Re: ATTENTION JEAN DAVISON

[curtjester1]

On May 26, 8:32 pm, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >         It has been said that Craig's story changed and that he didn't
> > claim the 6th floor rifle was a Mauser until years later.
>
> >         I decided to look at Roger Craig's testimony about the rifle
> > at Clay Shaw's trial in 1969.
>
> > QUOTE:
>
> > Q. .... I'm going to show you what has been marked for purposes of
> > identification as State's Exhibit 18 and ask you if you have seen this
> > rifle or a similar rifle at any time?
>
> > A.  The rifle found was similar to this one with the exception it had
> > a strap connected to it.
>
> > UNQUOTE
>
> >  http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1286&
> >   relPageId=86
>
> >            Craig didn't mention a Mauser or Weitzman at all.
>
> >            State's Exhibit 18 was a Mannlicher-Carcano similar to
> > Oswald's weapon:
>
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...
> > sult&absPageId=169164
>
> >             What say you to that, Roger Craig fans?
>
> > Jean
>
> THERE WERE "FOUR" (4) LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHO IDENTIFIED THE RIFLE AS
> A "MAUSER" IN THE PRESENCE OF CAPT. FRITZ AND LT. DAY.
>
> SEE>>  http://www.whokilledjfk.net/finding_the_rifle.htm
>
> --
> --------------------http://NewsReader.Com/--------------------
> Usenet Newsgroup Service                        $9.95/Month 30GB

From JFK, The 2nd Plot by Matthew Smith 1992

Those concerned with the finding of the rifle at the Book Depository
and who had written affidavits, Boone and Weitzman, were pressed,
under questioning by the Commission, to review their identification of
it. The Mannlicher-Carcano, at first glance, looked very much like
7.65 Mauser, it is true. How would they account, though, for a
situation in which they had been close enough to describe the colour
of the sling and yet had made an error in identifying the rifle
itself? After all, the Mannlicher-Carcano bears the legend 'Made in
Italy' on the butt, whereas the German gun has the name 'Mauser'
stamped on the barrel! Were these officers unable to read?

CJ

[David Von Pein]

Ridiculous.

Neither Boone nor Weitzman took a close-up look at the engraved
markings on the rifle.

And you don't think somebody could see the color of a sling from a
considerable distance? Why not?

Does this crap ever end regarding the Mauser mistake? Both Boone and
Weitzman said they were wrong when they said it was a Mauser. Why
isn't their own word good enough for the CT hounds? We're supposed to
believe BOTH Boone and Weitzman just lied when they each said they
were mistaken? That's nuts.

But what's even nuttier, of course, is a plotter leaving a MAUSER in
the Depository in his efforts to frame a man who owned a CARCANO.

Those plotters were complete idiots, weren't they? But, hey, at least
the CTers are happy with that kind of "patsy" frame-up. And why bother
bringing logic and common sense into this equation, when CTers can
just as easily pretend a Mauser really was found on the sixth floor
(even though the Alyea film proves otherwise)?

~yawn~

[mainframetech]

On May 27, 12:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Ridiculous.
>
> Neither Boone nor Weitzman took a close-up look at the engraved
> markings on the rifle.
>

And you know that how? Were you present? The Alyea film wasn't shot
every moment up there. Were you aware that Boone said that Fritz called
it a 'Mauser' in his testimony but he didn't say the same it himself?

> And you don't think somebody could see the color of a sling from a
> considerable distance? Why not?
>
> Does this crap ever end regarding the Mauser mistake? Both Boone and
> Weitzman said they were wrong when they said it was a Mauser. Why
> isn't their own word good enough for the CT hounds? We're supposed to
> believe BOTH Boone and Weitzman just lied when they each said they
> were mistaken? That's nuts.
>

Well ya see, Weitzman described the rifle in such detail that it seemed
a bit odd that he would then say later that he made a mistake. If so it
was a very detailed mistake. He noted the make (Mauser), the caliber
(7.65), the action type (bolt action) the scope type (4/18), and described
the sling. In the Alyea film, he was close enough to read a stamp on the
rifle, and he might have been closer and Alyea just didn't get a shot of
it at that time.

> But what's even nuttier, of course, is a plotter leaving a MAUSER in
> the Depository in his efforts to frame a man who owned a CARCANO.
>

Why would you say they left a Mauser to set up a guy who owned an MC?
That's a dumb thing to suggest. It is possible that a rifle or anything
might have been left with the intention of coming back and getting it at a
later time, if the owner of it worked at the TSBD. They got Oswald the job
there, why not someone else too?

> Those plotters were complete idiots, weren't they? But, hey, at least
> the CTers are happy with that kind of "patsy" frame-up. And why bother
> bringing logic and common sense into this equation, when CTers can
> just as easily pretend a Mauser really was found on the sixth floor
> (even though the Alyea film proves otherwise)?
>

It was shown that the rifle being held up by the DPD cop was an MC
rifle. The question comes in where Weitzman made such a detailed
description of a 'Mauser' rifle in his affidavit the next day and then
swore to it. Then later took it all back. Even Fritz was shown to have
said it looked like a Mauser, but he retracted that too. In his case, I
can see the possible mistake. But with Weitzman who said he was "fairly
familiar" with guns, and worked in a sporting goods business, and gave a
detailed description, it was a different matter.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/27/2013 10:51 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On May 27, 12:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Ridiculous.
>>
>> Neither Boone nor Weitzman took a close-up look at the engraved
>> markings on the rifle.
>>
> And you know that how? Were you present? The Alyea film wasn't shot
> every moment up there. Were you aware that Boone said that Fritz called
> it a 'Mauser' in his testimony but he didn't say the same it himself?
>

Very misleading. Fritze never called it a Mauser. He said others did.

Mr. Ball.
Was there any conversation you heard that this rifle was a Mauser?
Mr. Fritz.
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.

>> And you don't think somebody could see the color of a sling from a
>> considerable distance? Why not?
>>
>> Does this crap ever end regarding the Mauser mistake? Both Boone and
>> Weitzman said they were wrong when they said it was a Mauser. Why
>> isn't their own word good enough for the CT hounds? We're supposed to
>> believe BOTH Boone and Weitzman just lied when they each said they
>> were mistaken? That's nuts.
>>
> Well ya see, Weitzman described the rifle in such detail that it seemed
> a bit odd that he would then say later that he made a mistake. If so it
> was a very detailed mistake. He noted the make (Mauser), the caliber
> (7.65), the action type (bolt action) the scope type (4/18), and described
> the sling. In the Alyea film, he was close enough to read a stamp on the
> rifle, and he might have been closer and Alyea just didn't get a shot of
> it at that time.
>

None of that is proof that he identified the rifle.

>> But what's even nuttier, of course, is a plotter leaving a MAUSER in
>> the Depository in his efforts to frame a man who owned a CARCANO.
>>
> Why would you say they left a Mauser to set up a guy who owned an MC?
> That's a dumb thing to suggest. It is possible that a rifle or anything
> might have been left with the intention of coming back and getting it at a
> later time, if the owner of it worked at the TSBD. They got Oswald the job
> there, why not someone else too?

Maybe they read the order wrong. Remember the CIA officer who cabled
that Oswald bought the Mauser from Klein's.
Typical CIA screw-up.
Like planting talcum powder instead of cocaine.
Because they kept the cocaine for themselves.

>
>> Those plotters were complete idiots, weren't they? But, hey, at least
>> the CTers are happy with that kind of "patsy" frame-up. And why bother
>> bringing logic and common sense into this equation, when CTers can
>> just as easily pretend a Mauser really was found on the sixth floor
>> (even though the Alyea film proves otherwise)?
>>
> It was shown that the rifle being held up by the DPD cop was an MC
> rifle. The question comes in where Weitzman made such a detailed
> description of a 'Mauser' rifle in his affidavit the next day and then
> swore to it. Then later took it all back. Even Fritz was shown to have
> said it looked like a Mauser, but he retracted that too. In his case, I
> can see the possible mistake. But with Weitzman who said he was "fairly
> familiar" with guns, and worked in a sporting goods business, and gave a
> detailed description, it was a different matter.
>

We ALL say it looks like Mauser, to the untrained eye.

> Chris
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/27/2013 12:02 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> Ridiculous.
>
> Neither Boone nor Weitzman took a close-up look at the engraved
> markings on the rifle.
>
> And you don't think somebody could see the color of a sling from a
> considerable distance? Why not?
>
> Does this crap ever end regarding the Mauser mistake? Both Boone and
> Weitzman said they were wrong when they said it was a Mauser. Why
> isn't their own word good enough for the CT hounds? We're supposed to
> believe BOTH Boone and Weitzman just lied when they each said they
> were mistaken? That's nuts.

Because to some people there are no simple mistakes. Everything must be
a massive conspiracy.

>
> But what's even nuttier, of course, is a plotter leaving a MAUSER in
> the Depository in his efforts to frame a man who owned a CARCANO.
>

Some of them claim the Mauser was the real weapon used and then cops
went out and got Oswald's rifle to frame him.

> Those plotters were complete idiots, weren't they? But, hey, at least

In many plots the plotters are complete idiots. Breaking into the wrong
office. Planting the wrong type of bug. Leaving their fake ID at home.

> the CTers are happy with that kind of "patsy" frame-up. And why bother
> bringing logic and common sense into this equation, when CTers can
> just as easily pretend a Mauser really was found on the sixth floor
> (even though the Alyea film proves otherwise)?
>

Or maybe on the roof.

> ~yawn~
>

[David Von Pein]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why bother bringing logic and common sense into this equation, when

CTers can just as easily pretend a Mauser really was found on the
sixth floor (even though the Alyea film proves otherwise)?

CHRIS/MAINFRAME SAID:

It was shown that the rifle being held up by the DPD cop was an MC
rifle.

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Right. Which means that the "Mauser" comments made by Boone and
Weitzman are totally irrelevant in the first place. They are
meaningless and PROVEN WRONG by the Alyea film.

CTers bring up the Weitzman and Boone "Mauser" remarks just for
something to do, it would seem. The CTers know the Alyea film is
showing a Carcano and not a Mauser, so this whole topic is moot to
begin with. But I guess those conspiracists just want to pretend that
the Alyea film doesn't exist (or that it's a fake too).

But, then again, wallowing in moot and worthless points seems to be
the favorite pastime of conspiracy theorists.

[David Von Pein]

TONY MARSH SAID:

Some of them claim the Mauser was the real weapon used and then cops
went out and got Oswald's rifle to frame him.

DVP SAID:

But such a belief is certainly not common amongst online CT hounds,
because most of those hounds think Oswald was being framed well in
advance of Nov. 22 (e.g., imposter Oswalds in Mex. City, the car lot,
the rifle range, the phony backyard pics, the phony paper trail
leading to the Carcano purchase, etc.). Which means that if a Mauser
really was used to shoot JFK, then the plotters were, indeed, true-
blue first-rate idiots.

I guess there might be a few CTers who think the cops and FBI just
decided to "wing it" on Nov. 22 and planted Oswald's MC into the
evidence pile while deep-sixing the Mauser. But those CTers still have
to face the reality of the Alyea film--which shows a CARCANO, not a
MAUSER, being found in the Depository.

Quite a quandary for CTers, as they have to decide which preposterous
theory to believe. We know they won't believe the truth -- i.e.,
Oswald's rifle was found on the sixth floor and Oswald used that gun
to kill the President -- so they must, instead, believe that a bunch
of people lied, faked evidence, faked films, and coerced witnesses
like Weitzman and Boone to change their stories.

I'm glad I wasn't born a CTer.

[mainframetech]

On May 27, 6:22 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/27/2013 10:51 AM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On May 27, 12:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Ridiculous.
>
> >> Neither Boone nor Weitzman took a close-up look at the engraved
> >> markings on the rifle.
>
> >    And you know that how?  Were you present?  The Alyea film wasn't shot
> > every moment up there.  Were you aware that Boone said that Fritz called
> > it a 'Mauser' in his testimony but he didn't say the same it himself?
>
> Very misleading. Fritze never called it a Mauser. He said others did.
>

Here we go again. I have to correct your latest mistake. Boone
heard Fritz call it a Mauser. Here's his WC testimony:

"Mr. BALL - Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?
Mr. BOONE - I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look
at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that
is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name
is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it.
We were just discussing it beck and forth. And he said it looks like
a 7.65 Mauser."

Later of course, the politically aware Capt. Fritz claimed to know
nothing about any Mauser and to have know right from the beginning
that it was an MC rifle.

We know he identified the rifle because we have his sworn testimony
from the next day. He says he made a mistake. But the word had
filtered down by then as to how it was all going to go.

Not the way Weitzman said it.
>
Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 27, 6:55 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Why bother bringing logic and common sense into this equation, when
> CTers can just as easily pretend a Mauser really was found on the
> sixth floor (even though the Alyea film proves otherwise)?
>
> CHRIS/MAINFRAME SAID:
>
> It was shown that the rifle being held up by the DPD cop was an MC
> rifle.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> Right. Which means that the "Mauser" comments made by Boone and
> Weitzman are totally irrelevant in the first place. They are
> meaningless and PROVEN WRONG by the Alyea film.
>

nope. I raised the issue of why would a knowledgeable person that
identified a rifle down to the type of scope and caliber, state al that
and swear to it the next day, before then claiming he made a mistake?
For others like Fritz and Boone to make a mistake, OK, but not Weitzman.

> CTers bring up the Weitzman and Boone "Mauser" remarks just for
> something to do, it would seem. The CTers know the Alyea film is
> showing a Carcano and not a Mauser, so this whole topic is moot to
> begin with. But I guess those conspiracists just want to pretend that
> the Alyea film doesn't exist (or that it's a fake too).
>

You've made yet another mistake. I believe the Alyea film is
legitimate as far as it goes. But I believe some scenes were
recreated and that the camera wasn't on every minute.

> But, then again, wallowing in moot and worthless points seems to be
> the favorite pastime of conspiracy theorists.

And here you are wallowing with us as deep into the muck as you can
get...::)

Actually, the Alyea film proves that the rifle held up by a DPD cop
was an MC rifle. And that film wasn't on every moment.

Chris

[curtjester1]

On May 27, 12:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Ridiculous.
>
> Neither Boone nor Weitzman took a close-up look at the engraved
> markings on the rifle.
>

Craig said Weitzman gave a "close" examination. Craig said he saw it
from "six to eight inches away."

> And you don't think somebody could see the color of a sling from a
> considerable distance? Why not?
>

You don't think colors can be identified better as one gets closer??!

> Does this crap ever end regarding the Mauser mistake? Both Boone and
> Weitzman said they were wrong when they said it was a Mauser. Why
> isn't their own word good enough for the CT hounds? We're supposed to
> believe BOTH Boone and Weitzman just lied when they each said they
> were mistaken? That's nuts.
>

No it's not. When you get pressure to toe a party line, you know what
will happen if you don't change your tune. Craig was stubborn. The
others caved.

> But what's even nuttier, of course, is a plotter leaving a MAUSER in
> the Depository in his efforts to frame a man who owned a CARCANO.
>

Proven he didn't own it or pick it up. What if there were two shooters
like witnesses said there were two, and there were two rifles? Much
easier to make it one if you don't want answer to any conspiracy
questions.

> Those plotters were complete idiots, weren't they? But, hey, at least
> the CTers are happy with that kind of "patsy" frame-up. And why bother
> bringing logic and common sense into this equation, when CTers can
> just as easily pretend a Mauser really was found on the sixth floor
> (even though the Alyea film proves otherwise)?
>
> ~yawn~

If they weren't so nervous, they wouldn't have had to make a memo saying
that anything but a lone gunman isn't acceptable. Nice thing to have
though, when your perfect excuse has just died. Now you can just make it
an official party line and get all witnesses to cooperate or pay some
consequences.

CJ

[David Von Pein]

So, Chris, you think TWO or more rifles were found on the sixth floor
(or in the TSBD), eh?

[mainframetech]

On May 27, 11:33 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> So, Chris, you think TWO or more rifles were found on the sixth floor
> (or in the TSBD), eh?

