Sad, but true!
robc...@netscape.com
world safe for diversity.
John F. Kennedy
I started a topic that discussed many different things in its four
parts, one of which was about the alleged murder weapon of Lee Harvey
Oswald. In the article the authors claim the gun was located with no
clip with Weitzman, Mooney, Boone, Craig and Fritz all present. The
picture of the rifle leaving the TBSD has a clip, therefore, their
premise was a clip was located and inserted back into the gun to make
it look legitimate as they assumed the gun worked in the same manner
as a M-1 Garand (which was the only other WWII vintage gun that worked
with a clip system). This was based on their lack of knowledge of the
weapon and an honest effort to frame LHO according to the two authors.
I have been called many things in the thread of this post, and not by
LNers as expected, but by two CTers! Firstly, on the first reply post
I was told this is an old issue that has been resolved before and is a
dead issue. I have not heard that and no one else on the board said
this. Secondly, I was told I didn't know anything because the clip
just falls out and does not eject as the authors claim. Well, let's
look at the definition and synonyms of the word "eject" and see what
we are dealing with.
e-ject
1. to drive or force out; expel, as from a place or position: The
police ejected the hecklers from the meeting.
2. to dismiss, as from office or occupancy.
3. to evict, as from property.
4. to throw out, as from within; throw off.
-verb (used without object)
5. to propel oneself from a damaged or malfunctioning airplane, as by
an ejection seat: When the plane caught fire, the pilot ejected.
Notice the use for an object (#4) and tell me how saying the word
eject is not the same as the clip leaving the gun and falling out?
The clip is thrown off the gun as the last round chambered causes the
clip to release since there is nothing holding it in place anymore and
it jettisons away. All this fuss over this little term and no
discussion about the other many points in the article. Here are the
synonyms:
Synonyms within Context: Eject
Context Synonyms within Context (source: adapted from Roget's
Thesaurus).
Ejection Eject, reject; expel, discard; cut, send to coventry,
boycott; chasser; banish; (punish); bounce ; fire, fire out; throw;
throw out, throw up, throw off, throw away, throw aside; push; throw
out, throw off, throw away, throw aside; shovel out, shovel away,
sweep out, sweep away; brush off, brush away, whisk off, whisk away,
turn off, turn away, send off, send away; discharge; send adrift, turn
adrift, cast adrift; turn out, bundle out; throw overboard; give the
sack to; send packing, send about one's business, send to the right
about; strike off the roll; (abrogate); turn out neck and heels, turn
out head and shoulders, turn out neck and crop; pack off; send away
with a flea in the ear; send to Jericho; bow out, show the door to.
I mentioned the gun is technically a carbine and I was called a fool
by Walt because he knows this gun. Well it didn't take much of a
search to find this:
There are several variations and calibers of the Italian Mannlicher-
Carcano m 38 Carbine (generic label) including:
* Short Rifle (Fucile corto);
* Special Troop (TS);
* Cavalry (Cavalleria).
The most famous Carcano Model 38 was the one allegedly used by Lee
Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963 to assassinate President Kennedy in
Dallas, Texas.
Notice the model used to supposedly shoot at JFK is a model 38 not a
41 (long rifle) and is classified as a carbine because it is a short
rifle. The M-1 also had a carbine and was issued to paratroopers and
other special forces. For more on this click the second link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNkB8Bwma6g
http://www.surplusrifle.com/carcano9138/index.asp
I was accused of not believing "facts" by Walt and Barb. When asked
to provide facts Barb did and Walt didn't. Barb's were the ones the
WC has said about LHO since 1964. They are not facts as each can be
disputed. I was called an ass for saying there are few facts in this
case as each side debates something when it is put forth as fact.
Walt was offended by my saying this as somehow in his mind this
weakened the CT case when in reality it strengthens it by not throwing
out every possibility out there as fact. To them "facts" are what
they believe and not what I or possibly somebody else believes. I
stated numerous times I don't throw around the assertion of what I say
is fact, but this was ignored and I was continually accused of stating
facts that were not true. I personally like to leave the box wide
open on what may have transpired there that day as there are many
pieces to this puzzle, (and like everyone else I have my own ideas on
what happened, but I can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt), but
the one theory I do totally disagree with is the official theory.
No one has been barred on account of his race from fighting or dying
for America, there are no white or colored signs on the foxholes or
graveyards of battle.
John F. Kennedy
The worst accusation I got was from Barb, who said I used "N" sense
(you know the word as it rhymes with bigger and whigger) in my
writings? What does this racist mean? She added old, tired LN things
as "facts" when asked to define what she believes (LHO' gun matched
the bullets and fragments, LHO's fingerprints were on the gun, etc...)
and she also considered this a closed issue from the get go, why? Who
made her the speaker for everyone out there wanting to learn about
this topic? I know I wouldn't elect a racist like her. She
repeatedly moved this to the aaj board as well for no apparent reason,
because if I wanted it over there I would have put it there myself.
She also harped on the clip ejecting and the gun test the authors
mentioned and ignored everything else in the article.
Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.
John F. Kennedy
I was accused of having a big ego by Walt, because I refused to
immediately say he was right in regards to the clip not ejecting,
(which is semantics as it leaves the gun when the last round is
chambered and that was the main point of the authors), when the
article used the term, experts in the article used the term and
several sites I visited earlier used the term. I was sticking by what
I had read but this upset Walt because I guess he needed to be right
on this one little part of their whole premise. I would respectfully
say Walt has the big ego. I am willing to say the clip falls out of
the gun with no assistance if this will let people read the context of
the research and decide for themselves that what is written is true or
not.
Once you say you're going to settle for second, that's what happens to
you in life.
John F. Kennedy
Based solely on my not agreeing with Walt in a split second and saying
all I had read was incorrect he labeled me as not being worthy of
being a "CTer asset". It must be nice to be the judge and jury for
all CTers in the world. If people choose not to believe what I say
that is their right and I would never argue with that, but to say I
say nothing of value because I said a clip ejects instead of falls
out? I wish I was that perfect in life. I guess I should pack up my
marbles and go home because Walt has all the answers on this one and I
guess he thinks he has the right to decide who is an asset or not.
Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all
breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are
all mortal.
John F. Kennedy
This about says it all, doesn't it? We all have the same common needs
in life. I have studied this case for 20 years in my spare time,
excluding others and events sometimes because it means that much to me
to learn what happened that day. I really believe this country took a
detour with that shooting and it has been going in a direction I am
not proud of, I think I make this very clear in my posts to LNers. I
have read so many diverse offerings by Lifton, Meagher, Weisberg,
Lane, Summers, Thompson, Groden, Shaw, Mack, Garrison, Livingstone,
Prouty, Walt Brown, Jack White, Ian Griggs, Mark North, Fonzi,
Weberman, David Scheim and Dick Russell to name a few, so that I can
keep an open mind and learn as much about as many of the details as
possible. One could be tempted to ask, why bother? I don't agree
immediately that a clip is not ejected and Walt asserts "the JFK
assassination is a parlor game" for me. These are the first posts I
have ever had with the man and yet he knows what drives me,
unbelievable. I now see why the WCR lasts as long as it does as too
many people in the CT community have to have it their way or the
highway. This is open debate? Someone disagrees and you say they are
not an asset or take the case seriously?
The post of the year Ben said when Walt accused me of this stuff. I
guess I am getting an education on this board after all. Whatever
floats your boat I guess.
The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it.
And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender,
or submission.
John F. Kennedy
Barb Junkkarinen
My apologies to the sensibilities of others, but I cannot let this go
by ... Caprio was corrected last night...and now he drags his filthy
nonsense into a new thread. It is outrageous and he portrays it
inaccurately besides. I am crossposting this post because I want there
to be no one, nowhere on either group who has to wonder what exacly
was said and I would appreciate anyone who sees Caprio spreading this
particular inaccurate filth of his to notify, send me the complete
post with headers and thread title ... and hopefully post a response
pointing out what I have posted below. I find this offensive beyond
the pale ... and intolerable. Thank you.
[.....................................]
>The worst accusation I got was from Barb, who said I used "N" sense
>(you know the word as it rhymes with bigger and whigger) in my
>writings?
DON'T GO HERE. IT WAS A TYPO .... amd AN OBVIOUS ONE ...and, as
USUAL...you report what I said INACCURATELY, you PIG.
Here is that section of my post ... in context ... and only an idiot
or someone purposely attempting to defame someone would take it
otherwise and run with it.
QUOTE
>> Your nigger interest is obviously in being right ... and in invoking
>> the idiotic "us vs them" thing. Your choice ... but don't expect to
>> have much to do with legitimate researchers.
END QUOTE
I did NOT say you USED anything. Actually, when it comes to SENSE you
demonstrate over and over you have none.
This is an obvious typo ... the "b" is right next to the "n" ...and I
explained that to you in reply last night..
>What does this racist mean? She added old, tired LN things
>as "facts" when asked to define what she believes (LHO' gun matched
>the bullets and fragments, LHO's fingerprints were on the gun, etc...)
>and she also considered this a closed issue from the get go, why? Who
>made her the speaker for everyone out there wanting to learn about
>this topic? I know I wouldn't elect a racist like her.
How DARE you do this. And Ido hope that you will stop, think and
carefully consider posting any more comments about me being a racist
... or wherein you state inaccurately what I said.
SERIOUSLY. THINK ABOUT IT. Calling someone a racist ...and then
spreading it about, particularly where you portray what happened
inaccurately, is SERIOUS, Mr. Caprio.
Show some smarts and retract this .... and be sure, real sure, you
don't continue with this.
Barbara Junkkarinen
November 14, 2007
1237PST
cdddraftsman
> (Snipped)
We can end our differences when you choke to death on your own blood
, coughing up bullets or Rossley's dick , we really don't care how you
do
it but the best solution is a world with out Gil Jesus (robcap) and
his silly
sore assed excuses for thinking that would embarrasse a monkey .
If you do decide to take our advice , jump off someplace really high
with
Rossly under one arm and Healy under the other and your asswipe
collection of video's between the cheeks of your fat ass .
I think then we could enjoy a real fine thanksgiving meal and have
some
thing to be really thankful
for .....................................tl
robc...@netscape.com
wrote:
I didn't say you claimed I said the "N" word, I know you used it and
that is why I don't want to be bothered with a racist like you. I
didn't misrepresent anything, I said what you wrote is racist.
Period.
Gil Jesus
Barb, no disrespect meant, but that's why they make killfilters.
I get called worse than that.
I use killfilters.
It's great for (in my case) preventing those who are trying to piss
you off from pissing you off.
you win, they lose.
justm...@gmail.com
You'll never be anything but a loser Jesus, deal with it.
YoHarvey
wrote:
Um, exactly WHEN have you EVER said anything of value?????? Jesus/
Robcap, aka, JMoore, aka Justin, aka Justins mom is a PROVEN
pathological liar. So much for value.
muc...@gmail.com
Amazing. Is there anything you didn't misrepresent above?
tomnln
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1195072866.8...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
REPEAT "CLASSIC">>>
Oh O K!
<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:28232-46F...@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...
> Keep 'em coming, Gil and Tom! You're nailing these trolls to the wall
> with evidence/testimony, something that is foreign to them---Old Laz
Did you hear about my Payroll>
I hired lowery to pick up the payroll at the bank for my employees.
I gave him an oversized briefcase & a Lincoln Townm Car to drive.
lowery returned later & said "I have good news/bad news".
He was Held Up by Thieves.
GOOD NEWS....He hid the oversized briefcase in his stretched out asshole &
saved it".
BAD NEWS....The thieves took the Lincoln Town Car.
HINDSIGHT.... I shoul'da sent justme with him to Save the Lincoln.
(applause applause applause)
(applause applause applause)
(applause applause applause)
(applause applause applause)
(applause applause applause)
(applause applause applause)
(applause applause applause)
(applause applause applause)
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1195081689....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Let's check out Yo(Momma)Harvet's credibility>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/baileynme.htm
Jean Davison
<robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:1195079327....@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Jean
bigdog
wrote:
This reminds me a flap a few years ago. I can't remember the exact context
but a radio talk show host had a slip of the tongue and accidently refered
to Condi Rice as a coon when he obviously intended another word to come
out. He realized his error immediately and apologized profusely for his
mistake. Unfortunately, in this PC world we live in, it did him no good.
He was fired anyway. It's amazing how some people seem to go out of their
way to become offended.
robc...@netscape.com
> This reminds me a flap a few years ago. I can't remember the exact context
> but a radio talk show host had a slip of the tongue and accidently refered
> to Condi Rice as a coon when he obviously intended another word to come
> out. He realized his error immediately and apologized profusely for his
> mistake. Unfortunately, in this PC world we live in, it did him no good.
> He was fired anyway. It's amazing how some people seem to go out of their
> way to become offended.
This from one of the 7 or so people who have called me a racist since
my first day on this board and I didn't even type the "N" word by
mistake or otherwise. Its nice you are so forgiving of some while you
accuse others of things they haven't done. Just further proof you are
a unfair person in all things.
justm...@gmail.com
Would you prefer stupid idiot who believes everything he reads instead
Rob? Your posting away with your copy and pastes from different CT
books you've read and arguing with people when they tell you it's all
been debunked before. Then you turn around and say you never stated
they were facts. If you don't feel what you're reading is the truth
then why are you wasting everyones time arguing about it? As I asked
Rossely, are you always this stupid or are you just making a special
effort today?
robc...@netscape.com
wrote:
> Would you prefer stupid idiot who believes everything he reads instead
> Rob? Your posting away with your copy and pastes from different CT
> books you've read and arguing with people when they tell you it's all
> been debunked before. Then you turn around and say you never stated
> they were facts. If you don't feel what you're reading is the truth
> then why are you wasting everyones time arguing about it? As I asked
> Rossely, are you always this stupid or are you just making a special
> effort today?
Now we hear from one of the main culprits. First of all, if you and I
both only believed what we read, guess what? I'm still way ahead of
you because I have read so much about this case whereas you, well I
won't even give you credit for reading much of the WCR, probably a
little of the HSCA, a bit of Posner and of course all the quotes of VB
Dave provides. That's probably your limit. I do paste some things
from CT sources since this is the CT board!!!!! This is about you and
you pathetic look at life, there are people out there who want to
learn about this case and hopefully some of that will lead the way.
You have no problem with a million links to John's or Ken's sites do
you? Nothing I have posted has been debunked regardless of what one
person says and there are people hopefully reading this that have not
read much about this case. It was a vital article about a central
thing in this case, i.e. the supposed murder weapon. If it was
something way out there I wouldn't have posted it. I never said I
didn't think it was truthful, but unlike LNers who believe in fairy
tales and expect everyone else too, I don't try and force people to
believe what I believe unless they want to. You are the stupid one as
you waste your time and ours making silly comments, calling people
racist (and then someone does type a nasty word - perhaps by accident)
and you have no comment, why? If I done that do you think saying it
was a typo would get me off the hook? Go do something you like as
obviously in your mind this case was solved in 1964 so I don't see why
you waste your time here.
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec5de880-6f21-4115...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 14, 10:11 pm, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>> On Nov 14, 8:53 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This reminds me a flap a few years ago. I can't remember the exact
>> > context
>> > but a radio talk show host had a slip of the tongue and accidently
>> > refered
>> > to Condi Rice as a coon when he obviously intended another word to come
>> > out. He realized his error immediately and apologized profusely for his
>> > mistake. Unfortunately, in this PC world we live in, it did him no
>> > good.
>> > He was fired anyway. It's amazing how some people seem to go out of
>> > their
>> > way to become offended.
>>
>> This from one of the 7 or so people who have called me a racist since
>> my first day on this board and I didn't even type the "N" word by
>> mistake or otherwise. Its nice you are so forgiving of some while you
>> accuse others of things they haven't done. Just further proof you are
>> a unfair person in all things.
> Would you prefer stupid idiot who believes everything he reads instead
> Rob? Your posting away with your copy and pastes from different CT
> books you've read and arguing with people when they tell you it's all
> been debunked before. Then you turn around and say you never stated
> they were facts. If you don't feel what you're reading is the truth
> then why are you wasting everyones time arguing about it? As I asked
> Rossely, are you always this stupid or are you just making a special
> effort today?
ANOTHER opportunity to Retaliate. (GOODY/GOODY)
Did justme become a CUNT at birth?
Or, did she become a CUNT when she "Followed the Fleet"?
Is this why she never had time to read the official records?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
Sam Brown
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1195080472....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> hmmm...let's see,
>
> Barb, no disrespect meant, but that's why they make killfilters.
>
> I get called worse than that.
Because YOU are a racist and a bigot. Barb made a typing error, you cannot
claim refuge there. You have repeated your bigotry over & over again.
justm...@gmail.com
> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rossley, NOTHING you type is an insult coming from you. It's a bunch
of filthy words put into what you think is a sentence, and once again
shows your lack of intelligence and/or creativity. There's no
challenge responding to you. You're like talking to a tree stump thats
been pissed on by every dog in the neighborhood. If you were twice as
smart, you'd be stupid. You aren't funny Rossley, but you're life is a
joke. Why don't you just shut up and give that hole in your face time
to heal.
