. The
diameter across the lands typically runs .290” - .291”. There is no
specification for the 7.35 X 51 mm because no major manufacturer has
ever had any interest in standardizing the cartridge. I have slugged the
barrels of my two 7.35 Carcanos and one measures .300” and the other
measures .301”. Several small bullet makers make appropriately sized
bullets for the 7.35 X 51 mm. Bullets for the cartridge should be .299 -
.300” in diameter.

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

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

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

The best case I can make for the strength of the Carcano was a personal
experience attempting to blow one up for a hunter safety course video. I
was asked by the Department of Game and Fish of New Mexico about 12
years ago to help them with this. At the time I was one of the ones
ignorant about the Carcano, believing it to be a weak action and easy to
take apart. Well, the morale to this story was a full case of Bullseye
failed to do anything significant to the action or barrel. We finally
had to fill a cartridge case with C4 explosive and detonate it to get
anything that looked like what we wanted. One other incident I have
experienced with the Carcano further convinces me of the great strength
of these actions. In my early experiments with .268” bullets, and
loading data for them, I had several incidents of extreme pressure. The
bolt had to be opened with a hammer and the cartridge case appeared to
be a belted magnum. The headspace of the gun had grown slightly but
otherwise was fine and has been fired many times since. I know from my
experience as a ballistician that pressures in excess of 90,000 psi are
required to do this type of damage to a cartridge case. A good condition
Carcano rifle is as safe and strong as any other military bolt-action
rifle you will encounter. This incident will be discussed later, as it
was caused by propellants that should not be used in the 6.5 X 52
because of their ignition characteristics.

As far as quality of the rifles goes I have seen quite a spectrum,
mostly due to condition or wear of the rifle. The production quality
does seem to vary some from the different manufacturers in terms of fit
and finish, just as Mausers do. However, I have several Beretta Gardone
manufactured rifles in excellent condition that have as tight and smooth
an action as any VZ 24 I have ever seen.

One design feature of curiosity on the Carcano is the recess cut in the
bolt face and the recess in the rear face of the issue cartridge cases.
As I understand from the Italian information on the rifle the initial
cartridge case had intermittent problems with primer pockets leaking
gas. The recessed groove in the cartridges served to crimp in the primer
and provide a gas trap. The groove in the bolt face served further as a
gas trap and to increase the sealing pressure between the cartridge and
bolt face as I will discuss below. Subsequent future improvements in
cartridge case metallurgy and manufacturing probably solved this
problem. I can offer one other benefit it would have for a military
rifle. This groove collects dirt and gunk that might accumulate on the
bolt face or be introduced by a dirty cartridge. It would allow a
considerable amount of dirt to be present and the bolt still close and
the gun function.

The groove in the bolt face both creates a higher contact pressure
between the bolt face and cartridge head as well as create a very useful
situation for the hand loader. Because of the groove in the bolt the
surface area contact between the bolt face and cartridge head is
significantly reduced. This serves to magnify the contact pressure that
exists between the bolt face and cartridge case during firing. The
increased pressure makes it more difficult for gas to escape if the
primer or primer pocket happens to leak. This condition also serves as a
safety valve for the hand loader. In effect it exaggerates the force the
rear of the cartridge experiences. This also increases the friction
between the cartridge and bolt. In the Carcano you will feel stiff bolt
lift long before you have reached any kind of dangerous pressure. This
in no way makes the gun weak it is simply a by product of early efforts
to solve what was primarily a cartridge case problem.





SIGHTS:



6.5 mm



6.5 mm Carcanos were equiped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
era Carcano’s sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum
height of trajectory of approximately 15” – 17” at a range of 175 to 200
yards, depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian
soldiers life was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head

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

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

Following is a table of different models of rifles with all the
information needed to properly set one up with the sights regulated for
the military issue type load, approximately a 160 grain bullet at 2,100
to 2,250 fps depending on barrel length. The table lists the approximate
muzzle velocity for the different types of rifles with issue ammunition,
the battle zero range, the front sight elevation/windage adjustment
necessary to move the point of impact 1” at 100 yards and the proper
height of trajectory at 100 yards for the given battle zero range.