Are you speaking for me now? I don't know what was found up there
except the MC rifle that was held up by a DPD guy. But which gun or
guns were found has no bearing on the fact that no one was able to
shoot JFK from that vantage point and do any serious damage with the
MC rifle, since it was not in any condition to hit anything. The
scope was misaligned and the bolt was sticky forcing it to take more
time to operate. The rifle was also 'worn and corroded' based on FBI
test results when they got the rifle the next day.

You might want to argue about the over 40 people that saw the large
hole in the BOH of JFK...including Clint Hill, who was directly behind
and then over the president and his wife right after the shooting.
And the small wound in the temple/forehead that makes a perfect entry
wound for a bullet that exited out the large hole in the BOH seen by
some witnesses.

Chris

[curtjester1]

On May 27, 11:33 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> So, Chris, you think TWO or more rifles were found on the sixth floor
> (or in the TSBD), eh?

Two searches of the TSBD by the ATF at 12:30 and 1:20....

http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2011/07/mauser-is-mauser-is-mannlicher-carcano.html

CJ

[Bud]

On May 27, 11:33 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> So, Chris, you think TWO or more rifles were found on the sixth floor
> (or in the TSBD), eh?

Typical CTer. Rejects the real answer, human error, on the grounds of
it being too improbable and attempts to assert something about a 1,000
times more improbable. How many people are in the Alyea film? You are
going to switch evidence with the media present? So many people
risking their freedom, for what?

They bark up the wrong trees because they apparently like the noise.

[Bud]

On May 27, 11:29 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 12:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Ridiculous.
>
> > Neither Boone nor Weitzman took a close-up look at the engraved
> > markings on the rifle.
>
> Craig said Weitzman gave a "close" examination.  Craig said he saw it
> from "six to eight inches away."
>
> > And you don't think somebody could see the color of a sling from a
> > considerable distance? Why not?
>
> You don't think colors can be identified better as one gets closer??!
>
> > Does this crap ever end regarding the Mauser mistake? Both Boone and
> > Weitzman said they were wrong when they said it was a Mauser. Why
> > isn't their own word good enough for the CT hounds? We're supposed to
> > believe BOTH Boone and Weitzman just lied when they each said they
> > were mistaken? That's nuts.
>
> No it's not.  When you get pressure to toe a party line, you know what
> will happen if you don't change your tune.  Craig was stubborn.  The
> others caved.

Did Craig say he was pressured to say it was a Mauser?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/27/2013 11:29 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On May 27, 12:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Ridiculous.
>>
>> Neither Boone nor Weitzman took a close-up look at the engraved
>> markings on the rifle.
>>
>
> Craig said Weitzman gave a "close" examination. Craig said he saw it
> from "six to eight inches away."
>
>> And you don't think somebody could see the color of a sling from a
>> considerable distance? Why not?
>>
>
> You don't think colors can be identified better as one gets closer??!
>
>> Does this crap ever end regarding the Mauser mistake? Both Boone and
>> Weitzman said they were wrong when they said it was a Mauser. Why
>> isn't their own word good enough for the CT hounds? We're supposed to
>> believe BOTH Boone and Weitzman just lied when they each said they
>> were mistaken? That's nuts.
>>
>
> No it's not. When you get pressure to toe a party line, you know what
> will happen if you don't change your tune. Craig was stubborn. The
> others caved.
>

He lied. This is not about Weitzman right now. He admitted that he was
wrong. This is about whether Craig could have seen the word MAUSER
stamped on the barrel as he claimed. Try to stay on topic.

>> But what's even nuttier, of course, is a plotter leaving a MAUSER in
>> the Depository in his efforts to frame a man who owned a CARCANO.
>>
>
> Proven he didn't own it or pick it up. What if there were two shooters
> like witnesses said there were two, and there were two rifles? Much
> easier to make it one if you don't want answer to any conspiracy
> questions.
>
>> Those plotters were complete idiots, weren't they? But, hey, at least
>> the CTers are happy with that kind of "patsy" frame-up. And why bother
>> bringing logic and common sense into this equation, when CTers can
>> just as easily pretend a Mauser really was found on the sixth floor
>> (even though the Alyea film proves otherwise)?
>>
>> ~yawn~
>
> If they weren't so nervous, they wouldn't have had to make a memo saying
> that anything but a lone gunman isn't acceptable. Nice thing to have
> though, when your perfect excuse has just died. Now you can just make it
> an official party line and get all witnesses to cooperate or pay some
> consequences.
>

They did that only because of the fear of WWIII.

> CJ
>

[curtjester1]

He was pressured not to talk to any reporters. He was fired as soon
as the Garrison Investigation was after him to appear. He was pulled
from the street so he could have an eye kept on him at all times.

CJ

[Anthony Marsh]

Nonsense. Some of the film was thrown away.

[Sandy McCroskey]

The very definition of a kook site. Bailey links to James Fetzer's blog
and cites Jim Marrs (whose name he misspells).



> CJ
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/27/2013 8:54 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On May 27, 6:22 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 5/27/2013 10:51 AM, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>> On May 27, 12:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> Ridiculous.
>>
>>>> Neither Boone nor Weitzman took a close-up look at the engraved
>>>> markings on the rifle.
>>
>>> And you know that how? Were you present? The Alyea film wasn't shot
>>> every moment up there. Were you aware that Boone said that Fritz called
>>> it a 'Mauser' in his testimony but he didn't say the same it himself?
>>
>> Very misleading. Fritze never called it a Mauser. He said others did.
>>
> Here we go again. I have to correct your latest mistake. Boone
> heard Fritz call it a Mauser. Here's his WC testimony:
>
> "Mr. BALL - Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?
> Mr. BOONE - I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look
> at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that
> is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name
> is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it.
> We were just discussing it beck and forth. And he said it looks like
> a 7.65 Mauser."
>

Here we go again. I mentioned that years before you did. Stop copying my
paper and keep your eyes on your own paper. You should be kicked out of
school for cheating.

[BT George]

On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:34:47 AM UTC-5, curtjester1 wrote:
> On May 27, 11:33 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > So, Chris, you think TWO or more rifles were found on the sixth floor
>
> > (or in the TSBD), eh?
>
>
>
> Two searches of the TSBD by the ATF at 12:30 and 1:20....
>
>

In response to comments from Chris, CJ, and the link CJ posted above--->
So here we go again. The plotters...ever so stupid...appear to have had
the chance (or original intention) to frame Oswald with the superior
German Mauser, yet somehow, someway, it became easier to frame him with an
inferior (and per many CT's) virtually non-working Italian MC. Why is
this a believable scenario?

The only CT-oriented scenario that even vaguely makes sense is if one
tries to claim that they HAD to change the rifle type because their
favorite "Patsy" Oswald actually owned an MC (a fact that is itself
disputed by many CTs) and not a Mauser. However, IMO even that makes
little sense as most CT's already believe that it took a lot of faked
evidence and/or falsified testimony to "Patsify" LHO into being the lone
gunman on 11-22-63. If so, wouldn't it have been just as easy to create a
more believable assassination narrative by framing him with a Mauser he
never owned, rather than pressuring others into changing their testimony
so as to match the inferior (and per most CT's really horrible) MC that he
actually did own?

Again, a little Patsy-rifle framing logic please!

>
> http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2011/07/mauser-is-mauser-is-mannlicher-carcano.html
>
>
>
> CJ

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/27/2013 7:54 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
> Some of them claim the Mauser was the real weapon used and then cops
> went out and got Oswald's rifle to frame him.
>
>
> DVP SAID:
>
> But such a belief is certainly not common amongst online CT hounds,
> because most of those hounds think Oswald was being framed well in
> advance of Nov. 22 (e.g., imposter Oswalds in Mex. City, the car lot,
> the rifle range, the phony backyard pics, the phony paper trail
> leading to the Carcano purchase, etc.). Which means that if a Mauser
> really was used to shoot JFK, then the plotters were, indeed, true-
> blue first-rate idiots.
>

Gee, you're just not trying hard enough in your smears. Surely you can
find some kook who thinks the conspiracy started before JFK was born.
How about the eldest son no matter who he is?
Let's see:
Joe Jr. - sabotaging the plane
John F - sabotaging the limo
RFK -
Teddy - sabotaging the car.
JFK Jr. - sabotaging the plane.

> I guess there might be a few CTers who think the cops and FBI just
> decided to "wing it" on Nov. 22 and planted Oswald's MC into the
> evidence pile while deep-sixing the Mauser. But those CTers still have
> to face the reality of the Alyea film--which shows a CARCANO, not a
> MAUSER, being found in the Depository.
>
> Quite a quandary for CTers, as they have to decide which preposterous
> theory to believe. We know they won't believe the truth -- i.e.,

We feel sorry for you WC defenders. Can't decide on when the first shot
was. Can't decide which frame was which SBT.
Can't decide which shot missed. Can't find the bullet from the missed shot.
Can't account for all the damage to the limousine. You guys got a lot of
work to do.

> Oswald's rifle was found on the sixth floor and Oswald used that gun
> to kill the President -- so they must, instead, believe that a bunch
> of people lied, faked evidence, faked films, and coerced witnesses
> like Weitzman and Boone to change their stories.
>

Even if Oswald was the shooter, there was still a lot of lying and
tampering with the evidence, because they believed that Oswald was a
hired gun part of an "International Communist Conspiracy."

> I'm glad I wasn't born a CTer.
>

You're happier supporting government lies.

[Jean Davison]

> http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2011/07/mauser-is-mauser-is-mannlic...
>

The blog writer has a photo supposedly showing a Mauser and an
M-C that actually shows two views of the M-C, with bolt closed and
bolt open.

Worse, though, he says, "Weitzman would give testimony to the
Warren Commission that the rifle found was a Mauser..... Capt. Fritz
said it was a Mauser as well and said so to the Warren Commission."
Of course, the opposite is true -- both *denied* it was a Mauser.

You are looking for facts in all the wrong places, CJ.
Reading hooey like this is the opposite of research. The more you
read, the less you'll know.

Jean

[curtjester1]

On May 28, 8:21 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> curtjester1 wrote:
> > On May 27, 11:33 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> So, Chris, you think TWO or more rifles were found on the sixth floor
> >> (or in the TSBD), eh?
>
> > Two searches of the TSBD by the ATF at 12:30 and 1:20....
>

> >http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2011/07/mauser-is-mauser-is-mannlic...

>
> The very definition of a kook site. Bailey links to James Fetzer's blog
> and cites Jim Marrs (whose name he misspells).
>
>
>
> > CJ

Many call this place a kook site. It's called research and there are
accounts. Unfortunately if one account doesn't suit ones perceptions
or already formed opinions, knee jerk reactions are usually
forethcoming. I read everything on a subject. Even Buglosi, who
basiscally just parrots stuff other's have written.

CJ

[curtjester1]

> >http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2011/07/mauser-is-mauser-is-mannlic...
>
> > CJ

Scenarios are a dime a dozen. Some people saw two or more people on
the sixth floor. Sure gives room for two rifles, two shooters. Maybe
the patsy was already set up with the weapon they wanted, or they
found out that Klein's didn't carry Mausers.....yadda, yadda, yadda.

CJ

[curtjester1]

On May 28, 10:39 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

> On May 27, 11:29 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 27, 12:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ridiculous.
>
> > > Neither Boone nor Weitzman took a close-up look at the engraved
> > > markings on the rifle.
>
> > Craig said Weitzman gave a "close" examination.  Craig said he saw it
> > from "six to eight inches away."
>
> > > And you don't think somebody could see the color of a sling from a
> > > considerable distance? Why not?
>
> > You don't think colors can be identified better as one gets closer??!
>
> > > Does this crap ever end regarding the Mauser mistake? Both Boone and
> > > Weitzman said they were wrong when they said it was a Mauser. Why
> > > isn't their own word good enough for the CT hounds? We're supposed to
> > > believe BOTH Boone and Weitzman just lied when they each said they
> > > were mistaken? That's nuts.
>
> > No it's not.  When you get pressure to toe a party line, you know what
> > will happen if you don't change your tune.  Craig was stubborn.  The
> > others caved.
>
>   Did Craig say he was pressured to say it was a Mauser?
>
>

No, so it probably was, just like the other's weren't pressured off
the bat, so their testimonies 'took'. It's obvious though, that Craig
was pressured in a huge way not to speak about the assassination in
general and he suffered for it in a huge way.

CJ

[mainframetech]

Ah. Changed the subject. Thrown away, same as the camera being off,
perhaps for winding. I'd love to see proof of that. I can't imagine
a single foot of film being tossed if it was part of the JFK case.
Cites please.

[mainframetech]

On May 28, 8:31 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/27/2013 8:54 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
>
> > On May 27, 6:22 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/27/2013 10:51 AM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >>> On May 27, 12:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> Ridiculous.
>
> >>>> Neither Boone nor Weitzman took a close-up look at the engraved
> >>>> markings on the rifle.
>
> >>>     And you know that how?  Were you present?  The Alyea film wasn't shot
> >>> every moment up there.  Were you aware that Boone said that Fritz called
> >>> it a 'Mauser' in his testimony but he didn't say the same it himself?
>
> >> Very misleading. Fritze never called it a Mauser. He said others did.
>
> >    Here we go again.  I have to correct your latest mistake.  Boone
> > heard Fritz call it a Mauser.  Here's his WC testimony:
>
> > "Mr. BALL - Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?
> > Mr. BOONE - I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look
> > at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that
> > is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name
> > is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it.
> >   We were just discussing it beck and forth. And he said it looks like
> > a 7.65 Mauser."
>
> Here we go again. I mentioned that years before you did. Stop copying my
> paper and keep your eyes on your own paper. You should be kicked out of
> school for cheating.
>

Stick it. I'll say what occurs to me, and that's what I did. I
NEVER saw you point that out anywhere. If you ever did, I didn't see
it. The last thing I would want to do is copy from you because of
the large number of errors you make that I then have to correct. You
should be kicked out for false accusations.

>
>
> >     Later of course, the politically aware Capt. Fritz claimed to know

> > nothing about any Mauser and to have known right from the beginning

[mainframetech]

On May 28, 8:36 pm, BT George <brockgeorg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:34:47 AM UTC-5, curtjester1 wrote:
> > On May 27, 11:33 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > So, Chris, you think TWO or more rifles were found on the sixth floor
>
> > > (or in the TSBD), eh?
>
> > Two searches of the TSBD by the ATF at 12:30 and 1:20....
>
> In response to comments from Chris, CJ, and the link CJ posted above--->
> So here we go again.  The plotters...ever so stupid...appear to have had
> the chance (or original intention) to frame Oswald with the superior
> German Mauser, yet somehow, someway, it became easier to frame him with an
> inferior (and per many CT's) virtually non-working Italian MC.  Why is
> this a believable scenario?
>

Don't be silly. That doesn't make sense. If there ever was a
Mauser there, it wasn't to set up Oswald.

> The only CT-oriented scenario that even vaguely makes sense is if one
> tries to claim that they HAD to change the rifle type because their
> favorite "Patsy" Oswald actually owned an MC (a fact that is itself
> disputed by many CTs) and not a Mauser.  However, IMO even that makes
> little sense as most CT's already believe that it took a lot of faked
> evidence and/or falsified testimony to "Patsify" LHO into being the lone
> gunman on 11-22-63.  If so, wouldn't it have been just as easy to create a
> more believable assassination narrative by framing him with a Mauser he
> never owned, rather than pressuring others into changing their testimony
> so as to match the inferior (and per most CT's really horrible) MC that he
> actually did own?
>
> Again, a little Patsy-rifle framing logic please!
>

Me, I'm a believer that Oswald ordered the MC rifle. I note that he
didn't take the offer to also buy the clip and ammunition. He didn't
need them, since he had no intention of shooting anyone, only making
an impression on revolutionaries. The rifle went to the FBI that
night and they found it to be unworkable and had to send it to their
gunsmith to shim up the scope so it could be aimed once it was sighted
in. Where the clip and ammo, I have no idea.

>
> >http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2011/07/mauser-is-mauser-is-mannlic...
>
> > CJ

[Bud]

Or so you like to think. It really doesn`t matter to you how much of
this is actually true, does it?