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>If we cannot now end our differences, at least we can help make the
>world safe for diversity.
>John F. Kennedy
>
>I started a topic that discussed many different things in its four
>parts, one of which was about the alleged murder weapon of Lee Harvey
>Oswald. In the article the authors claim the gun was located with no
>clip with Weitzman, Mooney, Boone, Craig and Fritz all present. The
>picture of the rifle leaving the TBSD has a clip, therefore, their
>premise was a clip was located and inserted back into the gun to make
>it look legitimate as they assumed the gun worked in the same manner
>as a M-1 Garand (which was the only other WWII vintage gun that worked
>with a clip system). This was based on their lack of knowledge of the
>weapon and an honest effort to frame LHO according to the two authors.
>
>I have been called many things in the thread of this post, and not by
>LNers as expected, but by two CTers!
CT'ers are more interested in the *absolute* truth.
And there are far too many LNT'ers who come in this forum dressed as CT'ers...
if we don't police our own ranks, who will?
>Firstly, on the first reply post
>I was told this is an old issue that has been resolved before and is a
>dead issue. I have not heard that and no one else on the board said
>this. Secondly, I was told I didn't know anything because the clip
>just falls out and does not eject as the authors claim. Well, let's
>look at the definition and synonyms of the word "eject" and see what
>we are dealing with.
>
>e-ject
>1. to drive or force out; expel, as from a place or position:
Yep... "eject" has *always* had the implication of another force driving
something out.
"ejection" would be a mechanical process, not mere gravity.
>The
>police ejected the hecklers from the meeting.
>2. to dismiss, as from office or occupancy.
>3. to evict, as from property.
>4. to throw out, as from within; throw off.
>-verb (used without object)
>5. to propel oneself from a damaged or malfunctioning airplane, as by
>an ejection seat: When the plane caught fire, the pilot ejected.
>
>Notice the use for an object (#4) and tell me how saying the word
>eject is not the same as the clip leaving the gun and falling out?
>The clip is thrown off the gun as the last round chambered causes the
>clip to release since there is nothing holding it in place anymore and
>it jettisons away. All this fuss over this little term
Then perhaps you should realize that *EACH AND EVERY POINT* in the JFK case
should be citable or capable of debate?
Even the improper use of a term.
>and no
>discussion about the other many points in the article. Here are the
>synonyms:
>
>Synonyms within Context: Eject
>Context Synonyms within Context (source: adapted from Roget's
>Thesaurus).
>Ejection Eject, reject; expel, discard; cut, send to coventry,
>boycott; chasser; banish; (punish); bounce ; fire, fire out; throw;
>throw out, throw up, throw off, throw away, throw aside; push; throw
>out, throw off, throw away, throw aside; shovel out, shovel away,
>sweep out, sweep away; brush off, brush away, whisk off, whisk away,
>turn off, turn away, send off, send away; discharge; send adrift, turn
>adrift, cast adrift; turn out, bundle out; throw overboard; give the
>sack to; send packing, send about one's business, send to the right
>about; strike off the roll; (abrogate); turn out neck and heels, turn
>out head and shoulders, turn out neck and crop; pack off; send away
>with a flea in the ear; send to Jericho; bow out, show the door to.
Note how many of these terms *also* imply a violent force being used.
>I mentioned the gun is technically a carbine and I was called a fool
>by Walt because he knows this gun. Well it didn't take much of a
>search to find this:
>
>There are several variations and calibers of the Italian Mannlicher-
>Carcano m 38 Carbine (generic label) including:
>* Short Rifle (Fucile corto);
>* Special Troop (TS);
>* Cavalry (Cavalleria).
>
>The most famous Carcano Model 38 was the one allegedly used by Lee
>Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963 to assassinate President Kennedy in
>Dallas, Texas.
>
>Notice the model used to supposedly shoot at JFK is a model 38 not a
>41 (long rifle) and is classified as a carbine because it is a short
>rifle.
Merely asserting what you're trying to cite for is poor form...
Words *DO* have meanings. And in this case, it could even be critical. For if
the clip were *ejected* by the rifle, then a mechanical malfunction would have
to account for the clip still being there.
>when the
>article used the term, experts in the article used the term and
>several sites I visited earlier used the term. I was sticking by what
>I had read but this upset Walt because I guess he needed to be right
>on this one little part of their whole premise. I would respectfully
>say Walt has the big ego. I am willing to say the clip falls out of
>the gun with no assistance if this will let people read the context of
>the research
What you *should* be "willing" to do is to speak the absolute truth.
The clip is *NOT* "ejected", it falls out.
That others are sloppy with the English language is no reason for anyone on this
forum to be. This is how LNT'ers work... sloppy use of the English language is
virtually all that's needed.
>and decide for themselves that what is written is true or
>not.
>
>Once you say you're going to settle for second, that's what happens to
>you in life.
>John F. Kennedy
>
>Based solely on my not agreeing with Walt in a split second and saying
>all I had read was incorrect he labeled me as not being worthy of
>being a "CTer asset".
Actually, I'd previously corrected you on something ... don't recall what - and
had already figured out that you aren't up-to-date on some of the evidence. You
make it easy for LNT'ers to jump in an make a point.
One that *DOES NOT* matter to the ultimate case of whether or not there was a
conspiracy - yet looks impressive to a lurker seeing a CT'er being slapped down
on factual matters. That's why it's so important for CT'ers to do their
research, and be willing to accept the truth.
>It must be nice to be the judge and jury for
>all CTers in the world. If people choose not to believe what I say
>that is their right and I would never argue with that, but to say I
>say nothing of value because I said a clip ejects instead of falls
>out?
You'd prefer CT'ers to keep their mouth shut???
>I wish I was that perfect in life. I guess I should pack up my
>marbles and go home because Walt has all the answers on this one and I
>guess he thinks he has the right to decide who is an asset or not.
He has as much right as any other CT'er on this forum who has proven time and
time again to know as much of the evidence as he does.
Sometimes Walt goes too far, but there are always people willing to tell him
where his theory is outstepping the known evidence ...
>Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all
>breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are
>all mortal.
>John F. Kennedy
>
>This about says it all, doesn't it? We all have the same common needs
>in life. I have studied this case for 20 years in my spare time,
>excluding others and events sometimes because it means that much to me
>to learn what happened that day. I really believe this country took a
>detour with that shooting and it has been going in a direction I am
>not proud of, I think I make this very clear in my posts to LNers. I
>have read so many diverse offerings by Lifton, Meagher, Weisberg,
>Lane, Summers, Thompson, Groden, Shaw, Mack, Garrison, Livingstone,
>Prouty, Walt Brown, Jack White, Ian Griggs, Mark North, Fonzi,
>Weberman, David Scheim and Dick Russell to name a few, so that I can
>keep an open mind and learn as much about as many of the details as
>possible.
Such as the difference between "ejection" and "dropping out" by means of
gravity?
>One could be tempted to ask, why bother? I don't agree
>immediately that a clip is not ejected
Then you don't understand the English language the way it's commonly
interpreted. Go back to that dictionary you quoted, and read it again.
>and Walt asserts "the JFK
>assassination is a parlor game" for me. These are the first posts I
>have ever had with the man and yet he knows what drives me,
>unbelievable. I now see why the WCR lasts as long as it does as too
>many people in the CT community have to have it their way or the
>highway.
CT'ers have to adhere to the absolute *facts* and evidence. You can't simply
make things up, or quote 'as fact' others who have done so.
>This is open debate? Someone disagrees and you say they are
>not an asset or take the case seriously?
>
>The post of the year Ben said when Walt accused me of this stuff.
The post of the year was his absolute adherence to the evidence. Funny that you
didn't read it the same way...
>I guess I am getting an education on this board after all. Whatever
>floats your boat I guess.
Absolute adherence to the facts, an ability to provide citations, and the
ability to judge different citations and determine which is more authoritative.
Anthony Marsh
I seem to remember some guy fired for using the word "niggardly."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:17b4201f-95b6-4347...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 15, 5:18 am, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1195080472....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > hmmm...let's see,
>>
>> > Barb, no disrespect meant, but that's why they make killfilters.
>>
>> > I get called worse than that.
>>
>> Because YOU are a racist and a bigot. Barb made a typing error, you
>> cannot
>> claim refuge there. You have repeated your bigotry over & over again.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > I use killfilters.
>>
>> > It's great for (in my case) preventing those who are trying to piss
>> > you off from pissing you off.
>>
>> > you win, they lose.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> Rossley, NOTHING you type is an insult coming from you. It's a bunch
> of filthy words put into what you think is a sentence, and once again
> shows your lack of intelligence and/or creativity. There's no
> challenge responding to you. You're like talking to a tree stump thats
> been pissed on by every dog in the neighborhood. If you were twice as
> smart, you'd be stupid. You aren't funny Rossley, but you're life is a
> joke. Why don't you just shut up and give that hole in your face time
> to heal.
Tell us if you became a cunt at birth or,
If you became a cunt when you were following the fleet?
Then, tell us WHY you FEAR all official evidence/testimony?
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
Walt
Robert.... Please seek professional psychiatric help.
Walt
Walt
Rob, The exact method of the clip leaving the MC is unimportant....
just forget that I tried to enlighten you on this point. You
obviously cannot understand that this tiny bit of information has far
reaching implications.
Good luck to you.
If others reading this thread want further information about what I
mean by far reaching implications please feel free to ask.
Walt
robc...@netscape.com
> Because YOU are a racist and a bigot. Barb made a typing error, you cannot
> claim refuge there. You have repeated your bigotry over & over again.
No, it is because she is a woman, you are cutting her a break. I
better never see bigot or racist again from you as you are the real
racist as you decide who can say and who can't. All I've seen Gil do
is show you how clueless you are about the case, I haven't seen him
say anything bigoted.
robc...@netscape.com
wrote:
> >I have been called many things in the thread of this post, and not by
> >LNers as expected, but by two CTers!
>
> CT'ers are more interested in the *absolute* truth.
Unfortunately, you picked the wrong case for that IMO. There is just
too much left open for conjecture based on no investigation. I want
the truth too, but there is more than likely a debate about what is
the truth.
> And there are far too many LNT'ers who come in this forum dressed as CT'ers...
> if we don't police our own ranks, who will?
Please Ben, what have I written to show I was a LNer in CTer
clothes?
> >e-ject
> >1. to drive or force out; expel, as from a place or position:
>
> Yep... "eject" has *always* had the implication of another force driving
> something out.
Who cares? It is not the point of the article in and of itself. The
point was no clip was in the gun when it was found and no clip is
noted in property clerk receipt log and the films of the gun prior to
the famous photo show no clip (MacDowall said he watched them and saw
no clip). Yet when it is officially removed from the TBSD it has a
clip. Here is what MacDowall said:
Perusal of the record of evidence seen and collected on November 22nd
1963 fails to reveal any mention of an ammunition clip. There is no
clip mentioned in the Property Clerk's receipt dated November 26th
which otherwise lists everything else about the rifle allegedly found.
There is no record in either the reports made by the many officers
present, or the reports of the conversations between these officers,
of anyone having seen a ammunition clip. I have viewed photographs and
television footage of the rifle being handled by Lt. Day soon after it
was found and there is no sign of any clip. The significance of this
clip to the events of that day are many. It is a peculiarity of
Mannlicher Carcano rifles that the ammunition clip falls out once the
last round in the clip is chambered.
When the rifle was found it had a live round in the chamber, which
Captain Fritz admitted to ejecting. Other officers present when Fritz
ejected the round confirm his admission. As found, either the clip had
fallen out of the rifle when the last round was chambered or due to
some malfunction had remained in place. As noted earlier, there is no
sign of a clip in the magazine. The television footage mentioned shows
Lt. Day rotating the rifle in such a way that had there been a clip in
the magazine it would have been visible. This only leaves a scenario
where the clip fell out, as designed to, when the last round was
chambered. So where was the clip?
Without this clip the Mannlicher Carcano would only have been capable
of firing a single shot at a time making a mockery of the brief time
window available for that rifle to have fired all the known shots at
the Presidential Motorcade.
As one of the more likely sources of fingerprints the clip would have
been of immediate interest to Lt. Day but there is no mention of him
finding this clip or checking it for fingerprints. What is odd,
however, is that photographs taken of Lt. Day leaving the TSBD show a
clip projecting from the magazine, a clip that was certainly not there
earlier.
Something else to consider with regard to the Mannlicher Carcano clip
is the fact that it is designed to hold 6 bullets. Since only 3 spent
shells and 1 live round were apparently found at the scene it is
logical to assume that if there was a clip it only contained 4 bullets
at the time the shooting occurred. This is problematic because when a
Carcano clip is underloaded the bullets have a strong tendency to fall
over making it impossible to load and shoot them properly.
If you are a CTer I would think this would be of interest to you, not
arguing over whether the clip falls out or ejects.
> Then perhaps you should realize that *EACH AND EVERY POINT* in the JFK case
> should be citable or capable of debate?
Of course I am, that is why I don't use the word "fact" all the time.
>
> Even the improper use of a term.
Take it up with the authors and various websites that use the term
then.
> Merely asserting what you're trying to cite for is poor form...
What are you talking about? Like everyone on here really cite's
well. It is all John's site or the same few sites.
> >I was accused of having a big ego by Walt, because I refused to
> >immediately say he was right in regards to the clip not ejecting,
> >(which is semantics as it leaves the gun when the last round is
> >chambered and that was the main point of the authors),
>
> Words *DO* have meanings. And in this case, it could even be critical. For if
> the clip were *ejected* by the rifle, then a mechanical malfunction would have
> to account for the clip still being there.
It wasn't still there though. Read the evidence log from the TBSD and
all other things pertaining to the rifle's discovery, the clip is not
mentioned. Also, as MacDowall said in the film you have Lt. Day
turning the rifle around and no clip can be seen.
> What you *should* be "willing" to do is to speak the absolute truth.
And who decides that Ben? I speak what I believe to be true as I'm
not here to mislead anyone, but I also expect people to reason, read,
research and believe what they want too. You are lucky I'm not
sensitive as I could take this as an accusation that I'm a liar.
>
> The clip is *NOT* "ejected", it falls out.
Big deal, I don't care if it walked away, the point you should be
focusing on if you are a CTer is it was not with the gun when it was
found. Yet later it is in the gun, explain this.
>
> That others are sloppy with the English language is no reason for anyone on this
> forum to be. This is how LNT'ers work... sloppy use of the English language is
> virtually all that's needed.
Sorry, I expected everyone to read the article before attacking the
premise. They go into way more detail. That is why I pasted so much
so it would not be assumed I was asserting this but researchers were.
Alot of good it did me.
> Actually, I'd previously corrected you on something ... don't recall what - and
> had already figured out that you aren't up-to-date on some of the evidence. You
> make it easy for LNT'ers to jump in an make a point.
I didn't realize we had to know every little detail in this vast case
to post on here. I thought whatever I could contribute would be
appreciated by the CTers (I never expect the LNers to agree with me).
You are again missing the main point, the authors used the term eject,
people familiar with the gun in the article said eject, so why am I
being crucified for this? What does it have to do with the fact that
no clip was in the gun when it was found?
> One that *DOES NOT* matter to the ultimate case of whether or not there was a
> conspiracy - yet looks impressive to a lurker seeing a CT'er being slapped down
> on factual matters. That's why it's so important for CT'ers to do their
> research, and be willing to accept the truth.
Factual matter? I think you are making way too much of this issue. I
see errors by other people but attacking them and calling them a lack
of a CT asset is bit extreme in my book. I hope you are always 100%
accurate Ben, because you are writing things that are a bit extreme.
>
> >It must be nice to be the judge and jury for
> >all CTers in the world. If people choose not to believe what I say
> >that is their right and I would never argue with that, but to say I
> >say nothing of value because I said a clip ejects instead of falls
> >out?
>
> You'd prefer CT'ers to keep their mouth shut???
No, but I don't recall any CTer attacking another CTer the way I was
in my time here. The issue was blown way out of proportion. That's
fine, I can live with that rule and I'll be watching to make sure
people are accurate as well since obviously that is the standard you
are asserting.
>
> >I wish I was that perfect in life. I guess I should pack up my
> >marbles and go home because Walt has all the answers on this one and I
> >guess he thinks he has the right to decide who is an asset or not.
>
> He has as much right as any other CT'er on this forum who has proven time and
> time again to know as much of the evidence as he does.
Fine, I don't know Walt. I thought we had the issue resolved but it
just seemed to get worse. I realize I'm new and I guess I'll have to
earn some points, but I don't feel it was necessary to get so testy.
>
> Sometimes Walt goes too far, but there are always people willing to tell him
> where his theory is outstepping the known evidence ...
Probably true. It is just two people I have never talked with seem to
be all over this. Based on what I have read this is not a dead issue
and if anyone thinks so they need to show me proof or facts to the
contrary.
robc...@netscape.com
> Rob, The exact method of the clip leaving the MC is unimportant....
> just forget that I tried to enlighten you on this point. You
> obviously cannot understand that this tiny bit of information has far
> reaching implications.
Walt, I would like to clear all of this up. Please do not take this
as anything derogatory as I don't mean it that way in the least. I'm
sure you know the M-C very well and you have alot of good information
regarding it, but your method of delivering it could use some work.