TRAJECTORY COMPARISON FOR THE 6.5 X 52 mm CARTRIDGE



M91 CAV/TS M38 CAV/TS M38 SR M41 M91

M91-24/28

RIFLE:



MUZZLE

VELOCITY: 2,110 2,110 2,150 2,225 2,270

(FPS)



BATTLE ZERO: 300 200 200 200 300

(METERS)



SIGHT RADIUS: 14.25” 14.25” 17” 23” 26.4”



FRONT SIGHT

ADJUSMENT FOR .002” .002” .0025” .0035” .004”

1” @ 100 YARDS:



H.O.T. FOR BATTLE

ZERO @ 100 YARDS: 13.75” 6.5” 5.75” 5.25” 11.5”





For those wishing to do their own trajectory calculations the ballistic
coefficient for the Italian 162 grain FMJ RN bullet is approximately
.275. A gun can be set up to be zeroed at 100 yards with the proper
height front sight. You will probably have difficulty finding Carcano
sights tall enough to accomplish this. To raise the point of impact the
front sight must be lowered and just the opposite is required to lower
the point of impact. To move the point of impact left or right the front
sight must be moved in the direction it is off. Mauser front sights are
a bit loose in the Carcano but can be made to work.





7.35 mm



The sights on the 7.35 Carcano rifles are identical to the M38 6.5 mm
rifles. The three models of rifles produced all had a fixed battle zero
of 200 meters. With the military issue 128 grain FMJ load the 200 meter
zero gives the rifle a maximum height of trajectory of approximately 4”
at a range of 100 yards. The bullet is approximately 11” low at 300
yards. The practical result of this is that by holding on the middle of
the torso of the target, a soldier was certain of a body hit out to a
range of approximately 270 meters, approximately 50 meters further than
the 6.5 mm cartridge.

The table below gives the same trajectory comparison for the 7.35 X 51
as the above 6.5 X 52 table. The figures shown are for a nominal 128 –
130 grain bullet with a ballistic coefficient of .285.
TRAJECTORY COMPARISON FOR THE 7.35 X 51 mm CARTRIDGE





RIFLE: M38 SR M38 Cavalry/T.S.



MUZZLE

VELOCITY: 2,480 2,410

(FPS)



BATTLE ZERO: 200 200

(METERS)



SIGHT RADIUS: 17” 14.25”



FRONT SIGHT

ADJUSMENT FOR .0025” .002”

1” @ 100 YARDS:



H.O.T. FOR BATTLE

ZERO @ 100 YARDS: 4” 4.5”







RELOADING:



6.5 x 52 mm:



The 6.5 mm Carcano presents several peculiarities when it comes to
reloading. First, as I stated above, the military issue bullets were
nominally .267” diameter. The only .264 “ bullet I have ever achieved
any kind of reasonable results with is the Hornady 160 grain RN. This is
due to the bullets long bearing surface. Even with this bullet I have
some rifles that are hard pressed to shoot less than 5” at 100 yards.
Shooting .264” spitzer pointed bullets in the Carcano is an exercise in
futility.



.264” bullets are fine for informal plinking, etc. To get accuracy from
the Carcano rifles and ammunition .267 - .268” diameter bullets must be
used.



CAUTION: .268” bullets should not be used in any Vetterli rifle, which
is intended for Black Powder loads.



As discussed earlier in the article some exciting things have happened
for the Carcano owner in the summer of 2002. Hornady introduced a .2675”
purpose built bullet for the 6.5 X 52. In addition, in the fall of 2002
Graf & Sons began selling Hornady ammunition loaded with the same
bullet. The ammunition uses the excellent Privi Partizan cartridge case.
Graf & Sons is also selling the cases as a component. Hornady has
updated their reloading die set to accommodate the bigger diameter bullet.