[curtjester1]

Ok, lights, camera, action!" (Notice the timepiece giveaway).

http://web.newsguy.com/mcclung/alyea.html (Alyea Staged Rifle Find
Much Later)

CJ

[curtjester1]

On May 29, 2:42 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 8:36 pm, BT George <brockgeorg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:34:47 AM UTC-5, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > On May 27, 11:33 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > So, Chris, you think TWO or more rifles were found on the sixth floor
>
> > > > (or in the TSBD), eh?
>
> > > Two searches of the TSBD by the ATF at 12:30 and 1:20....
>
> > In response to comments from Chris, CJ, and the link CJ posted above--->
> > So here we go again.  The plotters...ever so stupid...appear to have had
> > the chance (or original intention) to frame Oswald with the superior
> > German Mauser, yet somehow, someway, it became easier to frame him with an
> > inferior (and per many CT's) virtually non-working Italian MC.  Why is
> > this a believable scenario?
>
>   Don't be silly.  That doesn't make sense.  If there ever was a
> Mauser there, it wasn't to set up Oswald.
>

True.

> > The only CT-oriented scenario that even vaguely makes sense is if one
> > tries to claim that they HAD to change the rifle type because their
> > favorite "Patsy" Oswald actually owned an MC (a fact that is itself
> > disputed by many CTs) and not a Mauser.  However, IMO even that makes
> > little sense as most CT's already believe that it took a lot of faked
> > evidence and/or falsified testimony to "Patsify" LHO into being the lone
> > gunman on 11-22-63.  If so, wouldn't it have been just as easy to create a
> > more believable assassination narrative by framing him with a Mauser he
> > never owned, rather than pressuring others into changing their testimony
> > so as to match the inferior (and per most CT's really horrible) MC that he
> > actually did own?
>
> > Again, a little Patsy-rifle framing logic please!
>
>   Me, I'm a believer that Oswald ordered the MC rifle.  I note that he
> didn't take the offer to also buy the clip and ammunition.  He didn't
> need them, since he had no intention of shooting anyone, only making
> an impression on revolutionaries.  The rifle went to the FBI that
> night and they found it to be unworkable and had to send it to their
> gunsmith to shim up the scope so it could be aimed once it was sighted
> in.   Where the clip and ammo, I have no idea.
>
>

Untrue.

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

CJ

[mainframetech]

Yes, Weitzman giving testimony of a Mauser was Hooey. While Capt.
Fritz thinking it was a Mauser when it was found is completely true based
on Eugene Boone's testimony, though Fritz didn't say that to the WC.
Just to correctr the record.

Chris

[BT George]

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 1:42:32 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On May 28, 8:36 pm, BT George <brockgeorg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:34:47 AM UTC-5, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> > > On May 27, 11:33 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > So, Chris, you think TWO or more rifles were found on the sixth floor
>
> >
>
> > > > (or in the TSBD), eh?
>
> >
>
> > > Two searches of the TSBD by the ATF at 12:30 and 1:20....
>
> >
>
> > In response to comments from Chris, CJ, and the link CJ posted above--->
>
> > So here we go again.  The plotters...ever so stupid...appear to have had
>
> > the chance (or original intention) to frame Oswald with the superior
>
> > German Mauser, yet somehow, someway, it became easier to frame him with an
>
> > inferior (and per many CT's) virtually non-working Italian MC.  Why is
>
> > this a believable scenario?
>
> >
>
> Don't be silly. That doesn't make sense. If there ever was a
>
> Mauser there, it wasn't to set up Oswald.
>

> Chris, glad to see you find that scenario as silly as I do. However, some CT's seem to suggest (in effect) that that is what ended up happening. Though perhaps they never think it through enough to realize that would be the implication of actually finding a Mouser and morphing it into a MC.

>
> > The only CT-oriented scenario that even vaguely makes sense is if one
>
> > tries to claim that they HAD to change the rifle type because their
>
> > favorite "Patsy" Oswald actually owned an MC (a fact that is itself
>
> > disputed by many CTs) and not a Mauser.  However, IMO even that makes
>
> > little sense as most CT's already believe that it took a lot of faked
>
> > evidence and/or falsified testimony to "Patsify" LHO into being the lone
>
> > gunman on 11-22-63.  If so, wouldn't it have been just as easy to create a
>
> > more believable assassination narrative by framing him with a Mauser he
>
> > never owned, rather than pressuring others into changing their testimony
>
> > so as to match the inferior (and per most CT's really horrible) MC that he
>
> > actually did own?
>
> >
>
> > Again, a little Patsy-rifle framing logic please!
>
> >
>
> Me, I'm a believer that Oswald ordered the MC rifle. I note that he
>
> didn't take the offer to also buy the clip and ammunition. He didn't
>
> need them, since he had no intention of shooting anyone, only making
>
> an impression on revolutionaries. The rifle went to the FBI that
>
> night and they found it to be unworkable and had to send it to their
>
> gunsmith to shim up the scope so it could be aimed once it was sighted
>
> in. Where the clip and ammo, I have no idea.
>
>

The condition of the rifle on 11-22-63 pre-assassination is not 100%
known. Some believe the scope became damaged when LHO stuffed the rifle
between boxes to hide it during his get away. (It's also possible that he
did, in fact, end up shooting the iron sites as the HSCA suggested.) As
to the supposedly difficult to work bolt and other alleged deficiencies in
the rifle, there is LN evidence and testimony contradicting most of the CT
dogma on those topics, so I don't see much to be gained strolling down
that road, at least on this thread.

Regarding the ammo. and clip, I would suggest that it was hardly
impossible for him to have obtained it on a separate order or purchase
that somehow escaped WC's scrutiny even though their search of his
finances and spending was thorough. Also, to say he never intended to use
his rifle except for making an impression on revolutionaries is IMO not
supported by the fact that Marina Oswald volunteered the information about
his taking a crack at Gen. Walker with it. An event the authorities
previously had no clue could be linked to LHO. To my knowledge, as much
as Marina may have been inconsitent in her testimony in som minor ways,
and even though she has gsince one over to the pro-CT side, she's never
said that story was untrue or taken back any of the more damaging
testimony that she passed on to the authorties at the time.

>
> >
>
> > >http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2011/07/mauser-is-mauser-is-mannlic...
>
> >
>
> > > CJ

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh yeah. He could have gotten a free clip by buying 108 rounds of SMI
ammo. So where are those 108 rounds? Did he thrown them away because he
knew they were no good? Did someone find them in the trash? Did they
explode when they were dumped in the incinerator?

> finances and spending was thorough. Also, to say he never intended to use
> his rifle except for making an impression on revolutionaries is IMO not
> supported by the fact that Marina Oswald volunteered the information about
> his taking a crack at Gen. Walker with it. An event the authorities

Given the timing and he stalking Walker it is clear that he targeted
Walker.

> previously had no clue could be linked to LHO. To my knowledge, as much

Because they were incompetent. They couldn't even identify the brand of
the bullet.

[John Fiorentino]

Actually what was there (which is removed now) was a MC and a Mauser, but
he had the captions inverted.

John F.


"Jean Davison" <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ac3744da-13f2-4eea...@v2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

[Jean Davison]

Chris-

Sure, according to Boone, Fritz said it was a Mauser. I was
disputing WC testimony claims, not that.

Seriously, how can a blogger who thinks Fritz told the WC the
gun was a Mauser hope to be taken seriously?

Jean

[Jean Davison]

Another junk page of misinformation. "I read it on the
internet, it must be true."
Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

I doubt it. But I think it is possible that you missed me discussing it
thousands of times since you don't pay attention.
Who's going to kick me out? You?

[Anthony Marsh]

Obviously you've never studied the Alyea film controversy and you don't
know how to use Google. You want everyone else to do your homework for
you.

Tom Rossley. ?What ever happened to the 400... Tom Alyea 5:55pm Sep 2

Tom Rossley. ?What ever happened to the 400 feet of film I took of the
TSBD Search??

Good question. Nobody has ever asked me this before.

I had filmed the search to the roof on 200 ft. of film. I took several
shot from this location. The shots I took of the Sniper?s Nest were
recorded on the second reel. Capt. Fritz decided to have a conference with
the Search Team about a continued search for the ? Sniper? by searching
the floors again, back down. The suggestion was submitted about obtaining
some Flashlights to aid us in seeing into the dark areas. The nearest
source was at the Sheriff?s Office a block away. Two men were dispatched
to The Sheriff?s Office to obtain them, and Capt. Fritz said he and the
group would wait on the roof until they returned. I thought this would be
a good time for me to get my footage to one of our reporters waiting
outside. I took the elevator down with the officers. They had badges, and
were allowed to exit the building, but I stepped to the porch and gave my
footage to WFAA-TV reporter Art Sinclair, who raced this first 200 ft. to
the newsroom. The world saw the sniper?s nest for the first time. It was
all silent film, with no copy attached. I turned and went back onto the
building with no challenge from the guards. I rejoined Capt Fritz and the
search group again on the roof. Capt Fritz became impatient waiting on the
flashlights and led us to the 7th floor and 6th to start our downward
search. Within a few minutes the flashlights arrived and were distributed
to some of the officers. Within minutes, one of the officers spotted about
four inches of the end of the rifle stock. The officer was on the North
side of a small circular enclosure of book cartons, but the Rifle was
hidden on the inside. The Rifle could be seen only by looking over the
North side, over the overhanging boxes. I took a shot of the officer who
found the Rifle as he singled to Capt. Fritz. When Fritz saw it, he
stopped the search and directed one of the officers to go below and call
the Crime Lab. It took Lt. Day and Officer Studebaker from 12 to 15
minutes to arrive. During this wait, we were informed that the President
was dead. Finally the two Crime Lab men stepped from the elevator, just 20
ft. from where we had gathered at the Rifle Site. I had filmed the partial
vision of the Rifle within seconds after it was found. I still have this
footage. I also filmed the questionable activities of Lt. Day and
Studebaker in their efforts to record this evidence. I still have this
footage. When Lt. Day started dusting the Rifle, Capt. Fritz reached into
the pocket and retrieved the three shell casing he had taken from the
Sniper?s Nest and handed them to Studebaker, with the instruction to
include them in his photos he would be taking of the Shooting Site at the
Southeast window, while Lt. Day dusted the Rifle where it was found. We
all watched Lt. Day dust the Rifle as I filmed it. I still have photos of
this. Studebaker was alone at the Shooting Site. He had not seen the
original location of the casings, so he tossed them on the floor, and this
is the photo that is recorded for history.

I was not able to cover both activities. Footage containing the finding of
the Rifle, Photographing it, Dusting it, Fritz ejecting round #4, Fritz
and Ly. Day examining the dusted rifle, etc, consumed most of my 3rd reel.
Fritz handed the Rifle back to Lt. Day and told him to take it directly to
his office at Police Headquarters. When Capt. Fritz and a few officers
decided to leave, Capt. Fritz was waiting for the elevator, just a few
feet from the Rifle Crime Scene. When the elevator arrived, Mgr. Truly
stepped out and give Fritz the information about Oswald not returning from
lunch and could be a suspect. Unknown to researchers, Fritz did not go
directly to his office. The two detectives accompanying Fritz reported
that the Captain ordered his driver to go the Sheriff?s Office. The
officers reported that Fritz talked to Sheriff Bill Decker for about 15
minutes before he got back into the car and resumed his trip back to
Police Headquarters. The officers stated that they stayed in the car
during the time Fritz visited with the Sheriff. They did not relate the
content of the conversation.

NOTE: Lt. Day never saw the Snipers Nest until he returned with Studebaker
about 3:30 to shoot more photos and look for additional evidence. But when
he arrived on the 6th floor, he found he was surrounded by the press who
had been escorted to the 6th floor by the police to record the crime
scenes. I have photos of him aiding the press in the location of the Rifle
Crime Scene. However in his testimony he reported that the Press had
entered the 6th floor Saturday and disrupted much of the evidence. The
Press was soon asked to leave. This was the only time the Press was in the
building. To my knowledge, the 6th floor was empty Saturday and Sunday.


After Lt. Day left with the Rifle, I filmed several scenes of activity by
the Police, including Studebaker dusting the Dr. Pepper bottle. Shortly
after 2:30, I left the floor to get my footage to the station and
televised. I had no police badge and wasn?t allowed to leave. I taped reel
#3 and #4 together, and was able to toss it to News Editor, A. J. L?Hoste
who was standing near the door. He raced it to the News Room where it was
processed and a few minutes later it was shown to the world. The Rifle was
seen for the first time, plus scenes of Lt. Day dusting it where it was
found. However, years later, when I had an opportunity to watch a re-run
of these news shots, I didn?t see much of the activity that was involved
in processing the bits of information regarding this important find.

I was still in the building when my footage was televised. I had no idea
what was used in WFAA-TV?s televised news report. It was weeks later that
I learned how little of my footage was used. I have learned since, many
more disturbing facts. I have listed them in my Report, but they are too
lengthy to list here.

To answer your question, let me list the following facts: 1). I don?t know
for certain, who edited my film that was televised while I was still in
the TSBD. Some of the footage was used in the make-up of a News Reel, and
televised. The same reel was sent to ABC in New York. It is my
understanding that the FBI acquired a copy of the same small bit of News
Footage that hit the air.

2). Saturday, Nov. 23, 1963 I was concerned about the discarded film on
the editing room floor. I checked it, and found much of my footage had
been discarded along with footage from other newsmen. I asked the News
Director to save it; he said we didn?t have time. I located some empty
reels and searched the 4-inch pile of footage. When I found a strip of
film I had shot, I spun it onto an empty reel, and crammed it in my
pocket. I didn?t have time to locate all of my discarded footage before
the custodian returned and filled the trash container with the remaining
footage from the floor. I grabbed my camera and recorded it. It can be
seen in my report. The footage I have is a collection of filmstrips I
salvaged from the Editing Room floor.

3). Many key scenes went out the door in a trash barrel, such as the long
film strip of the Sniper?s Nest, the Shooting Support boxes, the Casings
on the floor, and Capt. Fritz holding the three casings in his hand. I
have wondered these many years if this was deliberate, or an accident or
bad editing; but it does not interest the modern researcher, nor do the
many other facts that are unknown.

Best regards, Tom Alyea

[claviger]

BT George,

> The condition of the rifle on 11-22-63 pre-assassination is not 100%
> known.  Some believe the scope became damaged when LHO stuffed the rifle
> between boxes to hide it during his get away.  (It's also possible that he
> did, in fact, end up shooting the iron sites as the HSCA suggested.)  As
> to the supposedly difficult to work bolt and other alleged deficiencies in
> the rifle, there is LN evidence and testimony contradicting most of the CT
> dogma on those topics, so I don't see much to be gained strolling down
> that road, at least on this thread.
>

> Regarding the ammo, and clip, I would suggest that it was hardly

> impossible for him to have obtained it on a separate order or purchase
> that somehow escaped WC's scrutiny even though their search of his
> finances and spending was thorough.  Also, to say he never intended to use
> his rifle except for making an impression on revolutionaries is IMO not
> supported by the fact that Marina Oswald volunteered the information about
> his taking a crack at Gen. Walker with it.  An event the authorities
> previously had no clue could be linked to LHO.  To my knowledge, as much

> as Marina may have been inconsitent in her testimony in some minor ways,
> and even though she has since gone over to the pro-CT side, she's never

> said that story was untrue or taken back any of the more damaging
> testimony that she passed on to the authorties at the time.

Good observations, sound logic.

[Jean Davison]

On May 29, 9:16 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
wrote:

> Actually what was there (which is removed now) was a MC and a Mauser, but
> he had the captions inverted.
>
> John F.

The page is back up this morning. It still seems to me
that he's showing different views of the same M-C:

http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2011/07/mauser-is-mauser-is-mannlicher-carcano.html

I'm comparing it to the *bottom* two rifles here (The top
photo is the Mauser):

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TINpTkwt9_I/AAAAAAAAFP4/0edTl-snHVk/s1600/Mauser-Carcano+Comparisons.jpg

Of course, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Let me know.

Jean
>
> "Jean Davison" <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote in message

[Jean Davison]

On May 29, 5:13 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

More hooey. Keep it coming, CJ!

The rifle was found at 1:22. It wasn't *filmed* at
1:22. Why don't you read Lt. Day's testimony about his activities on
the 6th floor before he got to this point, instead of this junk?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm

Jean

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On May 27, 10:51 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 12:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:> Ridiculous.