You came at me in a derogatory manner instead of just explaining what
you are willing to share with others as you state below. Why didn't
you just tell me how important this issue is in terms of what happens
if it doesn't fall out? I'm all ears and do want to learn, but you
said some things that got my back up, I admit that. We also don't
have the benefit of tone either as all we can do is read some words. I
am focusing on the clip not being there and there is no record of it
being there until we see the rifle leaving the building. If the eject
issue adds or changes this I would love to know how. I want to know
what the implications are. I don't have a big ego as I can only read
about this in a nonresearch way so I am always looking to learn new
things. Thanks! This was just in an article I finished.
robc...@netscape.com
You obviously spend most of your time on aaj as most of us CTers are
called racists and bigots constantly on acj.
David Von Pein
Mr. BALL. Was there any conversation you heard that this rifle was a
Mauser?
CAPTAIN J. WILL FRITZ (DPD). I heard all kinds of reports about that
rifle. They called it most everything.
Mr. BALL. Did you hear any conversation right there that day?
Mr. FRITZ. Right at that time?
Mr. BALL. Yes
Mr. FRITZ. I just wouldn't be sure because there were so many people
talking at the same time, I might have; I am not sure whether I did or
not.
Mr. BALL. Did you think it was a Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I knew--you can read on the rifle what it was and
you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was.
Mr. BALL. Well, did you ever make any---did you ever say that it was a
7.65 Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I am sure I did not.
Mr. BALL. Or did you think it was such a thing?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I did not. If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be
too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser
rifles myself. But I am certainly sure that I never did give anyone
any different caliber than the one that shows on the cartridges.
=====================================
LT. J.C. DAY (DPD). Yes, sir; I took the gun myself and retained
possession, took it to the office where I dictated----
Mr. BELIN. Could you just read into the record what you dictated.
Mr. DAY. To my secretary. She wrote on the typewriter: "4 x 18,
coated, Ordinance Optics, Inc., Hollywood, California, 010 Japan. OSC
inside a cloverleaf design."
Mr. BELIN. What did that have reference to?
Mr. DAY. That was stamped on the scopic sight on top of the gun. On
the gun itself, "6.5 caliber C-2766, 1940 made in Italy." That was
what was on the gun. I dictated certain other stuff, other
information, for her to type for me.
Mr. BELIN. Well, you might just as well dictate the rest there.
Mr. DAY. "When bolt opened one live round was in the barrel. No prints
are on the live round. Captain Fritz and Lieutenant Day opened the
barrel. Captain Fritz has the live round. Three spent hulls were found
under the window. They were picked up by Detective Sims and witnessed
by Lieutenant Day and Studebaker. The clip is stamped 'SMI, 9 x 2.'"
=====================================
Re. the "rifle clip":
To reiterate Day's words above.....
"THE CLIP IS STAMPED 'SMI, 9 x 2.'"
Therefore, A CLIP WAS FOUND WITH THE RIFLE.
The clip can be seen protruding from the rifle in this picture showing
Lt. Day removing Carcano rifle #C2766 from the TSBD on November 22
(click on image to enlarge it).....
robc...@netscape.com
> Re. the "rifle clip":
>
> The "clip" can be seen protruding from the rifle in this picture
> showing Lt. Day removing Carcano rifle #C2766 from the TSBD on
> November 22.....
Thanks Dave, but the point is the gun was found sans clip and there is
no record of the clip ever being dusted for prints or anywhere in the
building. The clip "magically" appeared before they removed it from
the building, where did it come from? The property receipt log has no
record of the clip either.
Bud
Kook, heal thyself. But, you are right, it`s hard to imagine a
nigger, er, bigger asshole than RobboGil.
> Walt
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Nov 15, 7:44 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Re. the "rifle clip":
> >
> > The "clip" can be seen protruding from the rifle in this picture
> > showing Lt. Day removing Carcano rifle #C2766 from the TSBD on
> > November 22.....
>
> Thanks Dave, but the point is the gun was found sans clip and there is
> no record of the clip ever being dusted for prints or anywhere in the
> building. The clip "magically" appeared before they removed it from
> the building, where did it come from?
Italy.
> The property receipt log has no
> record of the clip either.
Does that property receipt list the scope as a seperate entity?
They may have saw all the components as part of the rifle as a whole.
Idiot.
David Von Pein
>>> "The clip "magically" appeared before they removed it from the building, where did it come from?" <<<
It came from Oswald's C2766 MC rifle, you idiot. Where else?
Do you think that the DPD just happened to have a Carcano rifle clip
handy for "planting" on the afternoon of 11/22, before the rifle was
ever removed from the building?
Or did the cops jam a clip from one of the DPD's own rifles into the
clip slot on C2766? (Would that even be possible to do? Mixing &
matching rifle clips from different rifles? Or did the DPD have some
Carcanos in their patrol cars that day, by pure good fortune?)
Even from the CT-Kook mindset of "Everybody Was Out To Frame Oswald",
only a moron would think the cops (AT THAT EARLY HOUR) would have even
had a DESIRE to want to start planting evidence, such as the "rifle
clip". Why would they feel the need to plant a fake clip?
The same question applies, of course, to the empty brown paper bag
that many kooks think was "planted"/"faked" by the dastardly DPD.
Det. Montgomery removed that bag from the building just a few hours
after the assassination (maybe less?). Why would the DPD even WANT to
plant an empty paper bag at that hour. They didn't even know at that
time that Oswald was seen entering the building with any kind of large
paper package.
Clairvoyance must rule at the DPD.
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 15, 10:15 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
>wrote:
>
>> >I have been called many things in the thread of this post, and not by
>> >LNers as expected, but by two CTers!
>>
>> CT'ers are more interested in the *absolute* truth.
>
>Unfortunately, you picked the wrong case for that IMO. There is just
>too much left open for conjecture based on no investigation. I want
>the truth too, but there is more than likely a debate about what is
>the truth.
There's no debate at all over "ejected" vs "dropped" or "falling out."
If you don't believe me, run a poll... demonstrate the clip "being ejected",
then demonstrate a cartridge "dropping" when the bolt is pulled back. :)
Ask onlookers to *describe the action they see*.
Give us the results of the first 25 or so people... Do it on tape so that we
know that there was no coaching...
>> And there are far too many LNT'ers who come in this forum dressed as
>> CT'ers... if we don't police our own ranks, who will?
>
>Please Ben, what have I written to show I was a LNer in CTer
>clothes?
I'm not pointing fingers at you... I'm merely stating a fact.
Tony, for example, I *HAVE* pointed my finger at.
>> >e-ject
>> >1. to drive or force out; expel, as from a place or position:
>>
>> Yep... "eject" has *always* had the implication of another force driving
>> something out.
>
>Who cares?
Those who deal with the truth care.
>It is not the point of the article in and of itself.
Then there should have been no argument when you were corrected on this point,
right?
>The point was no clip was in the gun when it was found and no clip is
>noted in property clerk receipt log and the films of the gun prior to
>the famous photo show no clip (MacDowall said he watched them and saw
>no clip). Yet when it is officially removed from the TBSD it has a
>clip. Here is what MacDowall said:
>
>Perusal of the record of evidence seen and collected on November 22nd
>1963 fails to reveal any mention of an ammunition clip. There is no
>clip mentioned in the Property Clerk's receipt dated November 26th
>which otherwise lists everything else about the rifle allegedly found.
>There is no record in either the reports made by the many officers
>present, or the reports of the conversations between these officers,
>of anyone having seen a ammunition clip. I have viewed photographs and
>television footage of the rifle being handled by Lt. Day soon after it
>was found and there is no sign of any clip. The significance of this
>clip to the events of that day are many. It is a peculiarity of
>Mannlicher Carcano rifles that the ammunition clip falls out once the
>last round in the clip is chambered.
>
>When the rifle was found it had a live round in the chamber, which
>Captain Fritz admitted to ejecting.
Why, I wonder, is the clip being referred to as "falling", yet the cartridge is
referred to as "ejecting".
This is actually quite old news to me. I don't disagree at all that there's
very little evidence that a clip was present from the beginning. I strongly
agree that there was a definite *problem* with the clip.
>> Then perhaps you should realize that *EACH AND EVERY POINT* in the JFK case
>> should be citable or capable of debate?
>
>Of course I am, that is why I don't use the word "fact" all the time.
Yet no reasonable citation exists for the clip being "ejected" - certainly not
by anyone who *owns* such a rifle.
Nor have you presented any dictionary meaning that would equate "falling" with
"ejecting".
There's a reason that they are separate words... they *do* have separate
meanings.
>> Even the improper use of a term.
>
>Take it up with the authors and various websites that use the term
>then.
I have. Right here. (Although, Walt got here first.)
>> Merely asserting what you're trying to cite for is poor form...
>
>What are you talking about?
Well, Rob - it was *YOU* that snipped it. Let's compare the above snippet:
*********************************************************
>> Even the improper use of a term.
>>
>>> and no discussion about the other many points in the article. Here are the
>>> synonyms:
>>>
>>> Synonyms within Context: Eject
>>> Context Synonyms within Context (source: adapted from Roget's
>>> Thesaurus).
>>> Ejection Eject, reject; expel, discard; cut, send to coventry,
>>> boycott; chasser; banish; (punish); bounce ; fire, fire out; throw;
>>> throw out, throw up, throw off, throw away, throw aside; push; throw
>>> out, throw off, throw away, throw aside; shovel out, shovel away,
>>> sweep out, sweep away; brush off, brush away, whisk off, whisk away,
>>> turn off, turn away, send off, send away; discharge; send adrift, turn
>>> adrift, cast adrift; turn out, bundle out; throw overboard; give the
>>> sack to; send packing, send about one's business, send to the right
>>> about; strike off the roll; (abrogate); turn out neck and heels, turn
>>> out head and shoulders, turn out neck and crop; pack off; send away
>>> with a flea in the ear; send to Jericho; bow out, show the door to.
>>
>> Note how many of these terms *also* imply a violent force being used.
>>
>>
>>> I mentioned the gun is technically a carbine and I was called a fool
>>> by Walt because he knows this gun. Well it didn't take much of a
>>> search to find this:
>>>
>>> There are several variations and calibers of the Italian Mannlicher-
>>> Carcano m 38 Carbine (generic label) including:
>>> * Short Rifle (Fucile corto);
>>> * Special Troop (TS);
>>> * Cavalry (Cavalleria).
>>>
>>> The most famous Carcano Model 38 was the one allegedly used by Lee
>>> Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963 to assassinate President Kennedy in
>>> Dallas, Texas.
>>>
>>> Notice the model used to supposedly shoot at JFK is a model 38 not a
>>> 41 (long rifle) and is classified as a carbine because it is a short
>>> rifle.
>>
>>
>> Merely asserting what you're trying to cite for is poor form...
*********************************************************
Now, it's certainly kosher to snip material that is no longer needed, but you
snipped material that *YOU DIDN'T RESPOND TO*
Most LNT'ers do exactly the same thing.
Now that the context has been put back into place, *anyone* can see what my
statement referred to.
Asserting that the MC is "classified as a carbine because it is a short rifle"
is "merely asserting what you're trying to cite..."
How difficult was that?
>Like everyone on here really cite's
>well. It is all John's site or the same few sites.
I do indeed cite when requested, and often when I'm not. If you wish to make an
argument, you *MUST* be prepared to offer citations that support your stance.
Nor do I use "John's site" or "the same few sites"... I cite the actual
evidence, or sometimes, a discussion *OF* that evidence by an author.
>> >I was accused of having a big ego by Walt, because I refused to
>> >immediately say he was right in regards to the clip not ejecting,
>> >(which is semantics as it leaves the gun when the last round is
>> >chambered and that was the main point of the authors),
>>
>> Words *DO* have meanings. And in this case, it could even be critical.
>> For if the clip were *ejected* by the rifle, then a mechanical malfunction
>> would have to account for the clip still being there.
>
>It wasn't still there though.
Nor do I dispute that. Indeed, the evidence is strong that the clip *WAS NOT
ORIGINALLY THERE*.
I've known and accepted this for years. But as I pointed out to Laz a few
times, I prefer to stick with issues where there is simply no debate possible.
>Read the evidence log from the TBSD and
>all other things pertaining to the rifle's discovery, the clip is not
>mentioned. Also, as MacDowall said in the film you have Lt. Day
>turning the rifle around and no clip can be seen.
>
>> What you *should* be "willing" to do is to speak the absolute truth.
>
>And who decides that Ben?
The citations that you'd be capable of providing.
The dictionary would be perfect - or the manufacturers rifle documentation would
also serve.
>I speak what I believe to be true as I'm
>not here to mislead anyone, but I also expect people to reason, read,
>research and believe what they want too.
You really want people to believe that you think cartridges "fall out" when the
bolt is pulled back, but the clip is "ejected?"
>You are lucky I'm not
>sensitive as I could take this as an accusation that I'm a liar.
Don't worry, I'm not a sensitive guy at all. If I think someone's a liar, I've
not yet hesitated to immediately state so.
Nor am I unwilling to retract and apologize should I ever be proven incorrect.
>> The clip is *NOT* "ejected", it falls out.
>
>Big deal, I don't care if it walked away,
Then why do you debate it?
>the point you should be
>focusing on if you are a CTer is it was not with the gun when it was
>found. Yet later it is in the gun, explain this.
I accept that this is what the evidence would lead a reasonable person to
believe.
>> That others are sloppy with the English language is no reason for anyone
>> on this forum to be. This is how LNT'ers work... sloppy use of the English
>> language is virtually all that's needed.
>
>Sorry, I expected everyone to read the article before attacking the
>premise. They go into way more detail. That is why I pasted so much
>so it would not be assumed I was asserting this but researchers were.
>Alot of good it did me.
All you needed to do was research what Walt told you, and come back and say,
"Yes Walt, I see your point."
>> Actually, I'd previously corrected you on something ... don't recall
>> what - and had already figured out that you aren't up-to-date on some
>> of the evidence. You make it easy for LNT'ers to jump in an make a point.
>
>I didn't realize we had to know every little detail in this vast case
>to post on here. I thought whatever I could contribute would be
>appreciated by the CTers (I never expect the LNers to agree with me).
>You are again missing the main point, the authors used the term eject,
>people familiar with the gun in the article said eject, so why am I
>being crucified for this?
You aren't being "crucified" for what others said. You're being crucified
because you're trying to argue that they were correct.
>What does it have to do with the fact that
>no clip was in the gun when it was found?
Nothing at all. Nor has *ANYTHING I SAID* capable of leading someone to believe
that such a question should be directed to me.
It is, however, a common tactic used by LNT'ers. Toddy just used it in a post
about FBI intimidation when he refuses to address what Carr said, and goes off
on a tangent... just as you're doing here.
>> One that *DOES NOT* matter to the ultimate case of whether or not there
>> was a conspiracy - yet looks impressive to a lurker seeing a CT'er being
>> slapped down on factual matters. That's why it's so important for CT'ers
>> to do their research, and be willing to accept the truth.
>
>Factual matter? I think you are making way too much of this issue. I
>see errors by other people but attacking them and calling them a lack
>of a CT asset is bit extreme in my book. I hope you are always 100%
>accurate Ben, because you are writing things that are a bit extreme.
*QUOTE* any statement of mine that is "extreme."
I'm not Walt.
>> >It must be nice to be the judge and jury for
>> >all CTers in the world. If people choose not to believe what I say
>> >that is their right and I would never argue with that, but to say I
>> >say nothing of value because I said a clip ejects instead of falls
>> >out?
>>
>> You'd prefer CT'ers to keep their mouth shut???
>
>No, but I don't recall any CTer attacking another CTer the way I was
>in my time here. The issue was blown way out of proportion.
Takes two...
>That's fine, I can live with that rule and I'll be watching to make sure
>people are accurate as well since obviously that is the standard you
>are asserting.
That's *ALWAYS* been the rule with CT'ers. Accuracy has *ALWAYS* been a concern
with CT'ers - and a lack of accuracy has been characteristic of LNT'ers.
>> >I wish I was that perfect in life. I guess I should pack up my
>> >marbles and go home because Walt has all the answers on this one and I
>> >guess he thinks he has the right to decide who is an asset or not.
>>
>> He has as much right as any other CT'er on this forum who has proven
>> time and time again to know as much of the evidence as he does.
>
>Fine, I don't know Walt. I thought we had the issue resolved but it
>just seemed to get worse. I realize I'm new and I guess I'll have to
>earn some points, but I don't feel it was necessary to get so testy.
Again... takes two.
Walt
Robert I hesitate to respond to your plea for Ben to explain... Why
it clip can't be seen in the photos taken inside the TSBD but it
definitely is seen in photos of Lt Day leaving the TSBD??
I can only speculate in answering your plea..... But I can make an
INFORMED speculation based on solid knowledge of the way a Mannlicher
Carcano operates.
You seem to have taken the position that Lt Day knew that the clip
was
going to be a critical piece of evidence and he therefore stuck one
in
the opening in the bottom of the rifle so it could be photographed as
he left the TSBD. Do you realize how silly and unlikely that idea
is?? First off WHERE would Day get a clip for a rather rare rifle??