Reloading dies present some issues for the 6.5 X 52. The current
specifications for the 6.5 X 52 mm Carcano were developed by CIP. I have
found that the specification for minimum chamber dimensions does not
match that of a large number of rifles. The problem is in the minimum
diameter of the breech end of the chamber. The minimum CIP dimension for
this is .451”. After casting the chambers of a number of rifles I have
found chambers with this dimension as small as .4485”. There are also
rifles that are within the CIP specification. The largest chambers I
have observed measure .4535”. All other chamber dimensions have been
within the specification. I do not know how this discrepancy has come
about. It could be an error in the CIP specification from the original
Italian manufacturing practices or a result of original chamber reamers
being sharpened too many times. I have also observed this dimesional
discrepancy in 7.35 X 51 chambers.

The result of this is that reloading dies made per the CIP
specifications are not correctly dimensioned for the tighter chambered
rifles. Because of this the dies will not size the base of the cartridge
enough to allow proper chambering in many rifles. I have only used
Hornady dies so I can’t speak for other manufacturers, but as of the
time of this writing Hornady is offering dies that account for this
problem. Reloading dies should be made for a maximum cartridge base
diameter of .447”. Figure 1. shows a drawing of a maximum cartridge
based on the observed chambers. The correct headspace range is also
shown for a .375” shoulder datum. This will allow you to check the
headspace of your rifle with the Stoney Point headspace gages. I have
used Hornady 7.35 X 51 mm New Dimension dies and have not had the
resizing chambering problems like what have been encountered with the
6.5 X 52.

Figure 1.



.



Norma 6.5 Carcano cases are very high quality. However, the cases
extractor groove is narrower than the original specifications called
for. The Norma cases will not function well. The feeding and ejection is
difficult if not impossible in some guns. The narrow extractor groove
tends to bind up in the stripper clip, compromising feeding, and also
binds on the extractor during ejection. The recently imported Privi
Partizan cases, also used in the Hornady ammunition, have correct
extractor groove width. I have used these cases extensively and they
function flawlessly.

For my shooting of the Carcano rifle I have used Hornady .2675” 160 gr
RN bullet. These bullets are nearly an exact copy of the profile of the
original 162 gr FMJ bullet. These bullets have produced excellent
accuracy in a number of rifles, 1.5 “ groups at 100 yards being the norm
instead of the exception. The only other .268” diameter production
bullets I am aware of are offered by Buffalo Arms. See the excellent
Carcano homepage for the address.

At this point in time a somewhat in depth discussion of the interior
ballistics of the 6.5 X 52 is required as it pertains to the use of the
.2675” bullet as well as primer and propellant selection. As I discussed
above, when talking about the strength of the Carcano rifle, I mentioned
some very high pressure rounds I had experienced. It wasn’t until I had
a test barrel with a pressure transducer that I was able to determine
the cause of this.

As I mentioned above Carcano ammunition in a minimum dimensioned test
barrel fires at pressures of approximately 50,000 psi. This pressure is
high enough that most any propellants will ignite and perform
acceptably. However, as I also mentioned above the same ammunition in
most Carcano rifles fires at pressures of approximately 40,000 psi. This
is because of the larger chamber and bore dimensions encountered in the
rifles. At pressures not much below this the ignition characteristics of
many slower propellants, that might be used in this cartridge, become
very erratic. With some of the larger bore guns and rougher barrels some
of these propellants can become down right dangerous.

Essentially what is happening is that the slower extruded propellants,
starting with propellants like N150, Hodgdon / IMR 4350 and slower
propellants have chemical deterrents that slow the initial burning rate
of the propellant. These deterrents also make these propellants harder
to ignite. Because of the very deep rifling in the 6.5 X 52
significantly more force is required to engrave the bullet into the
rifling with a correctly sized .2675” bullet than most other rifling
forms. This coupled with a bullet with a long bearing surface, and a
possibly rough throat, can result in a bullet that requires a lot of
initial gas pressure to engrave and keep the bullet moving while being
engraved. What can happen is the bullet will stop in the throat before
some of these propellants really get going and you then have an
obstructed bore. Not Good!