>
> > Neither Boone nor Weitzman took a close-up look at the engraved
> > markings on the rifle.
>
>   And you know that how?  Were you present?  The Alyea film wasn't shot
> every moment up there.  Were you aware that Boone said that Fritz called
> it a 'Mauser' in his testimony but he didn't say the same it himself?
>

> > And you don't think somebody could see the color of a sling from a
> > considerable distance? Why not?
>
> > Does this crap ever end regarding the Mauser mistake? Both Boone and
> > Weitzman said they were wrong when they said it was a Mauser. Why
> > isn't their own word good enough for the CT hounds? We're supposed to
> > believe BOTH Boone and Weitzman just lied when they each said they
> > were mistaken? That's nuts.
>
>   Well ya see, Weitzman described the rifle in such detail that it seemed
> a bit odd that he would then say later that he made a mistake. If so it
> was a very detailed mistake.  He noted the make (Mauser), the caliber
> (7.65), the action type (bolt action) the scope type (4/18), and described
> the sling.  In the Alyea film, he was close enough to read a stamp on the
> rifle, and he might have been closer and Alyea just didn't get a shot of
> it at that time.

Yep. And other than "Mauser"and "7.65mm" please tell us what part of
the description doesn't fit Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano.

It sure appears he is describing this weapon:
http://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/thumb_6cd32b3c3a.gif

In his statement here:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2fcjo12jabs/Tvw-9upYSNI/AAAAAAAABx8/c3MK_HWV3vg/s1200-h/Seymour-Weitzman-Affidavit.gif

And it's important to ask, could Weitzman count to two?

Remember, too, that what he described happening to the rifle he saw is
what others say happened to the *only* rifle found up there (no one,
including Weitzman, says two rifles were found on the sixth floor in
the NW corner, picked up by the sling, examined, and one shell
ejected). Those people who describe the finding of the rifle all
describe *one* (and only one) rifle being found.

So either all the witnesses (including Weitzman) were lying about the
*one* rifle, or only one rifle was found.

And the film shows Oswald's MC, to the exclusion of all other
weapons.

Could Weitzman count to two?

Which is it, one rifle or two on the sixth floor?

Hank

>
> > But what's even nuttier, of course, is a plotter leaving a MAUSER in
> > the Depository in his efforts to frame a man who owned a CARCANO.
>
>   Why would you say they left a Mauser to set up a guy who owned an MC?

Because that's what your ultimate argument reduces to. The real weapon
found on the sixth floor was a Mauser, not an MC, and Oswald was a
patsy.

> That's a dumb thing to suggest.

We agree. But DVP is not suggesting it. He is pointing out it appears
to be your suggestion.

> It is possible that a rifle or anything
> might have been left with the intention of coming back and getting it at a
> later time, if the owner of it worked at the TSBD. They got Oswald the job
> there, why not someone else too?

Who is they, and who is 'someone else' and did this someone else shoot
JFK with that supposed Mauser?

What exactly do you think happened up there?

Can you advise?

>
> > Those plotters were complete idiots, weren't they? But, hey, at least

> > the CTers are happy with that kind of "patsy" frame-up. And why bother

> > bringing logic and common sense into this equation, when CTers can
> > just as easily pretend a Mauser really was found on the sixth floor
> > (even though the Alyea film proves otherwise)?
>

>    It was shown that the rifle being held up by the DPD cop was an MC

> rifle.  The question comes in where Weitzman made such a detailed
> description of a 'Mauser' rifle in his affidavit the next day and then
> swore to it.  Then later took it all back.  Even Fritz was shown to have
> said it looked like a Mauser, but he retracted that too.

No, One witness, Boone, said "I believe Fritz said it."

Note the qualification, "I believe".

>  In his case, I
> can see the possible mistake.  But with Weitzman who said he was "fairly
> familiar" with guns, and worked in a sporting goods business, and gave a
> detailed description, it was a different matter.
>

> Chris
>
>

Sorry, either one weapon was found up there, or two. If two, then ALL
the witnesses are lying - including Weitzman.

Is that what you believe?

Hank

[BT George]

Thanks. I do try using that stuff --- at least during off phases of the moon. :-)

[curtjester1]

You don't think a watch piece is photographable? What is it, another
wrist at another re-take? Sounds like your 'truth' is whatever you
want it to be. A Weitzman 'mistaken' is worth what, 2 affidavit's?
Hard to discuss with anyone who thinks a WC piece of testimony is
trump worthy of any other type of investigative means or challenges.
Have you ever found anything in the WCR that didn't seem right, was
proven an outright lie, or was just too conflicting to have any
potential merit? Just curious.

CJ

CJ

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On May 27, 8:54 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 6:22 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:> On 5/27/2013 10:51 AM, mainframetech wrote:

>
> > > On May 27, 12:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> Ridiculous.
>
> > >> Neither Boone nor Weitzman took a close-up look at the engraved
> > >> markings on the rifle.
>
> > >    And you know that how?  Were you present?  The Alyea film wasn't shot
> > > every moment up there.  Were you aware that Boone said that Fritz called
> > > it a 'Mauser' in his testimony but he didn't say the same it himself?
>

> > Very misleading. Fritze never called it a Mauser. He said others did.
>
>   Here we go again.  I have to correct your latest mistake.  Boone
> heard Fritz call it a Mauser.  Here's his WC testimony:
>
> "Mr. BALL - Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?
> Mr. BOONE - I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look
> at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that
> is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name
> is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it.
>  We were just discussing it beck and forth. And he said it looks like
> a 7.65 Mauser."

Boone said: "*I believe* Captain Fritz" (note the qualifier).

Boone said: "before he removed [or handled - Hank] it, *not knowing
what it was*, he said *that is what it looks like*.

Boone said: "And he said *it looks like a 7.65 Mauser*."

Congratulations. You just established the make and caliber were first
mentioned *before the weapon was removed from the boxes*.
Was that your intent in quoting Boone?

None of this "We got a close-up look at it, and from six-eight inches
away I could read 7.65 on the rifle".

The make and caliber was guessed at while the rifle was still jammed
between some boxes.

More or less this view: http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4967306765271324&pid=15.1

Hank

[curtjester1]

You might take your own advice, instead of just posting the Alyea 'clear
it up' letter. Tom R. gives some other takes on Alyea that day, and I did
post one shot of the watch on Day's wrist showing what looks like about
1:50 instead of what is given as the 1:22 'account' of the extraction of
the rifle from the boxes. It also says he was tossing footage down to two
people, and one of them was Ron Reiland. Ron Reiland? Ron, who was at
Oakcliff, who shot where they were looking for Oswald, the Tippit murder
scene, the dusting of the prints, the Texaco scene, and last the arrest of
Oswald and I belive also some inside the theater shootings. I think one
can figure where this is going. Reiland couldn't have been back at the
TSBD to collect or help collect these Aylea shootings until after 2 P.M.
That coincides with a much later filming or if you wish, re-filming of the
rifle being extracted from the boxes.

http://whokilledjfk.net/tom_alyea_film.htm <---- more than just the
Aylea 400 ft. letter

CJ

[curtjester1]

What junk? Did you know that Studebaker and Day were still doing pics up
there at 3:30, 'too'? If you read YOUR testimony posting, Day said he
arrived at 1:12 from being beckoned at 1:00. That means they found the
rifle before they called for Day. Much more believable that the hulls
were found right away, and the rifle right after, and then as Craig said,
the officer coming up and reporting that Tippit had been shot at 1:06.
So I have posted 'junk' like Alyea's film, which shows no complete
panning's and only chopped spots, and I posted a watch of Day which shows
1:50 approxiamately and him reaching for a rifle. What's wrong with that
picture? And she has the gall to say hooey, and keep it coming!..::- : O

[John Fiorentino]

Well, there's 3 different rifles there.

John F.



"Jean Davison" <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:fd4626f7-61b3-4082...@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

[mainframetech]

Forget the blogger, I don't guarantee any of them are right, but the
testimony of Boone has SOME validity.

Chris

[mainframetech]

You suggested kicking ME out (see above). You gonna try it? All you
got back is what you dealt out. But I would never kick you out. You're my
raison d'etre. Just monitoring your errors and straightening them out is
almost a fulltime job...:)

[mainframetech]

On May 29, 10:30 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/29/2013 2:41 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On May 28, 8:17 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/27/2013 8:56 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >>> On May 27, 6:55 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> >>>> Why bother bringing logic and common sense into this equation, when
> >>>> CTers can just as easily pretend a Mauser really was found on the
> >>>> sixth floor (even though the Alyea film proves otherwise)?
>
> >>>> CHRIS/MAINFRAME SAID:
>
> >>>> It was shown that the rifle being held up by the DPD cop was an MC
> >>>> rifle.
>
> >>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> >>>> Right. Which means that the "Mauser" comments made by Boone and
> >>>> Weitzman are totally irrelevant in the first place. They are
> >>>> meaningless and PROVEN WRONG by the Alyea film.
>

Nope. You screwed up again. The Alyea film shows an MC rifle being
held up by a DPD officer. It doesn't show why Weitzman gave a detailed
description of the rifle and scope (which was stamped on the scope, 4/18
in a cloverleaf). That has been my concern for a while now, once I was
shown it was an MC being held up. A guy that is "fairly Familiar" with
guns and worked in a sporting goods business, gave a description of a
rifle and scope that later didn't match the rifle held up, but matched the
scope, which was also identified by a stamp on its side. And after making
that description the next day, he then swore to it and signed his name.
Forever making him the boob of the case.

> >>>     nope.  I raised the issue of why would a knowledgeable person that
> >>> identified a rifle down to the type of scope and caliber, state al that
> >>> and swear to it the next day, before then claiming he made a mistake?
> >>> For others like Fritz and Boone to make a mistake, OK, but not Weitzman.
>
> >>>> CTers bring up the Weitzman and Boone "Mauser" remarks just for
> >>>> something to do, it would seem. The CTers know the Alyea film is
> >>>> showing a Carcano and not a Mauser, so this whole topic is moot to
> >>>> begin with. But I guess those conspiracists just want to pretend that
> >>>> the Alyea film doesn't exist (or that it's a fake too).
>
> >>>     You've made yet another mistake.  I believe the Alyea film is
> >>> legitimate as far as it goes.  But I believe some scenes were
> >>> recreated and that the camera wasn't on every minute.
>
> >> Nonsense. Some of the film was thrown away.
>
> >    Ah. Changed the subject.  Thrown away, same as the camera being off,
> > perhaps for winding.  I'd love to see proof of that.  I can't imagine
> > a single foot of film being tossed if it was part of the JFK case.
> > Cites please.
>
> Obviously you've never studied the Alyea film controversy and you don't
> know how to use Google. You want everyone else to do your homework for
> you.
>

Nope, won't do. You know I'm familiar with Google because I've used it
many times in correcting your errors. And while I have looked at the
Alyea film, I spent very little time in the minutiae that some may like to
argue about as if it had far reaching effect. While it concerns me that
Weitzman did what he did, in he long run it won't necessarily matter to
determining that a conspiracy was what killed JFK.

Well, that's making a mess out of police procedures. Oswald would never
have have been found guilty. With the theft of the limo and the body,
Oswald would have walked away laughing.

[mainframetech]

> > in.   Where the clip and ammo came from, I have no idea.

>
> The condition of the rifle on 11-22-63 pre-assassination is not 100%
> known.  Some believe the scope became damaged when LHO stuffed the rifle
> between boxes to hide it during his get away.  (It's also possible that he
> did, in fact, end up shooting the iron sites as the HSCA suggested.)  As
> to the supposedly difficult to work bolt and other alleged deficiencies in
> the rifle, there is LN evidence and testimony contradicting most of the CT
> dogma on those topics, so I don't see much to be gained strolling down
> that road, at least on this thread.
>

False. See the WC testimony of Robert Frazier, but especially Ronald
Simmons. They are from the FBI, and Simmons' group were the ones that got
the rifle that night after the murder. Their testimony was clear that the
rifle was NOT in very good condition and had to be worked on by a gunsmith
to shim up the scope so that it could be operated properly. As well, the
sticky bolt was also experienced by Simmons' testers, which would slow
down any attempt at fast shooting. After working the bolt and having the
rifle sent to the gunsmith, then the rifle would work a little better.
Much of what you hear rom the LN crowd was what the rifle did AFTER the
original testing and examination was done, for obvious reason.

> Regarding the ammo. and clip, I would suggest that it was hardly
> impossible for him to have obtained it on a separate order or purchase
> that somehow escaped WC's scrutiny even though their search of his
> finances and spending was thorough.  Also, to say he never intended to use
> his rifle except for making an impression on revolutionaries is IMO not
> supported by the fact that Marina Oswald volunteered the information about
> his taking a crack at Gen. Walker with it.  An event the authorities
> previously had no clue could be linked to LHO.  To my knowledge, as much
> as Marina may have been inconsitent in her testimony in som minor ways,
> and even though she has gsince one over to the pro-CT side, she's never
> said that story was untrue or taken back any of the more damaging
> testimony that she passed on to the authorties at the time.
>

Would she want to say she lied? She found her excuses after she
said little in her affidavit, she then had reasons why she wasn't
telling the whole truth...:)

>
> > > >http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2011/07/mauser-is-mauser-is-mannlic...
>
> > > > CJ

[mainframetech]

LOL! Careful...the WC report is on the internet, along with all
the testimony and the wacky 'lone nut' and 'Single Bullet'
theories...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

Well now, perhaps we need to think about it a bit. Oswald hadn't
shown himself to be a shooter of people before this time. It would
make a nice impression on Cuban revolutionaries if Oswald took credit
for the failed shooting at Walker. It might build up Walker's profile
by being a target, then running for office as a hero that lived
through an attempt on his life. Of course the marine 'marksman' that
hit 2 out of 3 shots at an obliquely moving target was unable to hit a
sitting target! Kind of doubtful, considering the condition of the MC
rifle, I doubt that it was used by anyone to shoot at anyone else,
certainly not Walker.

There is an interesting story going around about the happenings in
a parking lot of a church near Walker's home. Here's the FBI take on
it:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2958.pdf

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 30, 5:52 pm, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"

Then why not say it? If he was going to be so sure, he needed to
look closer before denting his reputation.

> In his statement here:http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2fcjo12jabs/Tvw-9upYSNI/AAAAAAAABx8/c3MK_HW...

>
> And it's important to ask, could Weitzman count to two?
>

Senseless comment. Ignored.

> Remember, too, that what he described happening to the rifle he saw is
> what others say happened to the *only* rifle found up there (no one,
> including Weitzman, says two rifles were found on the sixth floor in
> the NW corner, picked up by the sling, examined, and one shell
> ejected). Those people who describe the finding of the rifle all
> describe *one* (and only one) rifle being found.
>
> So either all the witnesses (including Weitzman) were lying about the
> *one* rifle, or only one rifle was found.
>
> And the film shows Oswald's MC, to the exclusion of all other
> weapons.
>
> Could Weitzman count to two?
>

Repeat.

> Which is it, one rifle or two on the sixth floor?
>
> Hank
>
>
>
> > > But what's even nuttier, of course, is a plotter leaving a MAUSER in
> > > the Depository in his efforts to frame a man who owned a CARCANO.
>
> >   Why would you say they left a Mauser to set up a guy who owned an MC?
>
> Because that's what your ultimate argument reduces to. The real weapon
> found on the sixth floor was a Mauser, not an MC, and Oswald was a
> patsy.
>

Sorry, your guess as to my 'argument' is incorrect. The frame
needed the MC rifle. IF there was a Mauser somewhere in the TSBD, it
was for shooting at JFK.

> > That's a dumb thing to suggest.
>

I didn't, you did....:)

> We agree. But DVP is not suggesting it. He is pointing out it appears
> to be your suggestion.
>
> > It is possible that a rifle or anything
> > might have been left with the intention of coming back and getting it at a
> > later time, if the owner of it worked at the TSBD. They got Oswald the job
> > there, why not someone else too?
>
> Who is they, and who is 'someone else' and did this someone else shoot
> JFK with that supposed Mauser?
>

We don't know if a Mauser put bullets on JFK. Given what happened at
the autopsy and in DP, it is possible that many types of bullets were
flying around Dealey Plaza that day.