And if he did just happen to have one in his pocket why would he not
simply pull it from his pocket and make it appear that he got the
clip
when it fell out while he was dusting it for prints in the TSBD
immediately after He pulled it from the cavern of boxes?
Do you really believe he stuck the clip in the opening for the
benefit
of the photographers outside of the TSBD??
A far more realistic and logical scenario is that the rifle was never
fired that day. It was hidden ( planted) beneath a pile of boxes
BEFORE the shooting occurred. The spent shells that were planted in
the so called "Sniper's Nest" had been fired at some previous time.
That why neither the shells or the rifle smelled like freshly fired
items. Who ever planted the rifle and shells was quite knowledgable
about the operation of the Mannlicher Carcano***..... and he knew
that
the rifle CANNOT be fired as a single shot rifle. Therefore he knew
that a clip was necessary to fire the rifle...and he knew the only
way
to keep the clip in the rifle was to have at least one live round in
the clip. Therefore he put a live round in a clip and put the clip
with the live round into the rifle. ( Yes it's a bit awkward but it
can be done, I've done it many times) He then closed the bolt
PARTWAY,
but NOT far enough to cock the rifle, ( the bolt handle is up in the
uncocked position in the photos of Day and Fritz with the rifle.)
and
hid it beneath the boxes.
Then when Lt Day and Fritz carefully opened the bolt the live round
simply tumbled out of the rifle. Both Fritz and Day used the term
"FELL OUT" in describing the way the shell came out of the rifle.
Their descriptions do not indicate that the live round was EJECTED or
flung out, by the action of the shell extractor.
After the live round was removed from the clip there was nothing to
retain the clip in the rifle, however the rifle was pointed at the
ceiling when they removed that live round so gravity could not act
upon the clip.... it merely stayed in the rifle with nothing holding
it because the rifle was never put in the horizontal position with
the
bottom down so the clip could fall free. Somwhere along the way
after
Day dusted the rifle for prints he positioned the rifle so the clip
could slide halfway out of the opening on the bottom of the rifle
where it stayed as he walked out of the TSBD carrying the rifle.
***I doubt that Lee Oswald knew much about a Mannlicher Carcano.....
However the CIA instructors who were training the Cuban exiles for
the
invasion of Cuba DID have a good knowledge about the operation of the
Mannlicher Carcano. ( There are photos showing the Cuban exiles
training with Mannlicher Carcanos.) And Yes I did say that the MC
CANNOT be easily fired as a single shot rifle.... It can be done but
it is highly dangerous, because the bolt must be completely removed
from the rifle and then the live cartridge placed on the face of the
bolt and then the bolt with the cartridge on it can be reinserted
into
the receiver......It's very dangerous, and it would take about 5
minutes to fire three shots.
Walt
> > >excluding- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> On Nov 15, 6:48 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > Rob, The exact method of the clip leaving the MC is unimportant....
> > just forget that I tried to enlighten you on this point. You
> > obviously cannot understand that this tiny bit of information has far
> > reaching implications.
>
> Walt, I would like to clear all of this up. Please do not take this
> as anything derogatory as I don't mean it that way in the least. I'm
> sure you know the M-C very well and you have alot of good information
> regarding it, but your method of delivering it could use some work.
> You came at me in a derogatory manner instead of just explaining what
> you are willing to share with others as you state below. Why didn't
> you just tell me how important this issue is in terms of what happens
> if it doesn't fall out? I'm all ears and do want to learn, but you
> said some things that got my back up, I admit that. We also don't
> have the benefit of tone either as all we can do is read some words. I
> am focusing on the clip not being there and there is no record of it
> being there until we see the rifle leaving the building. If the eject
> issue adds or changes this I would love to know how. I want to know
> what the implications are. I don't have a big ego as I can only read
> about this in a nonresearch way so I am always looking to learn new
> things.
Robert I hesitate to respond to your plea for Ben to explain... Why
it clip can't be seen in the photos taken inside the TSBD but it
definitely is seen in photos of Lt Day leaving the TSBD??
I can only speculate in answering your plea..... But I can't make an
Walt
Walt
If the rifle had been fired from the so called "Sniper's Nest" ( it
was actually a hidden smoker's nook)
The rapid operation of the bolt as theorized by the Warren Commission
would have generated a considerable flinging force to the spent
shells...... and they would not have been found in a relatively small
cluster only a couple of feet away from the rifles speculated
position.
Walt
> > over making it impossible to load and shoot them properly.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robc...@netscape.com
> Does that property receipt list the scope as a seperate entity?
> They may have saw all the components as part of the rifle as a whole.
> Idiot.
That is a good thought Dud, shocker, but yes they do list each part
seperately as a gun is supposed to be manually broken down and
cataloged at the crime scene. This would have fallen under Lt. Day's
responsibility and he flunked.
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "The clip "magically" appeared before they removed it from the building, where did it come from?" <<<
>
> It came from Oswald's C2766 MC rifle, you idiot. Where else?
No it didn't, read the reports of the officers present, there was no
clip in the gun when it was found. What part of that don't you get?
>
> Do you think that the DPD just happened to have a Carcano rifle clip
> handy for "planting" on the afternoon of 11/22, before the rifle was
> ever removed from the building?
No, and that fact has lead to the premise of them hunting down a clip
to insert into the gun for the photo ops.
>
> Or did the cops jam a clip from one of the DPD's own rifles into the
> clip slot on C2766? (Would that even be possible to do? Mixing &
> matching rifle clips from different rifles? Or did the DPD have some
> Carcanos in their patrol cars that day, by pure good fortune?)
I don't think so, but I'm no expert. The real issue is they didn't
need a clip as the clip is designed to fall out (unless it is
defective or jammed) when the last round is chambered and this is the
condition they found the gun in.
>
> Even from the CT-Kook mindset of "Everybody Was Out To Frame Oswald",
> only a moron would think the cops (AT THAT EARLY HOUR) would have even
> had a DESIRE to want to start planting evidence, such as the "rifle
> clip". Why would they feel the need to plant a fake clip?
The premise I have read said they had no working knowledge of how the
Carcano rifle worked (clip wise) and they made a comparison to the M-1
which is the only other WWII era gun with a clip system. The M-1
released the clip when the last round was fired as compared to the
last round being chambered like the Carcano. Thus, they thought the
Carcano needed a clip when it didn't. The bottom line is how does a
gun get found with no clip yet later have one? It is key at least for
the fact of tampering with evidence.
>
> The same question applies, of course, to the empty brown paper bag
> that many kooks think was "planted"/"faked" by the dastardly DPD.
>
> Det. Montgomery removed that bag from the building just a few hours
> after the assassination (maybe less?). Why would the DPD even WANT to
> plant an empty paper bag at that hour. They didn't even know at that
> time that Oswald was seen entering the building with any kind of large
> paper package.
The same can be asked how did they trace the Carcano to LHO so fast on
a Friday/Saturday? There is no record of the the call in report the
FBI man supposedly made according to Lt. Day on the afternoon of the
shooting. This is a major reason you have so many questions as the
chain of custody and handling of a crime scence were poorly done at
best.
>
> Clairvoyance must rule at the DPD.
Or advance planning.
robc...@netscape.com
> >> CT'ers are more interested in the *absolute* truth.
>
> >Unfortunately, you picked the wrong case for that IMO. There is just
> >too much left open for conjecture based on no investigation. I want
> >the truth too, but there is more than likely a debate about what is
> >the truth.
>
> There's no debate at all over "ejected" vs "dropped" or "falling out."
I get the point. It fell out.
>
> If you don't believe me, run a poll... demonstrate the clip "being ejected",
> then demonstrate a cartridge "dropping" when the bolt is pulled back. :)
No need, I believe you and Walt. The main issue is where did the clip
in the gun come from? Lt. Day found it with no clip, didn't dust a
clip for prints or see it in a property receipt log. I guess I am
alone in finding this odd. Oh well.
> Tony, for example, I *HAVE* pointed my finger at.
> Those who deal with the truth care.
But you can get lost in the forest for the trees with this thinking.
The key point (and I admit, I seem to be the only one who sees this)
is you have a piece of vital evidence found with no clip (despite how
the clip left the gun, which is important in an effort to be truthful,
I get it), no clip is dusted, no clip is noted in the property log, no
clip is seen in the footage taken of Lt. Day with the gun, yet later
it has a clip? Doesn't anyone out there see this as important? If
not, I'll move on.
>
> >It is not the point of the article in and of itself.
>
> Then there should have been no argument when you were corrected on this point,
> right?
You're right on that, I guess I was getting hit by 3 or more people
and over reacted. I apologize for that.
> >When the rifle was found it had a live round in the chamber, which
> >Captain Fritz admitted to ejecting.
>
> Why, I wonder, is the clip being referred to as "falling", yet the cartridge is
> referred to as "ejecting".
Good point, but this is not the article that started all the fuss.
I'll go with fall from now on.
> >If you are a CTer I would think this would be of interest to you, not
> >arguing over whether the clip falls out or ejects.
>
> This is actually quite old news to me. I don't disagree at all that there's
> very little evidence that a clip was present from the beginning. I strongly
> agree that there was a definite *problem* with the clip.
> >Of course I am, that is why I don't use the word "fact" all the time.
>
> Yet no reasonable citation exists for the clip being "ejected" - certainly not
> by anyone who *owns* such a rifle.
No, I went by the two authors and the people they listed in the
article. I guess I learned a valuable lesson. My only point is I
didn't know Walt and I guess took their word over his.
>
> Nor have you presented any dictionary meaning that would equate "falling" with
> "ejecting".
No, I haven't.
>
> There's a reason that they are separate words... they *do* have separate
> meanings.
Yes, they do, but in my mind and the guns I have handled and fired,
falling is not part of the equasion. I get now the Carcano is
different.
> Now, it's certainly kosher to snip material that is no longer needed, but you
> snipped material that *YOU DIDN'T RESPOND TO*
I don't follow you on this one and I know I snipped it again. My
point of that was that the gun is a carbine and I was called silly for
saying this. I have further confirmation from the article I discussed
in a new string (The Great Carcano Swindle) and the books
"Assassination Science" and "Murder in Dealy Plaza" both mention that
the 91/38 is a carbine. That was my only point and I just learned this
not too long ago and I had never really given it much thought myself
before.
> Asserting that the MC is "classified as a carbine because it is a short rifle"
> is "merely asserting what you're trying to cite..."
>
> How difficult was that?
I didn't say it was difficult, this was in repsonse to Walt calling me
a fool for saying this. It was just to show it is technically a
carbine, thus the low velocity it has.
>
> >Like everyone on here really cite's
> >well. It is all John's site or the same few sites.
>
> I do indeed cite when requested, and often when I'm not. If you wish to make an
> argument, you *MUST* be prepared to offer citations that support your stance.
I'm more than happy to, but the thing we were discussing had already
been added for everyone to read.
>
> Nor do I use "John's site" or "the same few sites"... I cite the actual
> evidence, or sometimes, a discussion *OF* that evidence by an author.
Wasn't talking about you.
>
> >> >I was accused of having a big ego by Walt, because I refused to
> >> >immediately say he was right in regards to the clip not ejecting,
> >> >(which is semantics as it leaves the gun when the last round is
> >> >chambered and that was the main point of the authors),
>
> >> Words *DO* have meanings. And in this case, it could even be critical.
> >> For if the clip were *ejected* by the rifle, then a mechanical malfunction
> >> would have to account for the clip still being there.
But it wasn't and that is the point. The point of what if is not the
point they were making. That is why I guess I couldn't believe we
were stuck on this point. IF the gun had been found with the clip and
one bullet in the chamber then it would have been very relevant, but
it was found with no clip.
>
> >It wasn't still there though.
>
> Nor do I dispute that. Indeed, the evidence is strong that the clip *WAS NOT
> ORIGINALLY THERE*.
>
> I've known and accepted this for years. But as I pointed out to Laz a few
> times, I prefer to stick with issues where there is simply no debate possible.
That doesn't leave us much then, does it? :-)
> >> What you *should* be "willing" to do is to speak the absolute truth.
>
> >And who decides that Ben?
>
> The citations that you'd be capable of providing.
John and others don't always believe these either, I guess that was my
point. Everyone believes what they want to believe and everyone
decides for themselves on this board what is "fact" or "evidence".
robc...@netscape.com
> Robert I hesitate to respond to your plea for Ben to explain... Why
> it clip can't be seen in the photos taken inside the TSBD but it
> definitely is seen in photos of Lt Day leaving the TSBD??
Yes, it was found with no clip, but later on it had a clip when Lt.
Day left with it.
>
> I can only speculate in answering your plea..... But I can make an
> INFORMED speculation based on solid knowledge of the way a Mannlicher
> Carcano operates.
Sounds good.
>
> You seem to have taken the position that Lt Day knew that the clip
> was going to be a critical piece of evidence and he therefore stuck one
> in the opening in the bottom of the rifle so it could be photographed as
> he left the TSBD.
Well to be honest, I don't know which one would have thought this was
needed. We do know that Boone, Day, Fritz, Weitzman, and Craig were
all around the area. I would be guessing to say which one thought a
clip was needed.
Do you realize how silly and unlikely that idea
> is?? First off WHERE would Day get a clip for a rather rare rifle??
Well this second article I just read said several things about the gun
that may help clear this up. First, when the gun was supposedly
ordered in March via mail the ad offered ammo and a clip as extras and
the person ordering it didn't take them up on it. Could this be
because they had extra clips or a clip already? Secondly, the gun
ordered via mail was 36 inches long and the one turned in as CE139 is
39 inches long. This would suggest two guns, two guns should at least
mean two clips. Furthermore, there were at least two stores in the
Dallas area that sold WCC 6.5mm ammo, so would it not be possible they
sold clips too? Again, I don't know if Day was the catalyst for this
or not. Here is the full article I'm talking about, Bill MacDowall
spent two years on this.
http://www.geocities.com/whiskey99a/carcano.html
> And if he did just happen to have one in his pocket why would he not
> simply pull it from his pocket and make it appear that he got the
> clip when it fell out while he was dusting it for prints in the TSBD
> immediately after He pulled it from the cavern of boxes?
Good question, but according to the two articles the WR said the gun
was found at 1:22PM (it was broadcasted around the country at 1:23PM),
yet police testimony shows it was found right after the shells and
that was around 1:00 PM according to Boone and Fritz. Craig said in
his unpublished manuscript the gun was found around 1:05 or 1:06PM due
to it just being found when the call came over about JDT's death.
> Do you really believe he stuck the clip in the opening for the
> benefit of the photographers outside of the TSBD??
No, I think based on the two articles that they felt they needed a
clip as they were thinking the gun operated like the M-1, which of
course it doesn't.
>
> A far more realistic and logical scenario is that the rifle was never
> fired that day. It was hidden ( planted) beneath a pile of boxes
> BEFORE the shooting occurred. The spent shells that were planted in
> the so called "Sniper's Nest" had been fired at some previous time.
> That why neither the shells or the rifle smelled like freshly fired
> items. Who ever planted the rifle and shells was quite knowledgable
> about the operation of the Mannlicher Carcano***..... and he knew
> that the rifle CANNOT be fired as a single shot rifle. Therefore he knew
> that a clip was necessary to fire the rifle...and he knew the only
> way to keep the clip in the rifle was to have at least one live round in
> the clip. Therefore he put a live round in a clip and put the clip
> with the live round into the rifle. ( Yes it's a bit awkward but it
> can be done, I've done it many times) He then closed the bolt
> PARTWAY, but NOT far enough to cock the rifle, ( the bolt handle is up in the
> uncocked position in the photos of Day and Fritz with the rifle.)
> and hid it beneath the boxes.
I think perhaps this is why we got off track the other day, and I do
apologize, I think you think I have a different take on the events. I
think your theory is very plausible (again I don't think LHO shot at
anyone and I don't think a professional killer would be caught dead
(pardon the pun) with this gun) except for the one main point. I agree
whoever planted the gun knew the clip would fall away when the last
round was chambered (and this is how it was planted to make it look
more realistic I guess) so he took the clip with him. The problem was
the DPD didn't have a clue and thought it needed a clip like the M-1
and went and found/or purchased one (again, DPD officers say the gun
was found no later than 1:06PM and yet the WR says 1:22PM, what were
they doing with this time?) so they could take it out looking proper
in their minds. They are the ones who messed it up, not the pro that
proabably planted it. Also, the article I added above makes a good
point when it says that the clip doesn't work well with only four
rounds in it (we have three left shells and one in the chamber) so
this could be further proof it was not used. IF not, why did not LHO
or whoever just load the clip with a full complement of rounds. They
never did find anymore ammo in any of LHO's possessions and they never
found gun cleaning/maitenance equipment either.
>
> Then when Lt Day and Fritz carefully opened the bolt the live round
> simply tumbled out of the rifle. Both Fritz and Day used the term
> "FELL OUT" in describing the way the shell came out of the rifle.
> Their descriptions do not indicate that the live round was EJECTED or
> flung out, by the action of the shell extractor.
Yes, but the clip is already gone, as the planter took it or it never
had one to begin with. I would think most CTers know the three shells
found had marks to show they had either been fired before or
rechambered. So more than likely, as you said, this gun was not used
that day at all.