The practicle application to the 6.5 X 52 is that there are propellants
that should absolutely be avoided in this cartridge. With the .2675”
Round Nose bullet I absolutely do not recommend any extruded propellants
slower than Hodgdon Varget. Do not use Vihtavuori N150 or other extruded
propellants any slower as they exhibit very erratic ignition
characteristics. Some propellants even show this erratic performance at
maximum charges. Nearly all these propellants show erratic behavior at
charges reduced from maximum. Only use a magnum primer. The above
behavior of propellants has not been observed with Ball Powders.

Generally this behavior will not occur with .264” bullets because the
engraving forces are much lower. They also have a built in safety valve
because they allow gas to blow by the bullet because of being undersize.

I have not attempted to produce an extensive list of propellants for
reloading. Hornady has published data for the .2675” Round Nose. I will
only show the propellants I have found to be safe and offer performance
nearly the same as issue ammunition al,ong with good accuracy. Following
is a table of my pet loads.



Cartridge: 6.5 X 52 mm

Bullet: .2675” diameter Hornady 160 RN

Case: Privi Partizan

Primer: Winchester WLRM

Cartridge overall Length: 2.980”











POWDER WEIGHT M41 VELOCITY (fps) M38 CAVALRY VELOCITY (fps)



H414 37.0 gr 2,210 2,080



WC 760 38.0 gr 2,225 2,090





These are maximum loads, do not exceed.



For a starting charge do not reduce either propellant more than 5%.



Maximum case length: 2.067”

Trim Length: 2.057”

Maximum cartridge overall Length: 3.012”



The above loads were tested in the instrumented M41 rifle and are within
the pressures tested for military issue ammunition.





7.35 X 51 mm



As I discussed above the 7.35 X 51 has no current specification. It uses
a nonstandard bullet diameter. In the late 60’s Hornady made a 128 gr
Spire Point bullet in .300” diameter specifically for the 7.35 X 51. It
was discontinued after several years because of a lack of interest.



The 7.35 X 51 mm requires bullets of .299” - .301” diameter. Do not
attempt to reload this cartridge with .308” bullets.



There are several small manufacturers that offer bullets in this size
range. These manufacturers can also be found on the Carcano internet
homepage. For my testing I had a swage die made by Corbin that
reproduces the profile of the original FMJ bullets at a diameter of
.301”. I reswage Hornady .308” 150 grain FMJ BT and .310” 123 grain FMJ
bullets in this die to .301” flat base bullets. In my testing I have
found that the reswaged 150 grain bullets shoot very well. I have not
achieved as good a results with the 123 grain bullets.

No cases are currently manufactured for the 7.35 X 51 mm. However, it is
quite easy to form 7.35 X 51 mm cases by running 6.5 X 52 mm cases into
a 7.35 mm die to neck up the cases and then trimming the cases to the
proper length. The neck on the Norma 6.5 X 52 cases is quite thick as
compared to original specification ammunition. If Norma cases are used
to form 7.35 X 51 mm cases it will be necessary to turn the case necks
to a thickness of .013” maximum. If the cases are not neck turned the
loaded ammunition will not chamber in many rifles. The new Privi
Partizan cases do not have this problem and can be directly formed into
7.35 X 51 mm and trimmed. I have found these case to function flawlessly.

As of the writing of this article, October, 2002, Hornady is again
planning on bring out a .300” 128 gr bullet for the 7.35 X 51. If this
does indeed happen it will be a real shot in the arm for Carcano owners.
Support and shooting of this product will ensure the continued
availability of the bullet. FIGURE 2.



Below is a table showing the results of my testing with the bullets
described above. Again I did not attempt to develop an extensive list of
powders. I simply wanted something that would shoot well and produce
good accuracy.



Cartridge: 7.35 X 51mm

Bullet: .301” reswaged Hornady 150 grain FMJ

Case: Reformed Privi Partizan 6.5 X 52

Primer: Federal 210

Cartridge overall length: 2.980”







POWDER WEIGHT M38 SR VELOCITY (fps) M38 CAVALRY VELOCITY (fps)



N135 36.0 2,175 2,110

Benchmark 34.5 2,140 2.090

Loads shown are maximum, do not exceed.