> What exactly do you think happened up there?
>
> Can you advise?
>

I wasn't there, and neither was anybody else you know. It was clear
that Oswald was on a lower floor while the shooting was going on, so what
happened up there didn't have Oswald as part of it. We know a little from
outside witnesses. Some of them saw 2 men in the SE windows. Some saw a
rifle with a long black barrel of as much as 12 to 15 inches long without
stock covering it. So poll those witnesses if you're trying to figure out
what happened up there.

>
>
> > > Those plotters were complete idiots, weren't they? But, hey, at least
> > > the CTers are happy with that kind of "patsy" frame-up. And why bother
> > > bringing logic and common sense into this equation, when CTers can
> > > just as easily pretend a Mauser really was found on the sixth floor
> > > (even though the Alyea film proves otherwise)?
>
> >    It was shown that the rifle being held up by the DPD cop was an MC
> > rifle.  The question comes in where Weitzman made such a detailed
> > description of a 'Mauser' rifle in his affidavit the next day and then
> > swore to it.  Then later took it all back.  Even Fritz was shown to have
> > said it looked like a Mauser, but he retracted that too.
>
> No, One witness, Boone, said "I believe Fritz said it."
>
> Note the qualification, "I believe".
>

Close enough.

> >  In his case, I
> > can see the possible mistake.  But with Weitzman who said he was "fairly
> > familiar" with guns, and worked in a sporting goods business, and gave a
> > detailed description, it was a different matter.
>
> > Chris
>
> Sorry, either one weapon was found up there, or two. If two, then ALL
> the witnesses are lying - including Weitzman.
>
> Is that what you believe?
>
> Hank

I don't have a belief on that score. I have a concern about
Weitzman's description as I have said. And as much as you feel you
have a hold of something important, it carries little weight in the
scheme of things, because the MC rifle was used to implicate Oswald,
as was planned.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 30, 10:20 pm, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"

Haven't you been following the discussion? I mention Boone because
someone was saying that Fritz never mentoned 'Mause', and I showed
that he had. That was the context. You're off the reservation on
that.'

[Jean Davison]

Why in the world do you think "that means they found the rifle
before they called for Day"? Day first went to the window where the
shells were -- the rifle hadn't been found yet.

Did you actually read the page you linked to? The author
claims that a Mauser was discovered at 1:06, then....

>>>
1:06 PM Craig, Fritz, Day, Weitzman, Boone, Mooney leave the TSBD,
time stamped by Craig
>>>

But soon the men return and....

>>>
1:22 PM the Mauser is discovered again by Fritz, Day, Weitzman, Boone,
Mooney...
>>>

"Discovered AGAIN"?!!!

And you can't see that this is utter HOOEY?

> Much more believable that the hulls
> were found right away, and the rifle right after, and then as Craig said,
> the officer coming up and reporting that Tippit had been shot at 1:06.

> So I have posted 'junk' like Alyea's film, which shows no complete
> panning's and only chopped spots, and I posted a watch of Day which shows
> 1:50 approxiamately and him reaching for a rifle. What's wrong with that
> picture?  And she has the gall to say hooey, and keep it coming!..::- :O

You bet I do!
Jean

[burgundy]

On May 27, 5:22 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/27/2013 10:51 AM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On May 27, 12:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Ridiculous.
>
> >> Neither Boone nor Weitzman took a close-up look at the engraved
> >> markings on the rifle.
>
> >    And you know that how?  Were you present?  The Alyea film wasn't shot
> > every moment up there.  Were you aware that Boone said that Fritz called
> > it a 'Mauser' in his testimony but he didn't say the same it himself?
>
> Very misleading. Fritze never called it a Mauser. He said others did.
>

> >> And you don't think somebody could see the color of a sling from a
> >> considerable distance? Why not?
>
> >> Does this crap ever end regarding the Mauser mistake? Both Boone and
> >> Weitzman said they were wrong when they said it was a Mauser. Why
> >> isn't their own word good enough for the CT hounds? We're supposed to
> >> believe BOTH Boone and Weitzman just lied when they each said they
> >> were mistaken? That's nuts.
>
> >    Well ya see, Weitzman described the rifle in such detail that it seemed
> > a bit odd that he would then say later that he made a mistake. If so it
> > was a very detailed mistake.  He noted the make (Mauser), the caliber
> > (7.65), the action type (bolt action) the scope type (4/18), and described
> > the sling.  In the Alyea film, he was close enough to read a stamp on the
> > rifle, and he might have been closer and Alyea just didn't get a shot of
> > it at that time.
>

> None of that is proof that he identified the rifle.
>

> >> But what's even nuttier, of course, is a plotter leaving a MAUSER in
> >> the Depository in his efforts to frame a man who owned a CARCANO.
>
> >    Why would you say they left a Mauser to set up a guy who owned an MC?

> > That's a dumb thing to suggest.  It is possible that a rifle or anything

> > might have been left with the intention of coming back and getting it at a
> > later time, if the owner of it worked at the TSBD. They got Oswald the job
> > there, why not someone else too?
>

> Maybe they read the order wrong. Remember the CIA officer who cabled
> that Oswald bought the Mauser from Klein's.
> Typical CIA screw-up.
> Like planting talcum powder instead of cocaine.
> Because they kept the cocaine for themselves.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >> Those plotters were complete idiots, weren't they? But, hey, at least

> >> the CTers are happy with that kind of "patsy" frame-up. And why bother

> >> bringing logic and common sense into this equation, when CTers can
> >> just as easily pretend a Mauser really was found on the sixth floor
> >> (even though the Alyea film proves otherwise)?
>

> >     It was shown that the rifle being held up by the DPD cop was an MC

> > rifle.  The question comes in where Weitzman made such a detailed
> > description of a 'Mauser' rifle in his affidavit the next day and then
> > swore to it.  Then later took it all back.  Even Fritz was shown to have

> > said it looked like a Mauser, but he retracted that too.  In his case, I

> > can see the possible mistake.  But with Weitzman who said he was "fairly
> > familiar" with guns, and worked in a sporting goods business, and gave a
> > detailed description, it was a different matter.
>

> We ALL say it looks like Mauser, to the untrained eye.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Chris

Look at the film. He read it. They all did.

Burgundy

[Jean Davison]

But is your opinion based on the facts or on myths? For
instance, that sentence Gerald Ford rewrote. Did it need to be revised or
not? "A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the
shoulder to the right of the spine." Where's that?

It's a myth that Ford "moved" the back wound. The WR placed it
where the autopsy report put it -- c 14 cm below the right mastoid
process:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=112

Jean

[Jean Davison]

Why? He's a proven liar. His early claim of seeing "Oswald"
get in a car has some support, and imo someone who looked like Oswald left
in a Rambler. But young men who resembled Oswald from a distance were/are
a dime a dozen.

Speaking of the Mauser, I noticed Frazier said:

>>>>

Mr. EISENBERG - Is there any reason that you can think of why this
Exhibit 139 might be thought to be a 7.35- or 7.65-caliber rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER - From outward appearances, it could be a 7.35-mm. rifle,
because, basically, that is what it is. But its mechanism has been
rebarreled with a 6.5 mm. barrel. Photographs of the weapons are
similar, unless you make a very particular study of the photographs of
the original model 38 Italian military rifle, which is 7.35 mm.
Early in the Second World War, however, the Italian
Government barreled many of these rifles with a 6.5 mm. barrel, since
they had a quantity of that ammunition on hand. I presume that would
be the most logical way of confusing this weapon with one of a larger
caliber.

>>>>
UNQUOTE

In those days, the Mauser was *the* bolt-action foreign rifle.
The M-C was obscure, by comparison. The work record Weitzman gave to the
WC indicates that he was manager of a sportings good store for a year at
most. Before that he sold women's clothes.

Are you sure Simmons got the rifle before Frazier? I
thought it was the other way around.

Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/30/2013 11:12 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Well, there's 3 different rifles there.
>
> John F.
>

Show them and name them.

[Bud]

Yes, do that. It shows a Carcano.

[mainframetech]

I like facts, the trouble with them is that they also have to be
interpreted, which may change their meaning. But when you try to
defend Ford, remember he was messing with testimony. What a person
said. If the person wasn't clear, then have him back and do it right,
but don't go in and change the person's testimony. And no one has
answered the $64,000 question. How many times did Ford change
testimony to suit HIS view of things before he got caught? You can
pretty up what he did all you like. It was wrong and he should have
been nailed for it. And come to think of it, how many other panel
members may have done the same thing to be sure of the impression they
wanted to give the public?

>            It's a myth that Ford "moved" the back wound.  The WR placed it
> where the autopsy report put it -- c 14 cm below the right mastoid
> process:
>

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946...
>
> Jean

It's not a myth that Ford went in and modified the record to suit HIS
views. Wrong.

Chris

[curtjester1]

Because in many testimony they "waited" for Fritz and Day. It would
also stand to reason that some of the officers were on the sixth floor
before they arrived with their testimonies (Mooney, Boone, Craig,
Weitzman went directly to the 6th floor and no other floor). That
would seem well before 1:00. Fritz was at the hospital..seen an
arrival time of 12:58...and we have Day arriving a little after 1:00.
I saw no testimony that there was any significant time difference
between the shell/paper sack findings and the find of the rifle. It
was rather consecutive in my looking at their testimonies or
interviews.

>         Did you actually read the page you linked to?  The author
> claims that a Mauser was discovered at 1:06, then....
>
>

Yes, as Craig said the officer coming and reporting Tippit's death and
the find were at that time, virtually the same.

>
> 1:06 PM Craig, Fritz, Day, Weitzman, Boone, Mooney leave the TSBD,
> time stamped by Craig
>
>

Yes.

>
>          But soon the men return and....
>
>
>
> 1:22 PM the Mauser is discovered again by Fritz, Day, Weitzman, Boone,
> Mooney...
>
>
>
>           "Discovered AGAIN"?!!!
>
>          And you can't see that this is utter HOOEY?
>

Well the 1:22 is a Mooneyism Booneism. And yes Day came back to the
TSBD...after he took the rifle and secured it.

What we do have is a lot of other folks corroborating more shooting of
the crime scene and well different 'views' - like lack of paper sack/
chicken bones, pop bottle, shells, etc. We also hjave Lt. Day saying
the 'original' rifle scene as having papers covering the rifle. These
are not seen in a latter shoot.

> > Much more believable that the hulls
> > were found right away, and the rifle right after, and then as Craig said,
> > the officer coming up and reporting that Tippit had been shot at 1:06.
> > So I have posted 'junk' like Alyea's film, which shows no complete
> > panning's and only chopped spots, and I posted a watch of Day which shows
> > 1:50 approxiamately and him reaching for a rifle. What's wrong with that
> > picture?  And she has the gall to say hooey, and keep it coming!..::- :O
>
>            You bet I do!
>

You have a watch. You should feel obligated to deal with that, and
you have 3 people at the Tippit crime scene saying Tippit was dead at
1:06. Actually you have to deal with a lot of stuff.

CJ

                                             Jean

[mainframetech]

Whoa! I'm speaking of Boone, not Craig. I quoted his WC testimony
that he heard Fritz say it was a Mauser'.

>            Speaking of the Mauser, I noticed Frazier said:
>

> Mr. EISENBERG - Is there any reason that you can think of why this
> Exhibit 139 might be thought to be a 7.35- or 7.65-caliber rifle?
>
> Mr. FRAZIER - From outward appearances, it could be a 7.35-mm. rifle,
> because, basically, that is what it is. But its mechanism has been
> rebarreled with a 6.5 mm. barrel. Photographs of the weapons are
> similar, unless you make a very particular study of the photographs of
> the original model 38 Italian military rifle, which is 7.35 mm.
>            Early in the Second World War, however, the Italian
> Government barreled many of these rifles with a 6.5 mm. barrel, since
> they had a quantity of that ammunition on hand. I presume that would
> be the most logical way of confusing this weapon with one of a larger
> caliber.
>
>
>
> UNQUOTE
>
>           In those days, the Mauser was *the* bolt-action foreign rifle.
> The M-C was obscure, by comparison.  The work record Weitzman gave to the
> WC indicates that he was manager of a sportings good store for a year at
> most.  Before that he sold women's clothes.
>

Sorry, I missed the testimony where Weitzman said he only worked in
sporting goods for a year. However his 'brother in arms' who no doubt
had spoken with Weitzman knew of his experience and said that the cops
would use Weitzman for identification of weapons.

>           Are you sure Simmons got the rifle before Frazier?  I
> thought it was the other way around.
>
> Jean

The rifle went to the Simmons test group first. If you read through
Simmons' testimony, his people got the rifle with the scope
misaligned, and the bolt sticky. They were the ones that sent it to
the gunsmith to shim up the scope. When Frazier talks about the rifle
it has none of the problems that the Simmons people found, so they got
it before Frazier and made it more reasonable sounding for him.

Frazier's job has been to help Hoover's 'lone nut' scenario
throughout the case. Frazier was in charge of the bullet evidence
when the CE399 'magic' bullet was actually 2 bullets for a short
while. Frazier was in charge of the 2 bullet fragments (CE567 & 569)
from the limo, one of which was in the middle of the front seat and
missed all day from Parkland to the WH garage! Frazier also has
access to any test bullets from the MC tests, and there were a few
that they ran off at first.
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/CE/CE2011.JPG

For some of the foibles with the chain of custody of the bullets
and the duplication of CE399, as well as trouble with people that SAID
they handled the bullet but left no mark, see John Hunt's work here:
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html

Chris

[Jean Davison]

Ford didn't change anyone's testimony. He wrote in some
changes to an early draft of what was to be the Warren Report. The draft
was written by one of the Commission's staff attorneys, though I don't
know who wrote this particular section. Click on the page here to see the
original:

http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html

Drafts are *meant* to be revised. Ford was a Commissioner,
one of the bosses. He had the right to make changes to the WR manuscript,
and his revision was also changed by someone else so that Ford's wording
didn't even appear in the WR.

>
> >            It's a myth that Ford "moved" the back wound.  The WR placed it
> > where the autopsy report put it -- c 14 cm below the right mastoid
> > process:
>
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946...
>
> > Jean
>
> It's not a myth that Ford went in and modified the record to suit HIS
> views.  Wrong.

You still haven't told me if you think the original sentence
should have been left as it was. Surely not, since it made no sense?
Ford's explanation was that he was trying to clarify that sentence. He
didn't do a very good job, but I believe that was his intention.

Ford's rewording didn't modify the record. It's only effect
seems to have been to arouse CT suspicions -- not that that's hard to do.

Jean

[Jean Davison]

I have no idea what you're saying or where you're getting
this, so never mind.

>
> >         Did you actually read the page you linked to?  The author
> > claims that a Mauser was discovered at 1:06, then....
>
> Yes, as Craig said the officer coming and reporting Tippit's death and
> the find were at that time, virtually the same.
>

Craig lied.

>
> > 1:06 PM Craig, Fritz, Day, Weitzman, Boone, Mooney leave the TSBD,
> > time stamped by Craig
>
> Yes.
>

Craig lied.

>
> >          But soon the men return and....
>
> > 1:22 PM the Mauser is discovered again by Fritz, Day, Weitzman, Boone,
> > Mooney...
>
> >           "Discovered AGAIN"?!!!
>
> >          And you can't see that this is utter HOOEY?
>
> Well the 1:22 is a Mooneyism Booneism.   And yes Day came back to the
> TSBD...after he took the rifle and secured it.

Do you think the Mauser was found *twice*?

>
> What we do have is a lot of other folks corroborating more shooting of
> the crime scene and well different 'views' - like lack of paper sack/
> chicken bones, pop bottle, shells, etc.  We also hjave Lt. Day saying
> the 'original' rifle scene as having papers covering the rifle.  These
> are not seen in a latter shoot.
>
> > > Much more believable that the hulls
> > > were found right away, and the rifle right after, and then as Craig said,
> > > the officer coming up and reporting that Tippit had been shot at 1:06.
> > > So I have posted 'junk' like Alyea's film, which shows no complete
> > > panning's and only chopped spots, and I posted a watch of Day which shows
> > > 1:50 approxiamately and him reaching for a rifle. What's wrong with that
> > > picture?  And she has the gall to say hooey, and keep it coming!..::- :O
>
> >            You bet I do!
>
> You have a watch.  You should feel obligated to deal with that, and
> you have 3 people at the Tippit crime scene saying Tippit was dead at
> 1:06.  Actually you have to deal with a lot of stuff.