>
> After the live round was removed from the clip there was nothing to
> retain the clip in the rifle, however the rifle was pointed at the
> ceiling when they removed that live round so gravity could not act
> upon the clip.... it merely stayed in the rifle with nothing holding
> it because the rifle was never put in the horizontal position with
> the bottom down so the clip could fall free. Somwhere along the way
> after Day dusted the rifle for prints he positioned the rifle so the clip
> could slide halfway out of the opening on the bottom of the rifle
> where it stayed as he walked out of the TSBD carrying the rifle.
I think your first theory is more accurate as they all said the gun
had no clip when it was found. Day said he never dusted the clip and
the local t.v. station footage show Day holding the gun and he is
turning it around and there is no clip in it according to Bill
MacDowall who viewed the footage.
>
> ***I doubt that Lee Oswald knew much about a Mannlicher Carcano.....
> However the CIA instructors who were training the Cuban exiles for
> the invasion of Cuba DID have a good knowledge about the operation of the
> Mannlicher Carcano. ( There are photos showing the Cuban exiles
> training with Mannlicher Carcanos.) And Yes I did say that the MC
> CANNOT be easily fired as a single shot rifle.... It can be done but
> it is highly dangerous, because the bolt must be completely removed
> from the rifle and then the live cartridge placed on the face of the
> bolt and then the bolt with the cartridge on it can be reinserted
> into the receiver......It's very dangerous, and it would take about 5
> minutes to fire three shots.
Yes, and the ironic thing (mentioned in the article, you'll like it as
it is all about the gun) is the ammo that would have been ordered by
anyone (or LHO according to the WR) was brought to the states in bulk
by the CIA for the Cuban exiles. When you start realizing or think
about this and all the other "coincidences" in the case you can see
how it was setup.
Robert
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Nov 15, 8:13 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > Does that property receipt list the scope as a seperate entity?
> > They may have saw all the components as part of the rifle as a whole.
> > Idiot.
>
> That is a good thought Dud, shocker, but yes they do list each part
> seperately as a gun is supposed to be manually broken down and
> cataloged at the crime scene.
You are an idiot.
David Von Pein
>>> "How did they trace the Carcano to LHO so fast on a Friday/Saturday?" <<<
~sigh~ and ~LOL~ regarding the "Friday/Saturday" remark...as if the
Klein's people were going to REFUSE to do anything for the Govt./FBI
just because it was the weekend. This kook named Rob gets more
hilarious with the passing of every 24-hour period.
Anyhoo....
The Klein's people pored through their records for six hours to find
the info re. the sale of the gun to Oswald....and they found it at
about 4 AM on 11/23.
Let's watch to see if a Mega-Nut named Caprio will try to turn Klein's
Vice-President William Waldman into a "plotter" and a liar. (I'm
guessing he will...since Klein's was a supposed supplier of weapons to
organizations with dubious reputations.).....
Mr. BELIN. What did you and your company do when you were contacted by
the FBI?
Mr. WALDMAN. We met with the FBI in our offices.
Mr. BELIN. Was this on Friday evening, November 22?
Mr. WALDMAN. On Friday evening, November 22.
Mr. BELIN. Did the FBI indicate at what time, what period that they
felt you might have received this rifle originally?
Mr. WALDMAN. We were able to determine from our purchase records the
date in which the rifle had been received, and they also had a record
of when it had been shipped, so we knew the approximate date of
receipt by us, and from that we made---let's see, we examined our
microfilm records which show orders from mail order customers and
related papers, and from this determined to whom the gun had been
shipped by us.
Mr. BELIN. Are these microfilm records part of your customary
recording of transactions of your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; they are.
Mr. BELIN. I'm handing you what has been marked as an FBI Exhibit D-77
and ask you if you know what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is a microfilm record that---of mail order
transactions for a given period of time. It was turned over by us to
the FBI.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know when it was turned over to the FBI?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was turned over to them on November 23, 1963.
Walt
Robert .... One of the main problems for you is : You base
conclusions
on erroneous or false information. You've read too many of the
conspiracy books and not enough of the actual record. Many of your
ideas are based on false information that has been exposed as false
years ago. For example... Most CT's now know that the rifle thatwas
shipped by Klein sporting goods to the PO box in Dallas Texas was in
fact a Model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano SHORT RIFLE, 40 1/8 inches
long. It was NOT the shorter 36 inch CARBINE. We know the ad that
appeared in some magazines showed an illustration of a model 91/38
short rifle 40 1/8 inches long with BOTTOM sling swivels while the
text of the ad said the rifle being offered was a 36 inch carbine.
The shipping records and weight of the rifles confirms that the rifle
sent to Dalas was the 40 1/8 inch rifle. The confusion was cleared
up
many years ago for most CT's, who did their homework, but you still
cling to the notion that the rifle sent from Kleins was the 36 inch
carbine.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> > Robert I hesitate to respond to your plea for Ben to explain... Why
> > it clip can't be seen in the photos taken inside the TSBD but it
> > definitely is seen in photos of Lt Day leaving the TSBD??
> Yes, it was found with no clip, but later on it had a clip when Lt.
> Day left with it.
> > I can only speculate in answering your plea..... But I can make an
> > INFORMED speculation based on solid knowledge of the way a Mannlicher
> > Carcano operates.
> Sounds good.
> > You seem to have taken the position that Lt Day knew that the clip
> > was going to be a critical piece of evidence and he therefore stuck one
> > in the opening in the bottom of the rifle so it could be photographed as
> > he left the TSBD.
> Well to be honest, I don't know which one would have thought this was
> needed. We do know that Boone, Day, Fritz, Weitzman, and Craig were
> all around the area. I would be guessing to say which one thought a
> clip was needed.
> Do you realize how silly and unlikely that idea
> > is?? First off WHERE would Day get a clip for a rather rare rifle??
> Well this second article I just read said several things about the gun
> that may help clear this up. First, when the gun was supposedly
> ordered in March via mail the ad offered ammo and a clip as extras and
> the person ordering it didn't take them up on it. Could this be
> because they had extra clips or a clip already?
That's a possibility........ And I suspect it may be correct. The
person who told Oswald to order that rifle also told him not to order
any ammo for it because he had access to plenty of GOOD American made
ammo. At that time Oswald and his handler were plotting to stage an
attempt on the life of General Edwin Walker. ( there's a lot more
info about this but let's stick to the subject at hand for now)
Secondly, the gun
> ordered via mail was 36 inches long and the one turned in as CE139 is
> 39 inches long. This would suggest two guns, two guns should at least
> mean two clips. Furthermore, there were at least two stores in the
> Dallas area that sold WCC 6.5mm ammo, so would it not be possible they
> sold clips too?
Without a doubt any store that sold the ammo also sold the
clip....I'd
bet the ammo offered by the stores was surplus Italian military ammo
which is packaged in boxes of of three clips of six cartridges ( 18
rounds total) So the clips came with the ammo.
Again, I don't know if Day was the catalyst for this
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> or not. Here is the full article I'm talking about, Bill MacDowall
> spent two years on this.
> http://www.geocities.com/whiskey99a/carcano.html
> > And if he did just happen to have one in his pocket why would he not
> > simply pull it from his pocket and make it appear that he got the
> > clip when it fell out while he was dusting it for prints in the TSBD
> > immediately after He pulled it from the cavern of boxes?
> Good question, but according to the two articles the WR said the gun
> was found at 1:22PM (it was broadcasted around the country at 1:23PM),
> yet police testimony shows it was found right after the shells and
> that was around 1:00 PM according to Boone and Fritz. Craig said in
> his unpublished manuscript the gun was found around 1:05 or 1:06PM due
> to it just being found when the call came over about JDT's death.
I've researched evidence surrounding the time the rifle was found and
I'm convinced that it was UNCOVERED by Boone and Weitzman at about
1:20 / 1:22 .... UNCOVERED = Boxes were stacked on top of it.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> > Do you really believe he stuck the clip in the opening for the
I disagree.... The live round was left in the clip in the gun, so
the
cops would have a complete bullet ( projectile) to compare against
the
"magic bullet"( projectile) that they knew was going to be "removed
from JFK's body" at Parkland hospital. ( the live round was NOT NOT
in the firing chamber (breech) it was in the clip, and that's what
held the clip in the rifle.
The problem was
> the DPD didn't have a clue and thought it needed a clip like the M-1
> and went and found/or purchased one
They went and purchased a clip and brought it back to the TSBD and
stuck it in the opening so the photographer could get a picture of
it?????
(again, DPD officers say the gun
> was found no later than 1:06PM and yet the WR says 1:22PM, what were
> they doing with this time?) so they could take it out looking proper
> in their minds. They are the ones who messed it up, not the pro that
> proabably planted it. Also, the article I added above makes a good
> point when it says that the clip doesn't work well with only four
> rounds in it (we have three left shells and one in the chamber) so
> this could be further proof it was not used.
My experience has been that the loadod system on the MC isn't totally
reliable. Some times the cartridges don't feed properly.... and as
the clip is emptied the problem gets worse, to the point that
sometimes the last round won't chamber at all.
IF not, why did not LHO
> or whoever just load the clip with a full complement of rounds.
The gun was NOT fired that day.....all of the ammo found was just
stage prop material, intended to frame Oswald so the real culprits
could go on with there daily lives.
They
> never did find anymore ammo in any of LHO's possessions and they never
> found gun cleaning/maitenance equipment either.
> > Then when Lt Day and Fritz carefully opened the bolt the live round
> > simply tumbled out of the rifle. Both Fritz and Day used the term
> > "FELL OUT" in describing the way the shell came out of the rifle.
> > Their descriptions do not indicate that the live round was EJECTED or
> > flung out, by the action of the shell extractor.
> Yes, but the clip is already gone, as the planter took it or it never
> had one to begin with.
Huh??? I don't understand..... But no matter because I believe you
are wrong. The clip was still in the gun .
I would think most CTers know the three shells
> found had marks to show they had either been fired before or
> rechambered. So more than likely, as you said, this gun was not used
> that day at all.
That's true....it is part of the testimony about that is in the
records.....
>
> Robert- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
No Rob, as I've already pointed out, I called it silly TO ASSERT WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO PROVE.
And it seems needless to explain that it's a tad dishonest to keep snipping it,
then misrepresenting it.
If you can't refrain from snipping, then the least you could do is QUOTE MY
EXACT WORDS.
You can't get into trouble with honest people when you provide accurate and
authoritative citations for what you assert.
Only trolls and LNT'ers will give you problems then - and considering the
source, it doesn't mean anything.
Walt
I thought I had corrected the statement above but somehow it still
appears as the confusing statement I originally typed.
It should read.....Robert I hesitate to respond to your plea for Ben
to explain... Why "THE" clip can't be seen in the photos taken inside
the TSBD but it definitely is seen in photos of Lt Day leaving the
TSBD?? I can only speculate in answering your plea..... But I "CAN"
make an INFORMED speculation based on solid knowledge of the way a
Mannlicher Carcano operates.
Sorry for the confusion created.....
Walt
> > over making it impossible to load and shoot them properly.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robc...@netscape.com
> Robert .... One of the main problems for you is : You base
> conclusions on erroneous or false information. You've read too many of the
> conspiracy books and not enough of the actual record. Many of your
> ideas are based on false information that has been exposed as false
> years ago. For example... Most CT's now know that the rifle thatwas
> shipped by Klein sporting goods to the PO box in Dallas Texas was in
> fact a Model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano SHORT RIFLE, 40 1/8 inches
> long. It was NOT the shorter 36 inch CARBINE. We know the ad that
> appeared in some magazines showed an illustration of a model 91/38
> short rifle 40 1/8 inches long with BOTTOM sling swivels while the
> text of the ad said the rifle being offered was a 36 inch carbine.
> The shipping records and weight of the rifles confirms that the rifle
> sent to Dalas was the 40 1/8 inch rifle. The confusion was cleared
> up many years ago for most CT's, who did their homework, but you still
> cling to the notion that the rifle sent from Kleins was the 36 inch
> carbine.
Walt, you again assume too much. The article I added as a link (which
I have to assume you either didn't read or didn't read in full) states
this and it was written in 2000. Bill MacDowall spent 2 years on this
so again I ask, is he off base? I am not asserting anything, and I
added a link as Ben suggested, but you still attribute all of this to
me. The article goes into detail about when the gun was made and it
mentions it is a carbine. I would respectfully request you to contact
Mr. Bill MacDowall as he is spreading false information if this is not
true. I don't know what else to do on this.
robc...@netscape.com
wrote:
> >I don't follow you on this one and I know I snipped it again. My
> >point of that was that the gun is a carbine and I was called silly for
> >saying this.
>
> No Rob, as I've already pointed out, I called it silly TO ASSERT WHAT YOU'RE
> TRYING TO PROVE.
I'm not trying to prove anything, I cited quite a few resources that
call the gun a carbine so am I to assume they are all incorrect?
> >I have further confirmation from the article I discussed
> >in a new string (The Great Carcano Swindle) and the books
> >"Assassination Science" and "Murder in Dealy Plaza" both mention that
> >the 91/38 is a carbine. That was my only point and I just learned this
> >not too long ago and I had never really given it much thought myself
> >before.
>
> >> Asserting that the MC is "classified as a carbine because it is a short
> >> rifle" is "merely asserting what you're trying to cite..."
Okay, then why do all these sources call it a carbine? Tell me Ben as
I want to know. You are saying I'm wrong (and I may be) but not
giving me anything to go on.
> >> >> What you *should* be "willing" to do is to speak the absolute truth.
>
> >> >And who decides that Ben?
>
> >> The citations that you'd be capable of providing.
Not according to Walt, John and a few others. I cite articles and
they blame me for saying things that aren't true.
>
> >John and others don't always believe these either, I guess that was my
> >point. Everyone believes what they want to believe and everyone
> >decides for themselves on this board what is "fact" or "evidence".
>
> You can't get into trouble with honest people when you provide accurate and
> authoritative citations for what you assert.
I did that with the gun (cited articles) and there are a few who say
**I** am being dishonest.
>
> Only trolls and LNT'ers will give you problems then - and considering the
> source, it doesn't mean anything.
Unfortunately this is totally true, as I have recently had a different
experience.
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 16, 10:17 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
>wrote:
>
>> >I don't follow you on this one and I know I snipped it again. My
>> >point of that was that the gun is a carbine and I was called silly for
>> >saying this.
>>
>> No Rob, as I've already pointed out, I called it silly TO ASSERT WHAT YOU'RE
>> TRYING TO PROVE.
>
>I'm not trying to prove anything, I cited quite a few resources that
>call the gun a carbine so am I to assume they are all incorrect?
When you continuously snip the very context that you keep misrepresenting,
there's not much use to continue, is there?
>> >I have further confirmation from the article I discussed
>> >in a new string (The Great Carcano Swindle) and the books
>> >"Assassination Science" and "Murder in Dealy Plaza" both mention that
>> >the 91/38 is a carbine. That was my only point and I just learned this
>> >not too long ago and I had never really given it much thought myself
>> >before.
>>
>> >> Asserting that the MC is "classified as a carbine because it is a short
>> >> rifle" is "merely asserting what you're trying to cite..."
>
>Okay, then why do all these sources call it a carbine? Tell me Ben as
>I want to know. You are saying I'm wrong (and I may be) but not
>giving me anything to go on.
When you continuously snip the very context that you keep misrepresenting,
there's not much use to continue, is there?
I've reposted it once - I have no particular need to keep doing so.
>> >> >> What you *should* be "willing" to do is to speak the absolute truth.
>>
>> >> >And who decides that Ben?
>>
>> >> The citations that you'd be capable of providing.
>
>Not according to Walt, John and a few others. I cite articles and
>they blame me for saying things that aren't true.
I can easily cite false things... for example, are you willing to accept as
authoritative to the flatness of the Earth, this website as a citation:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/ ?
>> >John and others don't always believe these either, I guess that was my
>> >point. Everyone believes what they want to believe and everyone
>> >decides for themselves on this board what is "fact" or "evidence".
>>
>> You can't get into trouble with honest people when you provide accurate and
>> authoritative citations for what you assert.
>
>I did that with the gun (cited articles) and there are a few who say
>**I** am being dishonest.
Yep... you are.
I've shown you several times regarding your comment about 'carbine'. You keep
snipping it.
robc...@netscape.com
How's this? Ben you can think whatever you want. I can think what I
want. I have cited two articles and two books that call this a
carbine. It was not even the main point in all of this anyway.
What does this have to do with the overall picture? I said I agreed
with Walt and he still said I was being dishonest, I give up. Think
whatever you want.
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 16, 7:40 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>
>How's this? Ben you can think whatever you want.
No thinking involved when I point out that you keep snipping.
Then going over the same point that was covered in the initial post.
>I can think what I want.
Certainly... you have that right.
But you cannot prove something by merely asserting it. As you did, and as I
pointed out.
>I have cited two articles and two books that call this a
>carbine. It was not even the main point in all of this anyway.
You *also* tried to assert what you were trying to prove. Strangely, you keep
snipping that. Doesn't work.
>What does this have to do with the overall picture?
Changing the subject again? We covered that already.