Bullet: .301” reswaged Hornady 123 FMJ

Cartridge overall length: 2.850”

Maximum case length: 2.015”

Trim length: 2.010”







POWDER WEIGHT M38 SR VELOCITY (fps) M38 CAVALRY VELOCITY (fps)



N135 38.0 2,440 2,365

Benchmark 37.0 2,470 2,410



Loads shown are maximum, do not exceed.







SHOOTING:



6.5 x 52 mm



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

With .264” bullets the best results I have ever been able to obtain are
with the Hornady 160 gr RN. Most rifles will shoot groups with this
bullet in the 3” - 5” range at 100 yards for 5 shots. I will
occasionally get a group under 3”.

With the Hornady .2675” bullet I have been able to consistently shoot my
M41 under 2” at 100 yards with numerous groups around 1.5”. I have with
my accuracy marked M38 Short Rifle shot groups under 1” at 100 yards
with the norm being 1.5” – 2.0”. With the Cavalry and T.S. model rifles
I can typically shoot groups in the 2.0” – 3.0” range. The accuracy
shooting with the carbines is somewhat limited by the very short sight
radius.

I have never had a chambering problem with the .2675” bullets. Any
problems have been traced back to the chamber dimensions and size die as
I mentioned above.



7.35 x 51 mm



I have also found the 7.35 mm Carcano rifles to be capable of very good
accuracy with the proper bullets. With the 150 grain .301” bullets I
described above my M38 Short rifle will shoot groups typically 1.5” – 2”
at 100 yards. The same bullets in my M38 Cavalry rifle will shoot 1.5” –
2.5” at 100 yards.



CONCLUSION:



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


*A SPECIAL NOTE ON CARCANO RECEIVER STRENGTH:
The TV show " Mythbusters " ( 2007 ) tried to blow up a Carcano rifle
will little success. All manner of excessive loads proved the action
really is stronger than it looks. A plugged/welded barrel caused the
barrel to fail but the action held.

If you feel that you have an unsafe Carcano rifle /carbine due to poor
design or manufacture, I will give you $50.00 cash for the firearm and
pay for shipping to me.
Rapidrob






REFERENCE 1: “CENTENARIO DEL FUCILE ‘91” . LATERZA, ROMA 1991



REFERENCE 2: Simone, Belogi, Grimaldi: “Il ‘91” . Ravizza, Milano 1970



REFERENCE 3. Hobbs, Richard, “The Carcano, Italys Military Rifle,
Cameron Park, CA, 1996



REFERENCE 4. Lambley, Andrew, “CORDITE”, Handloaders Digest 1996, 15th
Edition
Re-post of article by Dave Emery.

> It does not follow that a bullet hitting 3 inches high at 15 feet is going
> to continue on a straight line trajectory at 88 yards and hit 52.8 inches
> high (See. I did do the math). Gravity will cause the bullet to arc below
> that initial trajectory.
>

That's not fair. The kid knows nothing about exterior ballistics.

>> PS; IT WAS NOT "THROWN DOWN, IT WAS CAREFULLY PLACED THERE BECAUSE THE SCOPE > WAS UP (ON TOP)
>
> I'm sure Oswald would have carefully laid the rifle down because he
> planned on coming back and using it again. <snicker> The rifle was up
> against a row of boxes. That is why it was oriented like it was. Do you
> really think Oswald carefully placed it so that the scope would be on top.
>
> It really doesn't matter if the scope was misalligned before or after the
> shooting because we know that during the shooting, the rifle somehow
> managed to put two rounds on the intended target (assuming of course JFK
> was the intended target). That much is true no matter who did the
> shooting. So the condition of the rifle and the scope is a non-issue.
>

No. You ASSuME that. You are begging the question.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe he stole it. Maybe a conspirator gave it to him.
Maybe he was being supplied by the Confederacy.