Who besides Craig gave the 1:06 time for Tippit? Quotes,
please!

Jean

>
> CJ
>
>                                               Jean- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Jean Davison]

Oops, sorry, my mistake.

Yes, Boone said he heard Fritz say it looked like a Mauser,
but everyone on the 6th floor could've said the same thing, because it DID
look like a Mauser, and it would make no difference. The film/photos prove
it was an M-C.

>
>
>
> >            Speaking of the Mauser, I noticed Frazier said:
>
> > Mr. EISENBERG - Is there any reason that you can think of why this
> > Exhibit 139 might be thought to be a 7.35- or 7.65-caliber rifle?
>
> > Mr. FRAZIER - From outward appearances, it could be a 7.35-mm. rifle,
> > because, basically, that is what it is. But its mechanism has been
> > rebarreled with a 6.5 mm. barrel. Photographs of the weapons are
> > similar, unless you make a very particular study of the photographs of
> > the original model 38 Italian military rifle, which is 7.35 mm.
> >            Early in the Second World War, however, the Italian
> > Government barreled many of these rifles with a 6.5 mm. barrel, since
> > they had a quantity of that ammunition on hand. I presume that would
> > be the most logical way of confusing this weapon with one of a larger
> > caliber.
>
> > UNQUOTE
>
> >           In those days, the Mauser was *the* bolt-action foreign rifle.
> > The M-C was obscure, by comparison.  The work record Weitzman gave to the
> > WC indicates that he was manager of a sportings good store for a year at
> > most.  Before that he sold women's clothes.
>
>   Sorry, I missed the testimony where Weitzman said he only worked in
> sporting goods for a year.  However his 'brother in arms' who no doubt
> had spoken with Weitzman knew of his experience and said that the cops
> would use Weitzman for identification of weapons.

Who besides liar Craig said the cops used a deputy constable in
the Sheriff's Department to ID weapons for the DPD? Nobody in the DPD
could do that?

>
> >           Are you sure Simmons got the rifle before Frazier?  I
> > thought it was the other way around.
>
> > Jean
>
>   The rifle went to the Simmons test group first.  If you read through
> Simmons' testimony, his people got the rifle with the scope
> misaligned, and the bolt sticky.  They were the ones that sent it to
> the gunsmith to shim up the scope.  When Frazier talks about the rifle
> it has none of the problems that the Simmons people found, so they got
> it before Frazier and made it more reasonable sounding for him.

I still don't know where you get that Simmons came first. Agent
Drain delivered the rifle to Frazier early on 11/23 and he test- fired it,
IIRC.

>
>    Frazier's job has been to help Hoover's 'lone nut' scenario
> throughout the case.  Frazier was in charge of the bullet evidence
> when the CE399 'magic' bullet was actually 2 bullets for a short
> while.  Frazier was in charge of the 2 bullet fragments (CE567 & 569)
> from the limo, one of which was in the middle of the front seat and
> missed all day from Parkland to the WH garage!  Frazier also has
> access to any test bullets from the MC tests, and there were a few
> that they ran off at first.http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/CE/CE2011.JPG
>

Yeah, right, everybody's guilty but Oswald.

>    For some of the foibles with the chain of custody of the bullets
> and the duplication of CE399, as well as trouble with people that SAID
> they handled the bullet but left no mark, see John Hunt's work here:http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html

Did John Hunt actually get to see CE399 and examine it
closely? I don't think so. But that's a whole other topic.

Jean

[John Fiorentino]

What do you mean "show them"? They're right there in the pic.

The first photo in the blog article actually shows 2 Carcanos.

The graphic with 3 rifles shows a Mauser and 2 Carcanos below.

I hope this helps

John F.



"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:51a8cb1d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Bud]

No, you really don`t. You are running from the facts Jean is
presenting. Lets see you make sense of the initial wording.

>the trouble with them is that they also have to be
> interpreted, which may change their meaning.

It was worded poorly. Can`t you see that?

>  But when you try to
> defend Ford, remember he was messing with testimony.

Clarifying. Don`t you see the problem with the wording you claim he
was "messing" with?

> What a person
> said.  If the person wasn't clear, then have him back and do it right,
> but don't go in and change the person's testimony.

Can you support the claim that he "moved" the placement of the wound
with his revised wording?

>  And no one has
> answered the $64,000 question.  How many times did Ford change
> testimony to suit HIS view of things before he got caught?

It`s merely an empty claim that he was "caught" this time.

>  You can
> pretty up what he did all you like.  It was wrong and he should have
> been nailed for it.

Nonsense. Medical people have their own way of wording things that
often confuse laymen. What is a neck or a shoulder or a puncture wound
is different to doctors than what the average person takes them to
mean.

>  And come to think of it, how many other panel
> members may have done the same thing to be sure of the impression they
> wanted to give the public?
>
> >            It's a myth that Ford "moved" the back wound.  The WR placed it
> > where the autopsy report put it -- c 14 cm below the right mastoid
> > process:
>
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946...
>
> > Jean
>
> It's not a myth that Ford went in and modified the record to suit HIS
> views.  Wrong.

Are you abandoning your claim that he moved the wound?

> Chris

[John Fiorentino]

Jean:

Helen Markham in her Affidavit in any Fact Dated 11/22/63 approx 1:06pm

T. F. Bowley in his Affidavit in any Fact Dated 12/2/63 Claimed 1:10pm.,
however Tippit was already shot and lying on the ground when he claimed he
looked at his watch.

Tippit was marked D O A at the Methodist Hospital at 1:15pm

FBI Report dated 11/29/63 - Records of the Dudley M. Hughes Funeral Home
indicate Tippit was pronounced dead at 1:25pm. However it's fairly evident
that it was typed as 1:15pm and then altered to 1:25pm

Supplementary Offense Report of Officers R. A. Davenport and W. E. Bardis
shows Tippit pronounced dead at the hospital at 1:15pm

Hope this helps

John F.

"Jean Davison" <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:de4e5dce-099a-45a5...@2g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...

[mainframetech]

Yep. I looked at the pages linked to and agree that Ford went beyond
the pale. The changes modify the meaning of the statements. Ford had NO
right to modify the words and change the meaning and position. He DID
move the wound from the 'back' to the 'back of the neck', which is false
in any event.

According to the testimony of Acquilla Clemmons, Oswald wasn't even the
shooter of Tippit. While the commission didn't know her testimony because
the FBI covered it up, still changing the draft made Oswald more guilty by
having him running 'hurriedly' from the scene. It fit well with the
purpose of the commission which was to assure everyone that Oswald the
'lone nut' was indeed guilty of all murders and the government had it
right the first time.

>             Drafts are *meant* to be revised.  Ford was a Commissioner,
> one of the bosses.  He had the right to make changes to the WR manuscript,
> and his revision was also changed by someone else so that Ford's wording
> didn't even appear in the WR.
>

Are you saying that someone corrected the false impression that he put
in the record? Good for them, but still bad for Ford. While a draft is
for correction, it is correction of what the commission said, not what
Ford thought it ought to say. He unilaterally changed it.

>
>
> > >            It's a myth that Ford "moved" the back wound.  The WR placed it
> > > where the autopsy report put it -- c 14 cm below the right mastoid
> > > process:
>

That has no bearing when a commissioner changes the meaning to fit a
pre-arranged outcome. Most people believe that the commission was
solely to shut up the public from complaining that the investigation
was badly done, and the murder was a conspiracy.

> > >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946...
>
> > > Jean
>
> > It's not a myth that Ford went in and modified the record to suit HIS
> > views.  Wrong.
>
>            You still haven't told me if you think the original sentence
> should have been left as it was. Surely not, since it made no sense?
> Ford's explanation was that he was trying to clarify that sentence.  He
> didn't do a very good job, but I believe that was his intention.
>
>            Ford's rewording didn't modify the record.  It's only effect
> seems to have been to arouse CT suspicions -- not that that's hard to do.
>
> Jean

If the record was typed up from that draft, then he modified the
official report. But how many times did he do it and get away with
it? Making changes that made the agreed upon scenario look more
correct.

Chris

[Bill Clarke]

In article <46a72227-06dc-4e22...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison says...
>
>On Jun 1, 10:36=A0am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 31, 11:25=A0pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 31, 5:31=A0pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 29, 10:22=A0pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On May 29, 5:18=A0pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote=
>:
>>
>> > > > > On May 29, 10:01=A0am, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wro=
>te:
>>
>> > > > > > On May 28, 9:34=A0am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wro=
>te:
>>
>> > > > > > > On May 27, 11:33=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> w=
>rote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > So, Chris, you think TWO or more rifles were found on the s=

>ixth floor
>> > > > > > > > (or in the TSBD), eh?
>>
>> > > > > > > Two searches of the TSBD by the ATF at 12:30 and 1:20....
>>

>> > > > > > >http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2011/07/mauser-is-mauser-is-=
>mannlic...
>>
>> > > > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The blog writer has a photo supposedly showing =
>a Mauser and an
>> > > > > > M-C that actually shows two views of the M-C, with bolt closed =
>and
>> > > > > > bolt open.
>>
>> > > > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Worse, though, he says, "Weitzman would give=
> testimony to the
>> > > > > > Warren Commission that the rifle found was a Mauser..... Capt. =
>Fritz
>> > > > > > said it was a Mauser as well and said so to the Warren Commissi=
>on."
>> > > > > > Of course, the opposite is true -- both *denied* it was a Mause=
>r.
>>
>> > > > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You are looking for facts in all the wrong =
>places, CJ.
>> > > > > > Reading hooey like this is the opposite of research. =A0 The mo=

>re you
>> > > > > > read, the less you'll know.
>>
>> > > > > > Jean
>>

>> > > > > =A0 =A0Yes, Weitzman giving testimony of a Mauser was Hooey. =A0W=
>hile Capt.
>> > > > > Fritz thinking it was a Mauser when it was found is completely tr=
>ue based
>> > > > > on Eugene Boone's testimony, though Fritz didn't say that to the =

>WC.
>> > > > > Just to correctr the record.
>>

>> > > > =A0Chris-
>>
>> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Sure, according to Boone, Fritz said it was a Mause=
>r. =A0I was

>> > > > disputing WC testimony claims, not that.
>>

>> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Seriously, how can a blogger who thinks Fritz to=

>ld the WC the
>> > > > gun was a Mauser hope to be taken seriously?
>>
>> > > > Jean
>>

>> > > =A0 Forget the blogger, I don't guarantee any of them are right, but =

>the
>> > > testimony of Boone has SOME validity.
>>

>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Why? =A0He's a proven liar. =A0His early claim o=
>f seeing "Oswald"
>> > get in a car has some support, and imo someone who looked like Oswald l=
>eft
>> > in a Rambler. =A0But young men who resembled Oswald from a distance wer=
>e/are
>> > a dime a dozen.
>>
>> =A0 Whoa! =A0I'm speaking of Boone, not Craig. =A0I quoted his WC testimo=

>ny
>> that he heard Fritz say it was a Mauser'.
>>
> Oops, sorry, my mistake.
>
> Yes, Boone said he heard Fritz say it looked like a Mauser,
>but everyone on the 6th floor could've said the same thing, because it DID
>look like a Mauser, and it would make no difference. The film/photos prove
>it was an M-C.

I always thought this "Mauser" deal was much to do about nothing. As
someone has already stated, in 1963 the Mauser was "the" foreign rifle to
have. Unless you were an arms importer or a dedicated gun nut the Mauser
was probably the ONLY foreign rifle you had ever heard much of, much less
seen. It isn't much of a stretch to believe Fritz saw a foreign bolt
rifle and thought it must be a Mauser. As the photos show, it wasn't a
Mauser.

The Mauser had a very smooth and strong action. Not only the rifle but
the action was much in demand in the U.S. for building custom rifles.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

Sure, sure. After they realized they needed a SBT.

[mainframetech]

Well, liar Fritz said it, then later swore that he didn't say it and
that he knew what the rifle was right away from looking at it.

Do you think it makes Craig a liar by saying it over and over? He was
made a liar for giving Weitzman's background in sporting goods, and then
we find it WAS his background. Now there is a statement that Weitzman was
only in the sporting goods business for a year or less. How is that known?
Not Craig, as far as I know. Weitzman was known to have the background of
working with guns and had apparently proved himself over time with his
compatriots.

>
>
> > >           Are you sure Simmons got the rifle before Frazier?  I
> > > thought it was the other way around.
>
> > > Jean
>

The way Frazier stated it, it sounds like he got it first, but he
was careful in his wording:

"Mr. McCLOY - How soon after the assassination did you examine this
rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - We received the rifle the following morning.
Mr. McCLOY - Received it in Washington?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - And you immediately made your examination of it then?
Mr. FRAZIER - We made an examination of it at that time, and kept it
temporarily in the laboratory.
It was then returned to the Dallas Police Department, returned again
to the laboratory--the second time on November 27th, and has been
either in the laboratory's possession or the Commission's possession
since then."


"We" received the rifle. "We" made an examination. Which probably
means the FBI received it. Then he says:

"Mr. EISENBERG - Have you tested Commission Exhibit 139 with the type of
ammunition you have been looking at to determine the muzzle velocity of
that type of ammunition in this weapon?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. The tests were run to determine the muzzle
velocity of this rifle, using this ammunition, at the Naval Research
Laboratory in Washington, D.C., on December 2, 1963, using two different
lots of ammunition--Lot No. 6,000 and Lot No. 6,003."

Now they've got the rifle again and have sent it to the laboratory
for testing.


Looking through the Frazier testimony, it looks like he was speaking as
if he were the FBI and doing all these things.

The record is confusing when you listen to Frazier. Simmons is clear,
but doesn't say when they got the rifle to test with. At one point
looking through the 2 sets of testimony, you get the impression that
Frazier was one of the testers for Simmons!

Either way, the key is that the Simmons group clearly had to be first
to do any testing with the rifle since his people had the rifle sent to
the gunsmith to fix the scope. Testing of accuracy and related things
can't be done if the scope is wrong, and the sticky bolt was a problem
right away. If later Frazier never mentions the sticky bolt and bad
scope, then he got the rifle second.

> >   The rifle went to the Simmons test group first.  If you read through
> > Simmons' testimony, his people got the rifle with the scope
> > misaligned, and the bolt sticky.  They were the ones that sent it to
> > the gunsmith to shim up the scope.  When Frazier talks about the rifle
> > it has none of the problems that the Simmons people found, so they got
> > it before Frazier and made it more reasonable sounding for him.
>
>         I still don't know where you get that Simmons came first. Agent
> Drain delivered the rifle to Frazier early on 11/23 and he test- fired it,
> IIRC.
>

I don't see that in the Frazier testimony, but let me know if you
see it somewhere. I se Drain bringing the rifle to Washington.

>
>
> >    Frazier's job has been to help Hoover's 'lone nut' scenario
> > throughout the case.  Frazier was in charge of the bullet evidence
> > when the CE399 'magic' bullet was actually 2 bullets for a short
> > while.  Frazier was in charge of the 2 bullet fragments (CE567 & 569)
> > from the limo, one of which was in the middle of the front seat and
> > missed all day from Parkland to the WH garage!  Frazier also has
> > access to any test bullets from the MC tests, and there were a few
> > that they ran off at first.http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/CE/CE2011.JPG
>
>           Yeah, right, everybody's guilty but Oswald.
>

LOL! Funny you should mention it...:)

> >    For some of the foibles with the chain of custody of the bullets
> > and the duplication of CE399, as well as trouble with people that SAID
> > they handled the bullet but left no mark, see John Hunt's work here:
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html
>
>         Did John Hunt actually get to see CE399 and examine it
> closely?  I don't think so.  But that's a whole other topic.
>
>                                                              Jean

The John Hunt examination is really 2 articles. Here's the other
one:

http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm

It appears that Hunt did get to handle the bullets and certainly the
many papers that were related to the chain of custody that went so far
off. He searched bullets for initials and followed chains of paperwork.
The chain of custody was horrendously mismanaged. That Was partly
Frazier's job.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

Helen Markham timeline discrepancies....