>I said I agreed with Walt and he still said I was being dishonest,
It's clear that you are.
Sam Brown
<robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:92f245a3-8996-4bed...@d50g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 15, 5:18 am, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Because YOU are a racist and a bigot. Barb made a typing error, you
>> cannot
>> claim refuge there. You have repeated your bigotry over & over again.
>
> No, it is because she is a woman, you are cutting her a break. I
> better never see bigot or racist again from you
or you'll do what ? You sad little specimen.
as you are the real
> racist as you decide who can say and who can't.
This doesnt make sense.
All I've seen Gil do
> is show you how clueless you are about the case, I haven't seen him
> say anything bigoted.
You've only been on the group for 5 minutes. Thats assuming that you are not
Gilly the bigot.
tomnln
"Sam Brown" <samjb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:473e769f$0$8504$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
It doesn't take long to spot an ABOMINATION.
Sam Brown
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:zTv%i.122$bi1...@newsfe15.lga...
Not the fizziest drink in the fridge are you Toothless? LOL
>
tomnln
The only thing worse than an ABOMINATION, is a DRUNK ABOMINATION.
justm...@gmail.com
> "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:473e8c55$0$19862$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:zTv%i.122$bi1...@newsfe15.lga...
>
> >>news:473e769f$0$8504$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> >>> <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:92f245a3-8996-4bed...@d50g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> On Nov 15, 5:18 am, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Because YOU are a racist and a bigot. Barb made a typing error, you
> >>>>> cannot
> >>>>> claim refuge there. You have repeated your bigotry over & over again.
>
> >>>> No, it is because she is a woman, you are cutting her a break. I
> >>>> better never see bigot or racist again from you
>
> >>> or you'll do what ? You sad little specimen.
>
> >>> as you are the real
> >>>> racist as you decide who can say and who can't.
>
> >>> This doesnt make sense.
>
> >>> All I've seen Gil do
> >>>> is show you how clueless you are about the case, I haven't seen him
> >>>> say anything bigoted.
>
> >>> You've only been on the group for 5 minutes. Thats assuming that you are
> >>> not Gilly the bigot.
>
> >> It doesn't take long to spot an ABOMINATION.
>
> > Not the fizziest drink in the fridge are you Toothless? LOL
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yawnnnnnnnnnnn...same shit different day, you just don't get it do ya
Rossley...you're BORING!!!!!!!!!
Time to give up posting the same crap over and over and take up basket
weaving.
Walt
Rob this is not a game...... many posters do not think of the murder
of our 35th president as a serious matter, and simply want to play
around. Most of the TV "specials" over the years have been aired for
two reasons, to add more disinformation to the mountain of
disinformation already out there, and provide entertainment for those
who like to play "Who Done It".
It's not important whether you believe me..... In fact I really don't
want you to merely take my word for anything. I try to offer only
factual information, but you should check it out to see if it's
accurate. That doesn't mean to go to some conspiracy book and see if
the author agrees or disagrees....that means go to the record and
check the facts.
Walt
robc...@netscape.com
wrote:
> >I can think what I want.
>
> Certainly... you have that right.
>
> But you cannot prove something by merely asserting it. As you did, and as I
> pointed out.
I have proved it and will post something in a few minutes to prove it
beyond any doubt, on the other hand, you have posted or cited nothing
in regards to disproving it beyond your *Assertion* that it is not
true.
>
> >I have cited two articles and two books that call this a
> >carbine. It was not even the main point in all of this anyway.
>
> You *also* tried to assert what you were trying to prove. Strangely, you keep
> snipping that. Doesn't work.
I said the gun is classified as a Carbine, that's fact, it is listed
as such in many things beyond JFK stuff.
>
> >What does this have to do with the overall picture?
>
> Changing the subject again? We covered that already.
No, you are changing the subject as this gun being a carbine (which it
is) has nothing to do with the fact that it was not used that day in
all liklihood and it was discovered with no clip. They were the main
points of the discussion and you are obsessed with the carbine issue.
>
> >I said I agreed with Walt and he still said I was being dishonest,
>
> It's clear that you are.
No, you are and you have cited nothing to prove your case. Start
citing Ben.
Walt
> On Nov 16, 10:49 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
> wrote:
>
> > >I can think what I want.
>
> > Certainly... you have that right.
>
> > But you cannot prove something by merely asserting it. As you did, and as I
> > pointed out.
>
> I have proved it and will post something in a few minutes to prove it
> beyond any doubt, on the other hand, you have posted or cited nothing
> in regards to disproving it beyond your *Assertion* that it is not
> true.
>
>
>
> > >I have cited two articles and two books that call this a
> > >carbine. It was not even the main point in all of this anyway.
>
> > You *also* tried to assert what you were trying to prove. Strangely, you keep
> > snipping that. Doesn't work.
>
> I said the gun is classified as a Carbine, that's fact, it is listed
> as such in many things beyond JFK stuff.
I said the gun is classified as a Carbine, that's fact, it is listed
as such in many things beyond JFK stuff.
Rob in an earlier post you were trying to say that the gun that was
shipped from Kleins to the P>O>Box in Dallas was a Mannlicher Carcano
CARBINE 36 inches long. It was pointed out to you that the shipping
records and the weights listed on those shipping records makes it very
clear that the rifle shipped to Dallas was in FACT a Mannlicher
Carcano short RIFLE, 40 1/8 inches long. Now in an attempt to CYA
you wiggly and squirm in an attempt to avoid the FACT.
Grow up... and learn to check the records.
Walt
robc...@netscape.com
> > What does this have to do with the overall picture? I said I agreed
> > with Walt and he still said I was being dishonest, I give up. Think
> > whatever you want.
>
> Rob this is not a game...... many posters do not think of the murder
> of our 35th president as a serious matter, and simply want to play
> around. Most of the TV "specials" over the years have been aired for
> two reasons, to add more disinformation to the mountain of
> disinformation already out there, and provide entertainment for those
> who like to play "Who Done It".
Who said it was? I never said that and if you read some of my earlier
posts you will see I have said the same thing to LNers. A real live
man was murdered, he left two small children without a father and wife
as a widow. I get it. It still doesn't change the fact I have added
cites in my posts and you haven't. You claim to speak in facts, but
you don't cite anything to support your claims. I have shown you two
different articles and you have shot them down. Both authors are
spoken of well in the CT world of researchers, but you have a problem
with what they are saying. Fine, but start citing some sources
because unless you have written articles on this topic (and if you
have please pass them along) I am inclined to go with people who have
researched the topic in depth (MacDowall spent two years on his
article). You have taken two things (clip ejecting and Carbine) and
tried to make me look dishonest. Well even though the artilce said
ejecting I was willing to go with your knowledge and say it fell out,
which is not even the main point as the gun was found with no clip at
all so really how the clip left is not that important. Also, they
only found 4 rounds (none were found among LHO's things) and this is
known to throw the firing accuracy off if the clip is not fully
loaded. This went over your head as you didn't say anything about it.
How about staying on the issue of whether the gun was fired that day
and whether or not LHO fired it?
>
> It's not important whether you believe me..... In fact I really don't
> want you to merely take my word for anything. I try to offer only
> factual information, but you should check it out to see if it's
> accurate. That doesn't mean to go to some conspiracy book and see if
> the author agrees or disagrees....that means go to the record and
> check the facts.
I will take your word, but you have to start adding some sources as
well. I don't claim to know everything about the Carcano rifle, and
have claimed as much, but I can look up the model number (1891/38) and
see it is a carbine model. I know alot about WWII and especially
German armaments, and I know theirs was classified as a carbine, thus
the "Kar" 98k abbreviation. Don't take my word, let's look at some of
the other countries in Europe armaments during WWII (save the British
who use the same gauge as we do). Carbines were common as they are
smaller and easier to carry for the infrantrymen, the M-1 had a
carbine as well.
Germany
1898 Kar 98k - standard rifle issued to all armed forces
The Karabiner 98k was a bolt-action rifle with Mauser-type action
holding five rounds of 7.92 x 57 mm (also known as 8 mm Mauser or 8 x
57 IS) on a stripper clip, loaded into an internal magazine. It was
derived from earlier rifles, namely the Karabiner 98b, which in turn
had been developed from the Mauser Model 1898. The Gewehr 98 or Model
1898 took its principles from the Lebel Model 1886 rifle with the
improvement of a metallic magazine of five cartridges. Since the rifle
was shorter than the earlier carbines, it was given the designation
Karabiner 1898 Kurz, meaning "Short Carbine Model 1898". The standard
Karabiner 98k iron sights could be regulated for ranges from 100 m up
to 2000 m in 100 m increments.
Here's more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karabiner_98k
Russia
1891 Mosin-Nagant - basic infrantry rifle, snipers used a different
weapon, notice how their 1938 model is a carbine too.
Model 1938 Carbine -- a rifle based on the M1891/30 design that was in
service from 1938-1945, though examples produced in 1945 are quite
rare. Essentially a M1891/30 with a shortened barrel and shortened
stock, this carbine did not accept a bayonet.
Model 1944 Carbine -- this carbine was introduced into service in late
1943 and remained in production until 1948. Its specifications are
very similar to the M1938, with the major exception of having a
permanently affixed, folding quadrangular-bladed bayonet. These were
in use not only by the USSR, but also its various satellite nations.
Model 1891/59 Carbine -- existing M1891/30 rifles that were cut down to
carbine length. Little is known about them. Some collectors are
generally suspicious of this so called "91/59", and feel it may have
been produced for commercial sale by arms importers in the United
States and Canada.[citation needed] There is growing evidence that the
91/59 carbine was made in the Soviet Union for reserve military forces
and for militia forces during the 1950s.
Here's more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin-Nagant
France
MAS 1936
The MAS-36 is a short, carbine-style rifle with a two-piece stock and
slab-sided receiver. It is chambered for the modern, rimless 7.5x54
French cartridge, a shortened version of the 7.5 x 57 mm MAS mod. 1924
cartridge that had been introduced in 1924 (then modified in 1929),
for France's FM-24/29 light machine gun.
Here's more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAS-36
Dutch
Mannlicher-Steyr M95
At 4 December 1895 the Dutch army introduced the new standard rifle to
its infantry regiments: the Mannlicher-Steyr M.95 based on the
Mannlicher-system. It was a bolt-action rifle and the calibre was 6.5
mm. The new rifle was a product of its time. It had a calibre 6.5 mm,
a barrel length of 0.79 metre and an overall length of 1.28 metre. The
unloaded weapon weighted 4.2 kg, which was quite acceptable. The
adjustable vizier could be set in a range from 400 metre up to and
including 2,000 metre, in steps of 100 metre. The gun itself was made
out of a wooden butt and barrel-bed and a nickel-steel barrel.
A great variety of carabines [shorter barrel] was also produced.
Basically all non-infantry units required a special carabine version,
and as such many variants were manufactured. Later these many variants
were reduced to four basic versions. These new model carabines
received an extension to the type typical: Carabine no.1 [cavalry], no.
2 [artillery and engineers], no.3 [bike-infantry] and no.4 new model
[bike-infantry]. In the end the old models were also kept in the
arsenals and even a new type was introduced in 1937, when the surplus
of rifles was modified to a shorter barrel carabine, designated no.5.
Since the old types were not phased out the Dutch army ended up [in
1940] with no less than 9 types of carabines! Since these weapons all
used the same ammo and clips it did not matter for the ammo
logistics.
Here's more info: http://www.waroverholland.nl/index.php?url=/uk_weap005.html
Italy
Carcano 1881/41 was the long rifle, 1881/38 is the carbine, we know
the gun found was a 1881/38, therefore, it is a carbine.
A short rifle variant in carbine length called the M91/38 was
introduced in 1938, jointly with a new 7.35 x 51 mm cartridge. The new
caliber, however, never replaced the old one, and in 1940, production
switched back to the 6.5 x 52 mm cartridge. In 1941, the military
reverted to a long-barrelled infantry rifle again (slightly shorter
than the original M91), the M91/41. Military surplus Carcano
ammunition is no longer readily available, but civilian loadings are
offered by Hornady, Norma and Prvi Partizan.
ï‚· Rifle
6.5 x 52 mm Italian Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle with a six-round
magazine
Serial number C2766
Western Cartridge Co. ammunition with a 160 grain (10.37 g) round nose
bullet
Side-mounted Ordnance Optics 4 x 18 telescopic sight
Here's more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcano
Hopefully, this will let us get back to the serious issue of
discussing the assassination instead of debating things like this.
robc...@netscape.com
> I said the gun is classified as a Carbine, that's fact, it is listed
> as such in many things beyond JFK stuff.
>
> Rob in an earlier post you were trying to say that the gun that was
> shipped from Kleins to the P>O>Box in Dallas was a Mannlicher Carcano
> CARBINE 36 inches long. It was pointed out to you that the shipping
> records and the weights listed on those shipping records makes it very
> clear that the rifle shipped to Dallas was in FACT a Mannlicher
> Carcano short RIFLE, 40 1/8 inches long. Now in an attempt to CYA
> you wiggly and squirm in an attempt to avoid the FACT.
No, again the article (Bill MacDowall) said the gun found in the TBSD
was 36 inches long, yet the gun submitted into evidence was measured
39 inches long. Shipping records? And you automatically take these
as true? The whole purpose of MacDowall's article was too show that
LHO never listed any aliases on his PO Box application, therefore,
there is a very good chance (definite in his mind) that no such weapon
was ever shipped. He also spent alot of time in showing the origins
of C2766 and nowhere did it mention the gun being 40 inches, in fact
the gun is acknowledged as being a 1981/38 model and this is not 40
inches long. Let's see you post these shipping records for all of us
to see. I'm tired of supporting what I say while you never do. You
even are confirming this rifle **Was shipped** to Dallas, whereas
somelike me (a CTer) is doubtful of LHO ever ordering this gun in the
first place. IF you had read the great article by MacDowall instead
of just jumping on me in a hurry, you would have seen that the ad
turned into the WC by Harry Holmes (the same postal inspector who lied
about throwing away the part 3 (additional people allowed to pick up
mail at your PO Box) when LHO closed his box instead of keeping it for
2 years as required, he is the same man who claimed to watch the
assassination through binoculars from the window of the Terminal Annex
Building and claims to see a man take a gun "away from a woman" in the
grassy knoll area (Ira David Wood, III: Chonology of Nov. 22, 1963).
He goes on to claim the man was trying to protect the woman, but never
states how in the hell he could no this) and it was from November's
"Field & Stream" not the February issue LHO supposedly ordered his
rifle from. It was shown later by researchers that this same Harry
Holmes was an FBI informant. No, why read the article as you know it
all.
>
> Grow up... and learn to check the records.
Look who's talking, you have shown you know what the records are.
Start citing and quit asserting.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
Yep... this is critical... to go to the *ORIGINAL* evidence at all times... for
even CT'er authors can be biased or mistaken.
LNT'er authors *always* are... it's simply the nature of the beast. Since the
evidence doesn't support their theory, they must *ALWAYS* be checked against
original sources.
Well stated, Walt.
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 16, 10:49 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
>wrote:
>
>> >I can think what I want.
>>
>> Certainly... you have that right.
>>
>> But you cannot prove something by merely asserting it. As you did, and as I
>> pointed out.
>
>I have proved it
What you have "proved" is your willingness to continue snipping the context, so
that no-one can see to what is being referred.
If you're honest, Quote your statement - that I responded that you can't prove
it by merely asserting it.
(But you won't...)
>and will post something in a few minutes to prove it
>beyond any doubt, on the other hand, you have posted or cited nothing
>in regards to disproving it beyond your *Assertion* that it is not
>true.
You have snipped it twice now. No need to continue pointing it out.
You either understood the second time around and are now intentionally
dishonest, or you aren't bright enough to be holding a conversation with.
I care not which...
>> >I have cited two articles and two books that call this a
>> >carbine. It was not even the main point in all of this anyway.
>>
>> You *also* tried to assert what you were trying to prove. Strangely,
>> you keep snipping that. Doesn't work.
>
>I said the gun is classified as a Carbine, that's fact, it is listed
>as such in many things beyond JFK stuff.
Quote your exact statement, along with my response.
I suspect that you won't... since you've twice snipped it.
>> >What does this have to do with the overall picture?
>>
>> Changing the subject again? We covered that already.
>
>No, you are changing the subject as this gun being a carbine (which it
>is) has nothing to do with the fact that it was not used that day in
>all liklihood and it was discovered with no clip. They were the main
>points of the discussion and you are obsessed with the carbine issue.
I'm not "obsessed" with anything. I'm simply amused that I mistook you for a
CT'er.
Tis seems far more likely now that you're either another ignorant troll, or
another Tony or Martin.
Time will tell...
>> >I said I agreed with Walt and he still said I was being dishonest,
>>
>> It's clear that you are.
>
>No, you are and you have cited nothing to prove your case. Start
>citing Ben.
I did... you snipped it.
robc...@netscape.com
> Rob in an earlier post you were trying to say that the gun that was
> shipped from Kleins to the P>O>Box in Dallas was a Mannlicher Carcano
> CARBINE 36 inches long. It was pointed out to you that the shipping
> records and the weights listed on those shipping records makes it very
> clear that the rifle shipped to Dallas was in FACT a Mannlicher
> Carcano short RIFLE, 40 1/8 inches long. Now in an attempt to CYA
> you wiggly and squirm in an attempt to avoid the FACT.