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
===== MARINA'S DAUGHTERS (JUNE/RACHAEL) WOULD STAY IN THIS COUNTRY AS
AMERICAN CITIZENS ! ! ! PS; MARINA IS STILL VERY PROTECTIVE OF HER
DAUGHTERS AND HER ON MARK ! ! !
===========================================================================
=====

[BOZ]

Marsh, the fact that Oswald bought a cheap rifle is evidence that Oswald
didn't have any money to buy a better one.

[Jason Burke]

Frazier was a commie?

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 10:18:58 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 1:24:55 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> >
> > If you have information that she has recanted any of her sworn testimony,
> > why don't you post it. Of course we all know there is no chance of that.
> > You prefer to resort to innuendo. That way if challenged to back it up,
> > you can resort to denying you ever claimed that she had. We know your act
> > all too well. We've seen this movie dozens of times.
> >
> Why would she recant? Most people won't correct their lies if they got
> by with them. She isn't being threatened in any way for lying, why go back
> and admit that she was lying through her teeth and was a sucker for the
> authorities back then?
>

So this gives you license to just assume she lied even though you have no
such evidence.

> > > > She has never recanted any of it, including what she said about the
> > > > attempt on Walker's life.
> > > >
> > > >> However, we know that the MC rifle needed to be repaired before it would
> > > >> shoot straight,
> > > >
> > > > No it really didn't. The rifle was perfectly capable of firing a round in
> > > > the direction it was pointed. The scope was SLIGHTLY misalligned and we
> > > > don't know if it was in that condition when the shots were fired or when
> > > > it was dropped on the floor. Even if it was misalligned at the time of the
> > > > shooting, at that short a range, it would have fired a few inches high and
> > > > to the right. This would actually have been an advantage since he would
> > > > have needed to lead his target by aiming a few inches high and to the
> > > > right. What we do know through the ballistics matching is Oswald's rifle
> > > > fired the only bullets ever recovered from the assassination.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you admit that it could not fire accurately,
> >
> > If fired accurately enough.
> >
>
>
> Not really, but it didn't matter, because the conspirators didn't care
> if they hit anything with the MC rifle or not. As long as it was seen
> from the street and fired shots into Dealey Plaza, they were happy. They
> had other shooters to do the deed.

So there plan was to frame a lone gunman by firing a few shots from the
TSBD, and then opening up with a barrage from all around DP? And you can't
see any problems with that?

Since you have disputed that the two recovered bullets from the shooting
actually hit JFK because we can't prove that those bullets hit anybody, do
you have proof that any of these other bullets that rained down on DP hit
anybody? Just asking.

>
>
> > > but you turn that into
> > > an asset. Was the rifle always jamming an asset for rapid fire?
> > >
> >
> > The rifle didn't always jam and there is no evidence it jammed during the
> > assassination. That is something you have dreamed up out of thin air.
> >

> True, but then it didn't have to hit anyone or be accurate. There were
> other shooters to take care of that.
>

Other shooters for which there is no physical evidence and no eyewitness.
There were the Phantoms of Dealey Plaza. Sounds like a good title for a
book. Maybe they could even make it into a musical.

>
>
> > > >> and we know that Oswald never had it fixed, and the
> > > >> evidence is that he never intended to shoot anyone, and never did. With
> > > >> the faults still in the rifle when they tested it the next day, Oswald
> > > >> never practiced because he never fixed the rifle, and was probably not
> > > >> even aware that it was faulty.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Another case of you claiming something that is unproveable. We do have the
> > > > testimony of Marina that he would take it out and practice. That doesn't
> > > > establish that he practiced with absolute certainty, but it is a good
> > > > indicator.
> > > >
> > > > Whatever the condition of the rifle was and whatever the state of Oswald's
> > > > skill set at the time of the assassination, we know through compelling
> > > > evidence that both were sufficient to get the job done.
> > > >
> > > Again you are begging the question.
> >
> > What was the question?
>
> The question that hangs over your head. How did the killing get
> accomplished? Which has been (for the most part) been answered for you.
>

Well it was Tony who claims I was begging the question so he should be the
one to answer what that quesiton was. As for your question, that's easy.
Oswald stuck his rifle out the window and shot JFK twice. It's no more
complicated than that.