"Approximately 1:06" in Markham's 11/22 affidavit:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vytJ4HicpTM/Tvw3QMu3xpI/AAAAAAAABt8/3XkghS8NGz0/s1200-h/Helen-Markham-Affidavit.gif


"Possibly around 1:30 p.m." in Markham's interview with FBI agent Odum
on the same day:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=82

I wonder where Bardwell Odum got the idea that Tippit was killed "possibly
around 1:30 p.m." if it wasn't as a result of talking with Helen Markham
herself on Nov. 22? After all, Odum WAS interviewing Markham.

Do CTers think that Odum just MADE UP the "1:30 p.m." part of that
interview?

[Anthony Marsh]

Exactly. The average person does not know the difference between the back
and the neck or the head and the toe. WC defenders can't tell the
difference between above and below.

>
>> And come to think of it, how many other panel
>> members may have done the same thing to be sure of the impression they
>> wanted to give the public?
>>
>>> It's a myth that Ford "moved" the back wound. The WR placed it
>>> where the autopsy report put it -- c 14 cm below the right mastoid
>>> process:
>>
>>> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946...
>>
>>> Jean
>>
>> It's not a myth that Ford went in and modified the record to suit HIS
>> views. Wrong.
>
> Are you abandoning your claim that he moved the wound?
>

Not physically ala Lifton. It's called verbal plastic surgery. Like when
an escaping prison is supposed to be shot in the back but he was actually
shot inside the mouth. Then the coroner is paid to fudge the records.

>> Chris
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/1/2013 9:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> What do you mean "show them"? They're right there in the pic.
>
> The first photo in the blog article actually shows 2 Carcanos.
>
> The graphic with 3 rifles shows a Mauser and 2 Carcanos below.
>
> I hope this helps
>
> John F.
>
>
>

Not much. Especially when the links are dead.

[Jean Davison]

No, he changed "his back at a point slightly ABOVE THE
SHOULDER" to "the back of his neck."

If "above the shoulder" isn't the same thing as the back of
the neck, then where is it? Floating in midair? I'd like to see
someone take a body chart and point out the difference between those
two descriptions (both of which are wrong, anyway).

>    According to the testimony of Acquilla Clemmons, Oswald wasn't even the
> shooter of Tippit.  While the commission didn't know her testimony because
> the FBI covered it up, still changing the draft made Oswald more guilty by
> having him running 'hurriedly' from the scene.  It fit well with the
> purpose of the commission which was to assure everyone that Oswald the
> 'lone nut' was indeed guilty of all murders and the government had it
> right the first time.

Jumping to Tippit now? Acquilla was down the street, other
witnesses at the corner saw only one culprit whom they IDed as
Oswald. Others saw only Oswald running away.
Naturally some CTs ignore all these people and pick the outlier who
says what they want to hear.

>
> >             Drafts are *meant* to be revised.  Ford was a Commissioner,
> > one of the bosses.  He had the right to make changes to the WR manuscript,
> > and his revision was also changed by someone else so that Ford's wording
> > didn't even appear in the WR.
>
>   Are you saying that someone corrected the false impression that he put
> in the record?  Good for them, but still bad for Ford.  While a draft is
> for correction, it is correction of what the commission said, not what
> Ford thought it ought to say.  He unilaterally changed it.

A draft of the WR isn't "the record." It wasn't "what the
commission said" until members of the Commission like Ford had read
and approved the final draft.

>
>
>
> > > >            It's a myth that Ford "moved" the back wound.  The WR placed it
> > > > where the autopsy report put it -- c 14 cm below the right mastoid
> > > > process:
>
>   That has no bearing when a commissioner changes the meaning to fit a
> pre-arranged outcome.  Most people believe that the commission was
> solely to shut up the public from complaining that the investigation
> was badly done, and the murder was a conspiracy.

It's only your suspicion that he made changes for that
reason. It had no effect on the "outcome." It had no effect on the
SBT.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946...
>
> > > > Jean
>
> > > It's not a myth that Ford went in and modified the record to suit HIS
> > > views.  Wrong.
>
> >            You still haven't told me if you think the original sentence
> > should have been left as it was. Surely not, since it made no sense?
> > Ford's explanation was that he was trying to clarify that sentence.  He
> > didn't do a very good job, but I believe that was his intention.
>
> >            Ford's rewording didn't modify the record.  It's only effect
> > seems to have been to arouse CT suspicions -- not that that's hard to do.
>
> > Jean
>
>    If the record was typed up from that draft, then he modified the
> official report.  But how many times did he do it and get away with
> it?  Making changes that made the agreed upon scenario look more
> correct.

The draft wasn't holy writ, it was a preliminary version
of the WR that had to be revised and put into final form. As a
member of the WC, Ford had every right to suggest corrections.

Jean

[Jean Davison]

> >>>>>>http://web.newsguy.com/mcclung/alyea.html(Alyea Staged Rifle Find

That's baloney and I'm surprised you don't know better.
Ford's suggested change had nothing to do with the SBT. That's a CT
fantasy.

Jean

>
>
>
> >>>             It's a myth that Ford "moved" the back wound.  The WR placed it
> >>> where the autopsy report put it -- c 14 cm below the right mastoid
> >>> process:
>
> >>>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946...
>
> >>> Jean
>
> >> It's not a myth that Ford went in and modified the record to suit HIS
> >> views.  Wrong.
>
> >             You still haven't told me if you think the original sentence
> > should have been left as it was. Surely not, since it made no sense?
> > Ford's explanation was that he was trying to clarify that sentence.  He
> > didn't do a very good job, but I believe that was his intention.
>
> >             Ford's rewording didn't modify the record.  It's only effect
> > seems to have been to arouse CT suspicions -- not that that's hard to do.
>

> > Jean- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Bud]

> >>>>>>http://web.newsguy.com/mcclung/alyea.html(Alyea Staged Rifle Find

You say "exactly", as if you got the point, then you proceed to show
that you didn`t get it at all.

[Bud]

It wasn`t "statements". You don`t even seem to know what you are
talking about. It was the work he was charged with performing, writing
a report on this event.

And you keep avoiding the fact that the line he modified was poorly
written. You don`t seem to understand that as a member of the body
writing the report he can edit passages that might cause confusion to
people reading the report.

> Ford had NO
> right to modify the words and change the meaning and position.

<snicker> Ford had no right to have a hand in writing the WC report?
Who did then?

> He DID
> move the wound from the 'back' to the 'back of the neck', which is false
> in any event.

This didn`t move the wound. The vertebrae of the neck go extend down
to what is commonly considered the back by laymen.

>    According to the testimony of Acquilla Clemmons, Oswald wasn't even the
> shooter of Tippit.

This is always the case with these conspiracy types, when they are
beat down on one subject they merely pull another card from the deck
of CT squawking points.

> While the commission didn't know her testimony because
> the FBI covered it up,

She didn`t say it was the FBI.

> still changing the draft made Oswald more guilty by
> having him running 'hurriedly' from the scene.

Oswald did leave the scene "hurriedly" after killing Tippit. How
dare the WC pick on your patsy, using such prejudicial adjectives.

> It fit well with the
> purpose of the commission which was to assure everyone that Oswald the
> 'lone nut' was indeed guilty of all murders and the government had it
> right the first time.

He was and they did. You desperation to believe otherwise hasn`t
yielded any reason to doubt their conclusions.

> >             Drafts are *meant* to be revised.  Ford was a Commissioner,
> > one of the bosses.  He had the right to make changes to the WR manuscript,
> > and his revision was also changed by someone else so that Ford's wording
> > didn't even appear in the WR.
>
>   Are you saying that someone corrected the false impression that he put
> in the record?

I think she is saying that it was a work in progress, a concept you
can`t seem to grasp.

>  Good for them, but still bad for Ford.  While a draft is
> for correction, it is correction of what the commission said, not what
> Ford thought it ought to say.

You seem to be struggling with the idea that Ford was a member of
the commission.

> He unilaterally changed it.

That he changed it has never been in dispute. Can you advance the
idea that Ford moved the wound?

> > > >            It's a myth that Ford "moved" the back wound.  The WR placed it
> > > > where the autopsy report put it -- c 14 cm below the right mastoid
> > > > process:
>
>   That has no bearing when a commissioner changes the meaning to fit a
> pre-arranged outcome.

Reiterating the myth isn`t supporting it.

> Most people believe that the commission was
> solely to shut up the public from complaining that the investigation
> was badly done, and the murder was a conspiracy.

You have no idea what most people believe in regards to this event.

[mainframetech]

Right where it says. It certainly isn't on the neck.

> >   I like facts,
>
>   No, you really don`t. You are running from the facts Jean is
> presenting. Lets see you make sense of the initial wording.
>

So are you saying that Jean is incompetent at debate and needs you
to come and save the day? Not very complimentary, but then you rarely
ever are.

> >the trouble with them is that they also have to be
> > interpreted, which may change their meaning.
>
>   It was worded poorly. Can`t you see that?
>

Nope. I'm surprised that you can.

> >  But when you try to
> > defend Ford, remember he was messing with testimony.
>
>   Clarifying. Don`t you see the problem with the wording you claim he
> was "messing" with?
>

Nope.

> > What a person
> > said.  If the person wasn't clear, then have him back and do it right,
> > but don't go in and change the person's testimony.
>
>   Can you support the claim that he "moved" the placement of the wound
> with his revised wording?
>

No need. It is obvious to anyone that compares the 2.

> >  And no one has
> > answered the $64,000 question.  How many times did Ford change
> > testimony to suit HIS view of things before he got caught?
>
>   It`s merely an empty claim that he was "caught" this time.
>

Nope. I didn't 'claim' anything. I asked a question. Try and
keep up.

> >  You can
> > pretty up what he did all you like.  It was wrong and he should have
> > been nailed for it.
>
>   Nonsense. Medical people have their own way of wording things that
> often confuse laymen. What is a neck or a shoulder or a puncture wound
> is different to doctors than what the average person takes them to
> mean.
>

Baloney. The description of the entry wound in the back was clear
and not particularly medical.

> >  And come to think of it, how many other panel
> > members may have done the same thing to be sure of the impression they
> > wanted to give the public?
>
> > >            It's a myth that Ford "moved" the back wound.  The WR placed it
> > > where the autopsy report put it -- c 14 cm below the right mastoid
> > > process:
>
> > >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946...
>
> > > Jean
>
> > It's not a myth that Ford went in and modified the record to suit HIS
> > views.  Wrong.
>
>   Are you abandoning your claim that he moved the wound?
>

Why? I was talking with Jean, why would I abandon anything in a
conversation with you?

Chris

[John Fiorentino]

Well, you've got a few problems here David.

1. Just because you follow or in some cases question the evidence, doesn't
mean you're a CT, as I am not.

2. Markham was on her way to catch the 1:15 bus, so 1:30 seems
a bit of a stretch.

3. I will grant you that Markham may not have been an "ideal" witness, but
you still have to deal with Bowley, the DPD officers, the FBI report and the
Hospital document.

4. It certainly appears that CD 5 (The FBI Report was altered)

It is what it is. The question is *what* is it?

John F.






"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4f2e3264-e7a5-44cf...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

[curtjester1]

On Jun 1, 11:58 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Helen Markham timeline discrepancies....
>

> "Approximately 1:06" in Markham's 11/22 affidavit:http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vytJ4HicpTM/Tvw3QMu3xpI/AAAAAAAABt8/3XkghS8...

>
> "Possibly around 1:30 p.m." in Markham's interview with FBI agent Odum

> on the same day:http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=104...

>
> I wonder where Bardwell Odum got the idea that Tippit was killed "possibly
> around 1:30 p.m." if it wasn't as a result of talking with Helen Markham
> herself on Nov. 22? After all, Odum WAS interviewing Markham.
>
> Do CTers think that Odum just MADE UP the "1:30 p.m." part of that
> interview?

Typical for LNT'ers to take the most obsure when the prudent is
available.

Mrs. Markham left her washerteria at 1:04 to go to her 1:12 bus stop
time for work. It takes one, or the most two minutes to walk where
she lived, one block, to the corner of E. Tenth and Patton. This is
in the WC volumes.

Doris Holan and Mrs. Higgins saw or heard on TV 1:06 being announced
and could verify it to the killing.

So, he probably was killed at 1:04 or 1:05, and that's why it was able
to be given to an officer who came up to the sixth floor and announced
it.

Also a Mr. Clark who was about 4 blocks down E. Tenth at his
barbershop said someone looking like Oswald came by his shop heading
for the Tippit murder scene close to 1:00.

W.L. Smith said he was walking to his cafe up to E. Tenth as he cut
out for lunch at 1:00 and saw 'Oswald' as he passed him. Not TSBD
Oswald but doppleganger Oswald, as Oswald was on the way to the
theater or at the theater, and there was no way he could go from
roominhouse to the Tippit murder scene in anywhere close to that
time. It took me 13+ minutes at a fairly good walking pace to get
there when I did it.

CJ

[mainframetech]

On Jun 1, 11:45 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <46a72227-06dc-4e22-8395-fe34b8fe2...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

Of course the action of any rifle can get as bad as the MC rifle if
treated badly, as the MC must have been treated.

Chris

[curtjester1]

On Jun 1, 11:37 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
wrote:

> Jean:
>
> Helen Markham in her Affidavit in any Fact Dated 11/22/63 approx 1:06pm
>
> T. F. Bowley in his Affidavit in any Fact Dated 12/2/63 Claimed 1:10pm.,
> however Tippit was already shot and lying on the ground when he claimed he
> looked at his watch.
>
> Tippit was marked D O A at the Methodist Hospital at 1:15pm
>
> FBI Report dated 11/29/63 - Records of the Dudley M. Hughes Funeral Home
> indicate Tippit was pronounced dead at 1:25pm. However it's fairly evident
> that it was typed as 1:15pm and then altered to 1:25pm
>
> Supplementary Offense Report of Officers R. A. Davenport and W. E. Bardis
> shows Tippit pronounced dead at the hospital at 1:15pm
>
> Hope this helps
>
> John F.
>

> "Jean Davison" <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> > > > > >http://web.newsguy.com/mcclung/alyea.html(Alyea Staged Rifle Find

It's really simple, They weren't allowed to get their mitts on the weapon
until a crime lab person would get to it. They waited until he arrived.

>
> > > Did you actually read the page you linked to? The author
> > > claims that a Mauser was discovered at 1:06, then....
>
> > Yes, as Craig said the officer coming and reporting Tippit's death and
> > the find were at that time, virtually the same.
>
>              Craig lied.
>

When testimony gets in the way of theory, it's always "they lied."
Unfortunately Craig had no need to lie about looking at his watch, well
unless you have a reason for it.

>
>
> > > 1:06 PM Craig, Fritz, Day, Weitzman, Boone, Mooney leave the TSBD,
> > > time stamped by Craig
>
> > Yes.
>
>             Craig lied.
>
>

LOL. No Craig didn't lie. They all left. Whether you disagree on the
time is a different story. Craig said they discovered the rifle at the
same time as he looked at his watch. There could have been more time of
looking before they left. But, that's what they did, all that they did,
and then left.

>
> > > But soon the men return and....
>
> > > 1:22 PM the Mauser is discovered again by Fritz, Day, Weitzman, Boone,
> > > Mooney...
>
> > > "Discovered AGAIN"?!!!
>
> > > And you can't see that this is utter HOOEY?
>
> > Well the 1:22 is a Mooneyism Booneism. And yes Day came back to the
> > TSBD...after he took the rifle and secured it.
>
>           Do you think the Mauser was found *twice*?
>
>

No, I think the Mauser was found first, then the M-C was found and brought
up, and the film edited via a re-enactment. It makes sense, since Alyea
through his copy down after 2:00 and Day (1:50 showing on his watch0 when
he would have returned after securing the first rifle brought out, went
back and did the M-C rifle after it was found on a lower floor's second
search via ATF Agent Ellsworth.