I just read something from Lifton that states the gun was 40.2
inches. So MacDowall may have gotten it slightly off (he is Scottish
and perhaps converted wrong). Still if you look up the original order
no. from the Feb. "American Rifle" (I think I wrote Field and Stream
for some reason) you notice it was for a 36 inch rifle. So the point
that the one found on the 6th floor and the one he would have ordered
in the ad (if he did) wouldn't have matched.
robc...@netscape.com
> In article <b9ad7992-c0bc-45e2-9a0c-df359adab...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
> >On Nov 16, 10:49 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >> >I can think what I want.
>
> >> Certainly... you have that right.
>
> >> But you cannot prove something by merely asserting it. As you did, and as I
> >> pointed out.
>
> >I have proved it
>
> What you have "proved" is your willingness to continue snipping the context, so
> that no-one can see to what is being referred.
Quit skirting the isse and state what I'm getting wrong.
>
> If you're honest, Quote your statement - that I responded that you can't prove
> it by merely asserting it.
Who is just asserting it? I think I have listed sources.
>
> (But you won't...)
>
> >and will post something in a few minutes to prove it
> >beyond any doubt, on the other hand, you have posted or cited nothing
> >in regards to disproving it beyond your *Assertion* that it is not
> >true.
>
> You have snipped it twice now. No need to continue pointing it out.
>
> You either understood the second time around and are now intentionally
> dishonest, or you aren't bright enough to be holding a conversation with.
>
> I care not which...
I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> >> >I have cited two articles and two books that call this a
> >> >carbine. It was not even the main point in all of this anyway.
>
> >> You *also* tried to assert what you were trying to prove. Strangely,
> >> you keep snipping that. Doesn't work.
Yet, you have not cited anything to say what the authors were saying
via me is incorrect, have you? I haven't seen anything from you other
than I am wrong. Prove it so I can learn if I am wrong.
>
> >I said the gun is classified as a Carbine, that's fact, it is listed
> >as such in many things beyond JFK stuff.
>
> Quote your exact statement, along with my response.
>
> I suspect that you won't... since you've twice snipped it.
If I remember my statment was the gun was a carbine because it is a
short rifle, right? If so, it is absolutely correct based on all I
have read. A standard rifle is longer than a carbine and usually has
more velocity. What is wrong with this statement?
>
> >> >What does this have to do with the overall picture?
>
> >> Changing the subject again? We covered that already.
>
> >No, you are changing the subject as this gun being a carbine (which it
> >is) has nothing to do with the fact that it was not used that day in
> >all liklihood and it was discovered with no clip. They were the main
> >points of the discussion and you are obsessed with the carbine issue.
>
> I'm not "obsessed" with anything. I'm simply amused that I mistook you for a
> CT'er.
I am a CTer and because I said a few things you don't agree with you
decide I'm not? I'm glad I learned this sooner than later as I
thought you were someone who was here to help people learn about the
case (something which is broad and complex and I never said I was an
expert), but you are as bad as the LNers. If someone says something
you don't agree with you dump them. Think what you like, but I
believe in a conspiracy and have done so for most of my life. With
your attitude, I can see why some people with little knowledge in this
area would jump ship though.
> Tis seems far more likely now that you're either another ignorant troll, or
> another Tony or Martin.
It must be nice to be so "knowledgeable" about everything.
>
> Time will tell...
It sure will.
> >> >I said I agreed with Walt and he still said I was being dishonest,
>
> >> It's clear that you are.
>
> >No, you are and you have cited nothing to prove your case. Start
> >citing Ben.
>
> I did... you snipped it.
Funny, I don't remember any cites, but I'll go look at earlier posts
to make sure.
robc...@netscape.com
> On Nov 17, 1:32 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > Rob in an earlier post you were trying to say that the gun that was
> > shipped from Kleins to the P>O>Box in Dallas was a Mannlicher Carcano
> > CARBINE 36 inches long. It was pointed out to you that the shipping
> > records and the weights listed on those shipping records makes it very
> > clear that the rifle shipped to Dallas was in FACT a Mannlicher
> > Carcano short RIFLE, 40 1/8 inches long. Now in an attempt to CYA
> > you wiggly and squirm in an attempt to avoid the FACT.
I have figured this all out. The main point is there were two sets of
stats to consider. I have not really looked into this area of the
case before and therefore, I'm not by any means an expert. I took the
vital info being disseminated by these researchers and did not
initially grasp what they were saying and I'd like to clear this up
before my exit from this board happens. I now can see how you would be
confused by what I was saying as I am when I think of it. :-)
If you don't want to read what I have to say just click on this and it
will clear it up.
There are two rifles in theory, but obviously only one could be found
at the TBSD. The order no. C20-T750 is tied to an ad in the February
1963, "American Rifleman" that describes a "6.5 Italian Carbine. Only
36" Overall, Weighs only 5 1/2 lbs..." (see link for full add). Then
it says, "...C20-T750 Carbine with Brand New Good Quality 4x Scope--
3/4" diameter as illustrated....$19.95". So this is where the
confusion for me came in as we can see the gun that LHO supposedly
would have ordered from the ad (this is the way they supposedly traced
the gun to him) is not the gun that was recovered at the TBSD. That
was the full 1891/41 version as it was 40.2" long. This is the part I
wasn't putting together properly, but hopefully it will help others in
realizing the gun that would have been ordered, and shipped to LHO is
not the same gun the DPD found. How can this be?
I'll leave this up to you guys to figure out. I am really
disappointed in the response to my post. Obviously I didn't explain
it well, but to assume I am a liar and a LNTer instead of trying to
figure this out is a shame. I would expect people with more
experience in this case to do that, but I guess suspicion abounds here
and no one gets the benefit of the doubt. At least they won't have to
wonder if Gil and I are the same person anymore.
Oh well, take care all.
Barb Junkkarinen
<ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
I came to the same conclusions early on ... why I kept trying, I do
not know. You already know he won't put back in what he snipped ...
and he'll continue doing it. Not only does he snip and then reinvent
the wheel ... he doesn't even have the common discussion courtesy to
indicate where snips occur.
I expect he'll take umbrage at you saying you thought he was a CT but
now have doubts ... he decided rather quickly that me, Walt ..anyone
who disagreed with him and took him to task for his nonfactual,
inaccurate statements must ne one of the dreaded "them."
Nothing really surprises me anymore, but such a blatant case of so
much all rolled into one is kinda rare.<g>
Good luck ... and don't make any typos. :-)
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
>On 14 Nov, 23:28, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>> On Nov 14, 3:47 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I didn't say you claimed I said the "N" word, I know you used it and
>> that is why I don't want to be bothered with a racist like you. I
>> didn't misrepresent anything, I said what you wrote is racist.
>> Period.
>
>Amazing. Is there anything you didn't misrepresent above?
Yeah ...isn't it great? In this short incoherent, the actual wheel
totally reinvented, reply ... he makes it more clear than I ever could
what the problems with discussing anything with him are.
Gotta love it!
Barb :-)
Walt
Rob .....You seem to be confused about which magazine the little order
blank ( CE 773) that was sent to Kleins by A Hidell came from.....
I'm not surprised.... Do you know what magazine that order blank was
snipped from??
The Warren Commission said it was clipped from the Feb 1963 issue of
The American Rifleman... But was it??
One of the Warren Commission's exhibits ( CE 43) shows a duplicate of
the ad from which they said the rifle was ordered.
CE 43 is a copy of a full page ad for Kleins sporting goods. It has
the Mannlicher Carcano and a .38 S&W revolver circled. They said the
ad had been found among Oswald's possessions. Thereby making it look
like Oswald was interested in buying the two weapons involved in this
case. The same Klein ad ran for several months in various
magazines. Kleins Sporting Goods used a system to identify which
magazine the order blank came from. Do you know how to identify
which magazine the order blank filled out by A Hidell came from??
Walt
Walt
> On Nov 17, 4:30 pm, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 1:32 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > Rob in an earlier post you were trying to say that the gun that was
> > > shipped from Kleins to the P>O>Box in Dallas was a Mannlicher Carcano
> > > CARBINE 36 inches long. It was pointed out to you that the shipping
> > > records and the weights listed on those shipping records makes it very
> > > clear that the rifle shipped to Dallas was in FACT a Mannlicher
> > > Carcano short RIFLE, 40 1/8 inches long. Now in an attempt to CYA
> > > you wiggly and squirm in an attempt to avoid the FACT.
>
> I have figured this all out. The main point is there were two sets of
> stats to consider. I have not really looked into this area of the
> case before and therefore, I'm not by any means an expert. I took the
> vital info being disseminated by these researchers and did not
> initially grasp what they were saying and I'd like to clear this up
> before my exit from this board happens. I now can see how you would be
> confused by what I was saying as I am when I think of it. :-)
>
> If you don't want to read what I have to say just click on this and it
> will clear it up.
>
You are providing a link to an article by Martha Moyers..... I wrote
to her and told her that she was off base and putting out false
information in the article. I provided her with coppies of the
shipping invoices for the rifles received by Klein Sporting goods. C
2766 is one of the Mannlicher Carcanos in the shipment. The invoice
gives the weight of the rifles and all one has to do is divie the
number of rifles in the shipment by the tare weight to determine each
rifle weighed about 7 3/4 pounds ( the weight of a Mannlicher Carcano
Model 91 /38, 40 inch rifle.
Walt
Walt
> Mr. BALL. Was there any conversation you heard that this rifle was a
> Mauser?
>
> CAPTAIN J. WILL FRITZ (DPD). I heard all kinds of reports about that
> rifle. They called it most everything.
>
> Mr. BALL. Did you hear any conversation right there that day?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. Right at that time?
>
> Mr. BALL. Yes
>
> Mr. FRITZ. I just wouldn't be sure because there were so many people
> talking at the same time, I might have; I am not sure whether I did or
> not.
>
> Mr. BALL. Did you think it was a Mauser?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I knew--you can read on the rifle what it was and
> you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was.
>
> Mr. BALL. Well, did you ever make any---did you ever say that it was a
> 7.65 Mauser?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I am sure I did not.
>
> Mr. BALL. Or did you think it was such a thing?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I did not. If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be
> too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser
> rifles myself.ButI am certainly sure that I never did give anyone
> any different caliber than the one that shows on the cartridges.
>
> =====================================
>
> LT. J.C. DAY (DPD). Yes, sir; I took the gun myself and retained
> possession, took it to the office where I dictated----
>
> Mr. BELIN. Could you just read into the record what you dictated.
>
> Mr. DAY. To my secretary. She wrote on the typewriter: "4 x 18,
> coated, Ordinance Optics, Inc., Hollywood, California, 010 Japan. OSC
> inside a cloverleaf design."
>
> Mr. BELIN. What did that have reference to?
>
> Mr. DAY. That was stamped on the scopic sight on top of the gun. On
> the gun itself, "6.5 caliber C-2766, 1940 made in Italy." That was
> what was on the gun. I dictated certain other stuff, other
> information, for her to type for me.
>
> Mr. BELIN. Well, you might just as well dictate the rest there.
>
> Mr. DAY. "When bolt opened one live round was in the barrel. No prints
> are on the live round. Captain Fritz and Lieutenant Day opened the
> barrel. Captain Fritz has the live round. Three spent hulls were found
> under the window. They were picked up by Detective Sims and witnessed
> by Lieutenant Day and Studebaker. The clip is stamped 'SMI, 9 x 2.'"
>
> =====================================
>
> Re. the "rifle clip":
>
> To reiterate Day's words above.....
>
> "THE CLIP IS STAMPED 'SMI, 9 x 2.'"
>
> Therefore, A CLIP WAS FOUND WITH THE RIFLE.
To reiterate Day's words above..... "THE CLIP IS STAMPED 'SMI, 9 x
2.'"
Therefore, A CLIP WAS FOUND WITH THE RIFLE.
Von Pea Brain yer as hopeless as Rob..... Simply because Lt Day
relates what was stamped on the clip does NOT in anyway prove that the
clip was found with the rifle. I DO believe it WAS in the rifle when
the rifle was pulled from the boxes but none of the cops were aware
that it was in the receiver. Therefore technically it was not found
before Day left the TSBD with the rifle. Day is also wrong when he
said the live round was in the barrel... I don't know if he was
deliberately lying to make it sound like Oswald had loaded the rifle
in preparation for firing again or if he was just ignorant about the
rifle. Anybody who has a working knowledge of the MC can look at the
photos of the rifle being pulled from the cavern of boxes and see that
the bolt handle is NOT down in the latched position.
Therefore any live round that would be in the rifle would NOT be in
the barrel. The live round would have to be in the clip, or engaged
with the face of the bolt. ( and since the bolt is NOT closed the
cartridge cannot be in the barrel.)
Walt
>
>
> The clip can be seen protruding from the rifle in this picture showing
> Lt. Day removing Carcano rifle #C2766 from the TSBD on November 22
> (click on image to enlarge it).....
>
> http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/9631.jpg
David Von Pein
clip was found with the rifle." <<<
Yeah. I guessed that printing was stamped on a non-existent clip.
(Kook.)
>>> "Therefore any live round that would be in the rifle would NOT be in the barrel. The live round would have to be in the clip, or engaged with the face of the bolt." <<<
Idiot.
CAPTAIN J. WILL FRITZ -- "After the pictures had been made then I
ejected a live shell, a live cartridge from the rifle."
Sam Brown
And the only thing worse than you is a pedophile.
>
>
Walt
> >>> "Simply because Lt Day relates what was stamped on the clip does NOT in anyway prove that the
>
> clip was found with the rifle." <<<
>
> Yeah. I guessed that printing was stamped on a non-existent clip.
Duh..... I guess you're too stupid to understand what I wrote. I'll
type this real slow so even a moron can understand.....
I never said the clip was non-existant I said the cops were UNAWARE of
it's presence in the receiver of the rifle until it worked it's way
out and fell to the ground AFTER Lt Day left the TSBD.
You attempted to make the case that the clip existed because Day
reported the identifing marking on a clip. You're an idiot.... The
fact that there are marking on the clip does not prove when that clip
was discovered.
>
> (Kook.)
>
> >>> "Therefore any live round that would be in the rifle would NOT be in the barrel. The live round would have to be in the clip, or engaged with the face of the bolt." <<<
>
> Idiot.
Hey Liar.... Why did you snip the qualifying sentence
preceeding..."Therefore any live round that would be in the rifle
would NOT be in the barrel. The live round would have to be in the
clip, or engaged with the face of the bolt." ???
The qualifying sentence read:.... Anybody who has a working knowledge
of the MC can look at the photos of the rifle being pulled from the
cavern of boxes and see that the bolt handle is NOT down in the
latched position.
It is a FACT that the bolt handle was NOT down in the closed and
latched "ready to fire" position, and yet Day testified that he found
it with a live round in the barrel.... and "ready to fire" If the
live round had been in the "barrel" ( properly called the firing
chamber, or breech) He could NOT have closed the bolt because the
face of the bolt that engages the rim of the cartridge would have
prevented the bolt closure.....and if the bolt isn't closed and
latched the rifle cannot be fired.
Walt
David Von Pein
>>> "It is a FACT that the bolt handle was NOT down in the closed and latched "ready to fire" position..." <<<
Prove it, kook. You can't, of course.
Any more meaningless, trivial things you want to nitpick to death
today?
How about that "bent firing pin" on Oz's .38? That's always good for a
few dozen "OSWALD COULDN'T HAVE SHOT TIPPIT" kook posts.
Or you could decide to re-hash the "Mauser" controversy once more.
That's usually good for about 100 "THE COPS LIED" posts from you
kooks.
Main point re. the "clip" being --- The clip inventoried by Day was
obviously FOUND WITH THE CARCANO RIFLE ON THE SIXTH FLOOR on 11/22.
That couldn't BE any more obvious. But the Kook Brigade will try to
deny this obvious fact...because those CTers are idiots.
(Wanna know a good way to raise Walt's blood pressure? -- just type
"DESCRIBE" in all caps a few times in a row. He'll love it.)
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 17, 3:07 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>>In article <b9ad7992-c0bc-45e2-9a0c-df359adab...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 16, 10:49 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> >I can think what I want.
>>
>> >> Certainly... you have that right.
>>
>> >> But you cannot prove something by merely asserting it. As you did,
>> >> and as I pointed out.
>>
>> >I have proved it
>>
>> What you have "proved" is your willingness to continue snipping the
>> context, so that no-one can see to what is being referred.
>
>Quit skirting the isse and state what I'm getting wrong.
Quote it. I've *already* quoted it once to point it out, and you snipped it
again.
If you're too much of a coward to retain the context, I've got too many other
things to do than to continually put it back in.
>> If you're honest, Quote your statement - that I responded that you can't
>> prove it by merely asserting it.
>
>Who is just asserting it?
You were. Quote it.
>> I think I have listed sources.
>>
>> (But you won't...)
Indeed, my crystal ball is still working...
>> >and will post something in a few minutes to prove it
>> >beyond any doubt, on the other hand, you have posted or cited nothing
>> >in regards to disproving it beyond your *Assertion* that it is not
>> >true.
>>
>> You have snipped it twice now. No need to continue pointing it out.
>>
>> You either understood the second time around and are now intentionally
>> dishonest, or you aren't bright enough to be holding a conversation with.
>>
>> I care not which...
>
>I have no idea what you are talking about.
This is quite easy. You keep harping on my statement that you cannot prove
something by merely asserting it.
All you have to do is find the strength and honesty to QUOTE MY STATEMENT - AND
THE STATMENT OF YOURS THAT IT WAS A RESPONSE TO.
But you won't.
>> >> >I have cited two articles and two books that call this a
>> >> >carbine. It was not even the main point in all of this anyway.
>>
>> >> You *also* tried to assert what you were trying to prove. Strangely,
>> >> you keep snipping that. Doesn't work.
>
>Yet, you have not cited anything to say what the authors were saying
>via me is incorrect, have you?
Have I so asserted?
>I haven't seen anything from you other
>than I am wrong. Prove it so I can learn if I am wrong.
Quote it, and you'll see.
>> >I said the gun is classified as a Carbine, that's fact, it is listed
>> >as such in many things beyond JFK stuff.
>>
>> Quote your exact statement, along with my response.
>>
>> I suspect that you won't... since you've twice snipped it.
>
>If I remember my statment was the gun was a carbine because it is a
>short rifle, right? If so, it is absolutely correct based on all I
>have read. A standard rifle is longer than a carbine and usually has
>more velocity. What is wrong with this statement?
If you're too dishonest to QUOTE YOUR STATEMENT, with my response to it, why do
you keep responding so that lurkers see your cowardice?
>> >> >What does this have to do with the overall picture?
>>
>> >> Changing the subject again? We covered that already.
>>
>> >No, you are changing the subject as this gun being a carbine (which it
>> >is) has nothing to do with the fact that it was not used that day in
>> >all liklihood and it was discovered with no clip. They were the main
>> >points of the discussion and you are obsessed with the carbine issue.
>>
>> I'm not "obsessed" with anything. I'm simply amused that I mistook
>> you for a CT'er.
>
>I am a CTer and because I said a few things you don't agree with you
>decide I'm not?
You're doing the same thing Martin does. See my posts to him.
>I'm glad I learned this sooner than later as I
>thought you were someone who was here to help people learn about the
>case (something which is broad and complex and I never said I was an
>expert), but you are as bad as the LNers. If someone says something
>you don't agree with you dump them. Think what you like, but I
>believe in a conspiracy and have done so for most of my life. With
>your attitude, I can see why some people with little knowledge in this
>area would jump ship though.
Keep running away from your statement... it doesn't matter to me.
>> Tis seems far more likely now that you're either another ignorant troll, or
>> another Tony or Martin.
>
>It must be nice to be so "knowledgeable" about everything.
Nah... I merely put a label to the behavior I see.
>> Time will tell...
>
>It sure will.
>
>> >> >I said I agreed with Walt and he still said I was being dishonest,
>>
>> >> It's clear that you are.
>>
>> >No, you are and you have cited nothing to prove your case. Start
>> >citing Ben.
>>
>> I did... you snipped it.
>
>Funny, I don't remember any cites, but I'll go look at earlier posts
>to make sure.
Oh, I'm sure you can find it. I even put asterisks around the stuff you
snipped, and I put back in, and you snipped again.
aeffects
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:KbD%i.2417$mY1....@newsfe24.lga...
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:473e8c55$0$19862$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> >> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >>news:zTv%i.122$bi1...@newsfe15.lga...
>
> >>>news:473e769f$0$8504$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> >>>> <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:92f245a3-8996-4bed...@d50g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>> On Nov 15, 5:18 am, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Because YOU are a racist and a bigot. Barb made a typing error, you
> >>>>>> cannot
> >>>>>> claim refuge there. You have repeated your bigotry over & over again.
>
> >>>>> No, it is because she is a woman, you are cutting her a break. I
> >>>>> better never see bigot or racist again from you
>
> >>>> or you'll do what ? You sad little specimen.
>
> >>>> as you are the real
> >>>>> racist as you decide who can say and who can't.
>
> >>>> This doesnt make sense.
>
> >>>> All I've seen Gil do
> >>>>> is show you how clueless you are about the case, I haven't seen him
> >>>>> say anything bigoted.
>
> >>>> You've only been on the group for 5 minutes. Thats assuming that you
> >>>> are not Gilly the bigot.
>
> >>> It doesn't take long to spot an ABOMINATION.
>
> >> Not the fizziest drink in the fridge are you Toothless? LOL
>
> > The only thing worse than an ABOMINATION, is a DRUNK ABOMINATION.
>
> And the only thing worse than you is a pedophile.
>
>
oh you ole mucher you..... whats worse is your sorry ass posting to a
USENET board and you haven';t ackue as to the topic matter -- Think
Four Elephants toot's --
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3194deb1-03c2-452f...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Do you want to explain the four elephants reference dumbarse. I have no clue
what you are talking about and am frankly bored by your repititious habit of
continuing to reference it. You do know that elephants are not native to
Australia doncha Defects?
Once again step away fom the glue and try going outside once in a while.
Loser. Done any animation lately champ? LOL
Walt
> >>> "It is a FACT that the bolt handle was NOT down in the closed and latched "ready to fire" position..." <<<
>
> Prove it, kook. You can't, of course.
Of course I can't get a liar to admit what is clearly visible in
photos, so I know you continue to lie and dodge. But for anybody who
wants to see the proof that the rifle was NOT ready to fire as Day
testified simply take a look at the photos on pages 531and 532 of
Pictures Of The Pain. The photos clearly show that the bolt handle is
not down in the latched position. If you're not familiar with the
Model 38 MC and don't know where the bolt handle would be in the ready
to fire position simply look at the photo of the rifle on page 62 of
the W.R. (CE 1308) and notice where the round knob on the end of the
bolt handle is. Then compare the location of the knob against the
photos shown on pages 531 and 532.
Walt
Walt
> On 18 Nov, 07:53, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "It is a FACT that the bolt handle was NOT down in the closed and latched "ready to fire" position..." <<<
>
> > Prove it, kook. You can't, of course.
>
> Of course I can't get a liar to admit what is clearly visible in
> photos, so I know you continue to lie and dodge. But for anybody who
> wants to see the proof that the rifle was NOT ready to fire as Day
> testified simply take a look at the photos on pages 531and 532 of
> Pictures Of The Pain. The photos clearly show that the bolt handle is
> not down in the latched position. If you're not familiar with the
> Model 38 MC and don't know where the bolt handle would be in the ready
> to fire position simply look at the photo of the rifle on page 62 of
> the W.R. (CE 1308) and notice where the round knob on the end of the
> bolt handle is. Then compare the location of the knob against the
> photos shown on pages 531 and 532.
Of course I can't get a liar to admit what is clearly visible in
photos, so I know you'll continue to lie and dodge. But for anybody
who wants to see the proof that the rifle was NOT ready to fire as Day
testified simply take a look at the photos on pages 531and 532 of
Pictures Of The Pain. The photos clearly show that the bolt handle is
not down in the latched position. If you're not familiar with the
Model 38 MC and don't know where the bolt handle would be in the ready
to fire position simply look at the photo of the rifle on page 62 of
the W.R. (CE 1308) and notice where the round knob on the end of the
bolt handle is. Then compare the location of the knob against the
photos shown on pages 531 and 532.
Hello Von Pea Brain..... Hello, Hello, Hello..... Hmmmm I guess he
doesn't have the guts to answer.
Walt
>
>
> Walt
>
>
>
>
>
> > Any more meaningless, trivial things you want to nitpick to death
> > today?
>
> > How about that "bent firing pin" on Oz's .38? That's always good for a
> > few dozen "OSWALD COULDN'T HAVE SHOT TIPPIT" kook posts.
>
> > Or you could decide to re-hash the "Mauser" controversy once more.
> > That's usually good for about 100 "THE COPS LIED" posts from you
> > kooks.
>
> > Main point re. the "clip" being --- The clip inventoried by Day was
> > obviously FOUND WITH THE CARCANO RIFLE ON THE SIXTH FLOOR on 11/22.
>
> > That couldn't BE any more obvious. But the Kook Brigade will try to
> > deny this obvious fact...because those CTers are idiots.
>
> > (Wanna know a good way to raise Walt's blood pressure? -- just type
> > "DESCRIBE" in all caps a few times in a row. He'll love it.)- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
Walt The Kook wants them to prove. The photos in question (esp. the
pic on p.532) cannot be time-stamped at all. What in the world makes
Walt-Kook think that that image on p.532 was captured BEFORE Fritz
ejected the live bullet in the chamber?
aeffects
now THERE is a Texas two-step for ya..... this Lone Nut KOOK has to be
Vinnie daBug Bugliosi's mouthpiece.... Reitzes you're a "HOOT"
Walt
Duh.....Von Pea Brain,Yer memory seems to be impaired.... Perhaps ya
should quit smokin that stuff.
Here's what you posted a couple of days ago.
>>> "Therefore any live round that would be in the rifle would NOT be in the barrel. The live round would have to be in the clip, or engaged with the face of the bolt." <<<
Idiot.
CAPTAIN J. WILL FRITZ -- "After the pictures had been made then I
ejected a live shell, a live cartridge from the rifle."
Can yer foggy brain comprehend what you posted??.... Do you see
where it says "After the pictures had been made"
AFTER ....."After the pictures had been made then I ejected a live
shell, a live cartridge from the rifle."
According to both Fritz and Day the photos were taken while the rifle
was being removed from the cavern and immediately afterward,.....
BEFORE they examined it.
The caption for the photo on page 532 reads... "Fritz and Day examine
the bolt area."
You really should let yer brain clear before you post stuff
like ...... The photos in question (esp. the pic on p.532) cannot be
time-stamped at all. What in the world makes Walt-Kook think that that
image on p.532 was captured BEFORE Fritz
ejected the live bullet in the chamber? Or ......."Yeah. I guessed
that printing was stamped on a non-existent clip."
And then posting the numerals that were stamped on the clip in an
effort to show WHEN the clip was found.
Even a school boy could tell you that the identifying markings on the
clip won't reveal when it was found....Except that it was found after
1942 ( the year it was manufactured.)
Walt
David Von Pein
LOL. This is classic stuff here! Walt The Kook is comparing the
OFFICIAL Dallas Police Department "pictures" taken by Robert
Studebaker and J.C. Day with the still frames from the Alyea Film!
Hilarious.
Fritz was obviously not talking about the "pictures" taken by the
civilian cameraman (Tom Alyea) when he said this to the WC.....
"After the pictures had been made then I ejected a live shell, a live
cartridge from the rifle."
Fritz was talking there, quite obviously, about Studebaker's and Day's
official DPD "pictures", you stupid clown.
The photos in question that appear on pages 531 and 532 of Mr. Trask's
excellent book "POTP" are certainly NOT any of the official photos of
the gun taken by Studebaker or Day. And why on Earth a kook named
Walter thinks that Fritz would be referring to the ALYEA "pictures"/
(film) in the above-referenced Warren Commission testimony is
anybody's guess.
LOL (reprise).
Upon looking at pages 531-532 of POTP just now (and reading the
associated text that is alongside the 2 pictures of the rifle in
question), I can see that Mr. Trask's text does indicate that the
bullet is still in the chamber of the weapon when both of those Alyea
film frames were exposed. (Previously, I just looked at the pictures
on those POTP pages, without examining the text.)
But Walt's last post is still a hoot...in that he seems to think Fritz
meant ALYEA'S "pictures" rather than the DPD's evidence photos in
Fritz' WC session.
I'll also add this text that appears on Page 531 of POTP.....
"The rifle bolt {in the accompanying picture on the same page,
which is the same picture linked below}, though in a forward position,
appears not to be turned fully down in a locked position, but is
sticking out perpendicular to the stock. From these clear frames {of
Alyea's film} a comparison between this rifle and illustrations of
Mannlicher-Carcanos show it to be one and the same." -- Richard B.
Trask; Page 531 of "PICTURES OF THE PAIN: PHOTOGRAPHY AND THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY" (c.1994)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg
>>> "Even a school boy could tell you that the identifying markings on the clip won't reveal when it was found....except that it was found after 1942 (the year it was manufactured)." <<<
WTF does this have to do with the "bolt/photos" sub-topic being
discussed presently?
Mind wandered, huh?
Walt
THAT!!... My dear foggy brained dumbass, is the CRUX of what I've been
trying to make you understand
The bolt was NOT turned down into the LATCHED position when it was
removed from among the boxes. If the bolt was not down in the LATCHED
position it CANNOT be fired. Lt Day testified that the rifle was...
"loaded and ready to fire" .. when they pulled it from the cavern of
boxes. He was LYING... and you just linked to the photo that proves
he was lying.
Watta Dumbass!!
Walt
Walt
Mind wandered, huh?
Nah....gist wanted to jab ya about yer stupid idea that the numerals
in the clip proves WHEN it was found.
The clip was not found until it fell out of the rifle AFTER Lt.Day
left the TSBD. Photos taken as he left the TSBD with the rifle show
the clip hanging about halfway out of the rifle.
The clip is not visible in any photos taken INSIDE of the TSBD. Those
photos were taken while the rifle was being removed from the cavern of
boxes and immediately afterward. Some of them show Lt. Day dusting
the rifle for prints
These two facts...indicate that the clip was IN the rifle when it was
found. WHAT.... WHAT keeps the clip from falling out of the rifle?
answer.... The live cartridges in that clip. When the LAST cartridge
is removed from the clip there is NOTHING to retain it in the rifle.
Therefore the live round must have been IN THE CLIP and not in the
barrel ( firing chamber) when it was found. Just another indication
that Day was lying about the gun being "loaded and ready to fire" when
it was found.
Walt
aeffects
you really need to get your act together, Dave..... your looking the
fool here! Even we don't want to take advantage of the Lone Nut peanut
gallery (then again maybe we do....)
Walt
> >>> "Can yer foggy brain comprehend what you posted?? Do you see where it says "After the pictures had been made"?" <<<
>
> LOL. This is classic stuff here! Walt The Kook is comparing the
> OFFICIAL Dallas Police Department "pictures" taken by Robert
> Studebaker and J.C. Day with the still frames from the Alyea Film!
>
> Hilarious.
>
> Fritz was obviously not talking about the "pictures" taken by the
> civilian cameraman (Tom Alyea) when he said this to the WC.....
>
> "After the pictures had been made then I ejected a live shell, a live
> cartridge from the rifle."
>
> Fritz was talking there, quite obviously, about Studebaker's and Day's
> official DPD "pictures", you stupid clown.
>
> The photos in question that appear on pages 531 and 532 of Mr. Trask's
> excellent book "POTP" are certainly NOT any of the official photos of
> the gun taken by Studebaker or Day. And why on Earth a kook named
> Walter thinks that Fritz would be referring to the ALYEA "pictures"/
> (film) in the above-referenced Warren Commission testimony is
> anybody's guess.
>
> LOL (reprise).
Hey Von Pea Brain.... Are you finished giggling off yer drug induced
high??
Are you are now sober enough to focus on photos again, then perhaps
your head is clear enough to post your views on the thread " Can
photos be created......"
Walt
>
> Upon looking at pages 531-532 of POTP just now (and reading the
> associated text that is alongside the 2 pictures of the rifle in
> question), I can see that Mr. Trask's text does indicate that the
> bullet is still in the chamber of the weapon when both of those Alyea
> film frames were exposed. (Previously, I just looked at the pictures
> on those POTP pages, without examining the text.)
>
> ButWalt's last post is still a hoot...in that he seems to think Fritz
David Von Pein
Of course, I never suggested any such stupid thing. I merely was
pointing out that a clip WAS found WITH the rifle. Period. And that's
an obvious fact (except if you're a kook, like you).
Here's the post of mine that you mangled (as per usual).....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4af4f0a01fef3548
David Von Pein
Nice boot-licking job, Healy. Just ignore the fact that Walt was
implying that Captain Fritz was referring to the ALYEA "pictures" in
Fritz' WC testimony. (Which, of course, is hilariously absurd.)
And somehow *I'M* the "fool" here, huh?
I readily admitted that I was mistaken about exactly WHEN the Alyea
pics were taken (the ones in POTP on p.531-32). Richard Trask's text,
which I fully accept, straightened me out on that....and I admitted
that.
But, as usual, you kooks like to go round & round the "chaff" bush a
million times until you think you've come up with some "inconsistency"
or something you THINK is "shady", etc. (like this silly talk about
the "clip").
The whole idea that a clip was NOT found in the Book Depository WITH
OSWALD'S RIFLE (either IN the rifle itself or right alongside it in
the box crevice where the rifle was found) is an idea invented by you
Conspiracy Kooks. Simple as that.
Lt. Day catalogued a "clip" after the rifle was removed from the
Depository....which, naturally, means (beyond all reasonable doubt)
that that exact clip WAS FOUND IN THE DEPOSITORY ALONG WITH THE
CARCANO RIFLE ITSELF.
But keep climbing aboard that Chaff Wagon, kooks. That's where you
belong.