>
>
>
>
>
> > What we do have is a lot of other folks corroborating more shooting of
> > the crime scene and well different 'views' - like lack of paper sack/
> > chicken bones, pop bottle, shells, etc. We also hjave Lt. Day saying
> > the 'original' rifle scene as having papers covering the rifle. These
> > are not seen in a latter shoot.
>
> > > > Much more believable that the hulls
> > > > were found right away, and the rifle right after, and then as Craig
> > > > said,
> > > > the officer coming up and reporting that Tippit had been shot at 1:06.
> > > > So I have posted 'junk' like Alyea's film, which shows no complete
> > > > panning's and only chopped spots, and I posted a watch of Day which
> > > > shows
> > > > 1:50 approxiamately and him reaching for a rifle. What's wrong with
> > > > that
> > > > picture? And she has the gall to say hooey, and keep it coming!..::-
> > > > :O
>
> > > You bet I do!
>
> > You have a watch. You should feel obligated to deal with that, and
> > you have 3 people at the Tippit crime scene saying Tippit was dead at
> > 1:06. Actually you have to deal with a lot of stuff.
>
>            Who besides Craig gave the 1:06 time for Tippit?  Quotes,
> please!
>

Helen Markham, Doris Holan, and a Mrs. Higgins.....all 1:06 er's with
Craig. All can be looked at online.

CJ

[John McAdams]

On 2 Jun 2013 14:32:19 -0400, curtjester1 <curtj...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jun 1, 11:37 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
>wrote:
>>

>> > > Did you actually read the page you linked to? The author
>> > > claims that a Mauser was discovered at 1:06, then....
>>
>> > Yes, as Craig said the officer coming and reporting Tippit's death and
>> > the find were at that time, virtually the same.
>>
>>              Craig lied.
>>
>
>When testimony gets in the way of theory, it's always "they lied."
>Unfortunately Craig had no need to lie about looking at his watch, well
>unless you have a reason for it.
>

Just how many people do you think lied?

About 90% of the witnesses to any event.

>>
>>
>> > > 1:06 PM Craig, Fritz, Day, Weitzman, Boone, Mooney leave the TSBD,
>> > > time stamped by Craig
>>
>> > Yes.
>>
>>             Craig lied.
>>
>>
>
>LOL. No Craig didn't lie. They all left. Whether you disagree on the
>time is a different story. Craig said they discovered the rifle at the
>same time as he looked at his watch. There could have been more time of
>looking before they left. But, that's what they did, all that they did,
>and then left.
>

But the rifle was discovered at 1:22.

Interestingly, that's consistent with the "word of the Tippit
shooting" coming at the time the rifle was discovered.

The 1:06 time is not.

And how in the *world* do you think word of the Tippit shooting got
back to the TSBD *before* was broadcast on Dallas police radio at
1:16?

>>
>> > > But soon the men return and....
>>
>> > > 1:22 PM the Mauser is discovered again by Fritz, Day, Weitzman, Boone,
>> > > Mooney...
>>
>> > > "Discovered AGAIN"?!!!
>>
>> > > And you can't see that this is utter HOOEY?
>>
>> > Well the 1:22 is a Mooneyism Booneism. And yes Day came back to the
>> > TSBD...after he took the rifle and secured it.
>>
>>           Do you think the Mauser was found *twice*?
>>
>>
>
>No, I think the Mauser was found first, then the M-C was found and brought
>up, and the film edited via a re-enactment. It makes sense, since Alyea
>through his copy down after 2:00 and Day (1:50 showing on his watch0 when
>he would have returned after securing the first rifle brought out, went
>back and did the M-C rifle after it was found on a lower floor's second
>search via ATF Agent Ellsworth.
>

Bizarre.

See what an absurdly convoluted scenario you have to come up with to
avoid impeaching your favorite witness?

>>
>> > You have a watch. You should feel obligated to deal with that, and
>> > you have 3 people at the Tippit crime scene saying Tippit was dead at
>> > 1:06. Actually you have to deal with a lot of stuff.
>>
>>            Who besides Craig gave the 1:06 time for Tippit?  Quotes,
>> please!
>>
>Helen Markham, Doris Holan, and a Mrs. Higgins.....all 1:06 er's with
>Craig. All can be looked at online.
>

Are you aware that, in a March 1968 interview with the LOS ANGELES
FREE PRESS, Craig said that Tippit was shot at "about 1:40," and then
he allows Penn Jones to correct him to 1:15?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage10.jpg

But let me guess: you will blow this off. You simply flatly refuse
to believe anything that impeaches your pet witness.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bill Clarke]

In article <464a6b9e-b313-42d8...@m8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
>
>On Jun 1, 11:45=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <46a72227-06dc-4e22-8395-fe34b8fe2...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.=

>com>,
>> Jean Davison says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> >On Jun 1, 10:36=3DA0am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 31, 11:25=3DA0pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On May 31, 5:31=3DA0pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrot=
>e:
>>
>> >> > > On May 29, 10:22=3DA0pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wr=
>ote:
>>
>> >> > > > On May 29, 5:18=3DA0pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> =
>wrote=3D
>> >:
>>
>> >> > > > > On May 29, 10:01=3DA0am, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com=
>> wro=3D
>> >te:
>>
>> >> > > > > > On May 28, 9:34=3DA0am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com=
>> wro=3D
>> >te:
>>
>> >> > > > > > > On May 27, 11:33=3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.c=
>om> w=3D
>> >rote:
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > So, Chris, you think TWO or more rifles were found on th=
>e s=3D

>> >ixth floor
>> >> > > > > > > > (or in the TSBD), eh?
>>
>> >> > > > > > > Two searches of the TSBD by the ATF at 12:30 and 1:20....
>>

>> >> > > > > > >http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2011/07/mauser-is-mauser-=
>is-=3D
>> >mannlic...
>>
>> >> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 The blog writer has a photo supposed=
>ly showing =3D
>> >a Mauser and an
>> >> > > > > > M-C that actually shows two views of the M-C, with bolt clos=
>ed =3D
>> >and
>> >> > > > > > bolt open.
>>
>> >> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Worse, though, he says, "Weitzm=
>an would give=3D
>> > testimony to the
>> >> > > > > > Warren Commission that the rifle found was a Mauser..... Cap=
>t. =3D
>> >Fritz
>> >> > > > > > said it was a Mauser as well and said so to the Warren Commi=
>ssi=3D
>> >on."
>> >> > > > > > Of course, the opposite is true -- both *denied* it was a Ma=
>use=3D
>> >r.
>>
>> >> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 You are looking for facts in a=
>ll the wrong =3D
>> >places, CJ.
>> >> > > > > > Reading hooey like this is the opposite of research. =3DA0 T=
>he mo=3D

>> >re you
>> >> > > > > > read, the less you'll know.
>>
>> >> > > > > > Jean
>>

>> >> > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0Yes, Weitzman giving testimony of a Mauser was Hooe=
>y. =3DA0W=3D
>> >hile Capt.
>> >> > > > > Fritz thinking it was a Mauser when it was found is completely=
> tr=3D
>> >ue based
>> >> > > > > on Eugene Boone's testimony, though Fritz didn't say that to t=
>he =3D

>> >WC.
>> >> > > > > Just to correctr the record.
>>

>> >> > > > =3DA0Chris-
>>
>> >> > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Sure, according to Boone, Fritz said it =
>was a Mause=3D
>> >r. =3DA0I was

>> >> > > > disputing WC testimony claims, not that.
>>

>> >> > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Seriously, how can a blogger who th=
>inks Fritz to=3D

>> >ld the WC the
>> >> > > > gun was a Mauser hope to be taken seriously?
>>
>> >> > > > Jean
>>

>> >> > > =3DA0 Forget the blogger, I don't guarantee any of them are right,=
> but =3D

>> >the
>> >> > > testimony of Boone has SOME validity.
>>

>> >> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Why? =3DA0He's a proven liar. =3D=
>A0His early claim o=3D
>> >f seeing "Oswald"
>> >> > get in a car has some support, and imo someone who looked like Oswal=
>d l=3D
>> >eft
>> >> > in a Rambler. =3DA0But young men who resembled Oswald from a distanc=
>e wer=3D

>> >e/are
>> >> > a dime a dozen.
>>

>> >> =3DA0 Whoa! =3DA0I'm speaking of Boone, not Craig. =3DA0I quoted his W=
>C testimo=3D

>> >ny
>> >> that he heard Fritz say it was a Mauser'.
>>

>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Oops, sorry, my mistake.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Yes, Boone said he heard Fritz say it looked lik=
>e a Mauser,
>> >but everyone on the 6th floor could've said the same thing, because it D=
>ID
>> >look like a Mauser, and it would make no difference. The film/photos pro=

>ve
>> >it was an M-C.
>>

>> I always thought this "Mauser" deal was much to do about nothing. =A0As

>> someone has already stated, in 1963 the Mauser was "the" foreign rifle to

>> have. =A0Unless you were an arms importer or a dedicated gun nut the Maus=

>er
>> was probably the ONLY foreign rifle you had ever heard much of, much less

>> seen. =A0It isn't much of a stretch to believe Fritz saw a foreign bolt
>> rifle and thought it must be a Mauser. =A0As the photos show, it wasn't a
>> Mauser.
>>
>> The Mauser had a very smooth and strong action. =A0Not only the rifle but

>> the action was much in demand in the U.S. for building custom rifles.
>>
>> Bill Clarke
>
> Of course the action of any rifle can get as bad as the MC rifle if
>treated badly, as the MC must have been treated.
>
>Chris
>

It was a military surplus. What do you expect?

Bill Clarke

[John Fiorentino]

Just a few more timelines..............

12:54 Dispatcher to 78 (requesting location) (J.D. Tippit)

78 (Tippit) indicates he's at Lancaster and Eighth (in Oak Cliff section)

Approx 1:02pm - Dispatcher 78, location? - No response

Approx. 1:16pm - radio call from Tippit murder scene

So the last thing ever heard from Tippit was at approx. 12:54pm

Tippit never responded to the dispatcher's last inquiry for his location.

John F.



"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote in message
news:51ab4fff$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Bud]

Really? You don`t see a problem with "above the shoulder"? Here is an
illustration with arrows pointing to the shoulders...

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSaW5fBiKPQtCQKzyfMEWBOXAc_36ziKxuZoubqzgAOlxIiM-4AFg

Do you see how someone might struggle with the concept of a bullet
hitting a victim *above* those points?

> It certainly isn't on the neck.
>
> > >   I like facts,
>
> >   No, you really don`t. You are running from the facts Jean is
> > presenting. Lets see you make sense of the initial wording.
>
>   So are you saying that Jean is incompetent at debate and needs you
> to come and save the day?

Hardly. Neither of us has the capacity to talk sense to a conspiracy
hobbyist.

>  Not very complimentary, but then you rarely
> ever are.

Thats right, you seemed to be enjoying the "nice" too much, thought
I`d interject a little "nasty".

> > >the trouble with them is that they also have to be
> > > interpreted, which may change their meaning.
>
> >   It was worded poorly. Can`t you see that?
>
>   Nope.  I'm surprised that you can.

I`m not surprised that you can`t see what is wrong with it in it`s
original form.

> > >  But when you try to
> > > defend Ford, remember he was messing with testimony.
>
> >   Clarifying. Don`t you see the problem with the wording you claim he
> > was "messing" with?
>
>    Nope.

Thats explains it.

> > > What a person
> > > said.  If the person wasn't clear, then have him back and do it right,
> > > but don't go in and change the person's testimony.
>
> >   Can you support the claim that he "moved" the placement of the wound
> > with his revised wording?
>
>    No need.

No ability.

> It is obvious to anyone that compares the 2.
>
> > >  And no one has
> > > answered the $64,000 question.  How many times did Ford change
> > > testimony to suit HIS view of things before he got caught?
>
> >   It`s merely an empty claim that he was "caught" this time.
>
>    Nope.  I didn't 'claim' anything.

Ok, you don`t claim that Ford was caught trying to change testimony
to suit his view of things. It seemed like you were.

> I asked a question.

Let me ask one... How many people do you suppose Oswald killed
before he killed Kennedy?

> Try and keep up.

I`m way ahead of you. I`m at the finish line, I think you are
doomed to stay lost in the wilderness. Thats fine, you seem to like it
there.

> > >  You can
> > > pretty up what he did all you like.  It was wrong and he should have
> > > been nailed for it.
>
> >   Nonsense. Medical people have their own way of wording things that
> > often confuse laymen. What is a neck or a shoulder or a puncture wound
> > is different to doctors than what the average person takes them to
> > mean.
>
>   Baloney.  The description of the entry wound in the back was clear
> and not particularly medical.

You could locate where this wound was on the body using that
information?

> > >  And come to think of it, how many other panel
> > > members may have done the same thing to be sure of the impression they
> > > wanted to give the public?
>
> > > >            It's a myth that Ford "moved" the back wound.  The WR placed it
> > > > where the autopsy report put it -- c 14 cm below the right mastoid
> > > > process:
>
> > > >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946...
>
> > > > Jean
>
> > > It's not a myth that Ford went in and modified the record to suit HIS
> > > views.  Wrong.
>
> >   Are you abandoning your claim that he moved the wound?
>
>    Why?

Because it seemed you were.

[wgroom]

On Jun 2, 2:45 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2013 14:32:19 -0400, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 1, 11:37 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >> > > Did you actually read the page you linked to? The author
> >> > > claims that a Mauser was discovered at 1:06, then....
>
> >> > Yes, as Craig said the officer coming and reporting Tippit's death and
> >> > the find were at that time, virtually the same.
>
> >> Craig lied.
>
> >When testimony gets in the way of theory, it's always "they lied."
> >Unfortunately Craig had no need to lie about looking at his watch, well
> >unless you have a reason for it.
>
> Just how many people do you think lied?
>

They just went after people that mattered, IMO. That's why all the
important needed for cover-up were given what was needed the night before
the assassination at Murchison's and the Cabana. Decker, Dallas Mob
bosses, N.O. mob, Eastern Bankers, LBJ, Hoover, all that had to be in
accord for what took place after the hit. So, they not only got people to
lie, they got them to act in behalf of them.

> About 90% of the witnesses to any event.
>
>

Not all could be controlled which was problematic.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> > > 1:06 PM Craig, Fritz, Day, Weitzman, Boone, Mooney leave the TSBD,
> >> > > time stamped by Craig
>
> >> > Yes.
>
> >> Craig lied.
>
> >LOL.  No Craig didn't lie.  They all left.  Whether you disagree on the
> >time is a different story.  Craig said they discovered the rifle at the
> >same time as he looked at his watch.  There could have been more time of
> >looking before they left.  But, that's what they did, all that they did,
> >and then left.
>
> But the rifle was discovered at 1:22.
>

Unrealistic. It's just one cop's saying.

> Interestingly, that's consistent with the "word of the Tippit
> shooting" coming at the time the rifle was discovered.
>

No way.

> The 1:06 time is not.
>

It's very solid.

> And how in the *world* do you think word of the Tippit shooting got
> back to the TSBD *before* was broadcast on Dallas police radio at
> 1:16?
>
>

Bogus time. The National Archives doesn't have that for a time. It's
been tampered with. As I said before, 2 witnesses who called in were not
'recorded' even though all calls are met by clerks and logged at DPD.
Translated they knew at DPD and word went immediately to the TSBD just
like Craig said for the officer/messenger to give them the news of
Tippit's death. It also fits with the film maker at the Texas Theater
coming back and dealing with the tape that Alyea was able to get out of
the TSBD, after 2:00 well within the time for Day to return and Aylea to
keep on filming.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> > > But soon the men return and....
>
> >> > > 1:22 PM the Mauser is discovered again by Fritz, Day, Weitzman, Boone,
> >> > > Mooney...
>
> >> > > "Discovered AGAIN"?!!!
>
> >> > > And you can't see that this is utter HOOEY?
>
> >> > Well the 1:22 is a Mooneyism Booneism. And yes Day came back to the
> >> > TSBD...after he took the rifle and secured it.
>
> >> Do you think the Mauser was found *twice*?
>
> >No, I think the Mauser was found first, then the M-C was found and brought
> >up, and the film edited via a re-enactment.  It makes sense, since Alyea
> >through his copy down after 2:00 and Day (1:50 showing on his watch0 when
> >he would have returned after securing the first rifle brought out, went
> >back and did the M-C rifle after it was found on a lower floor's second
> >search via ATF Agent Ellsworth.
>
> Bizarre.
>

Ellsworth has never retracted. Day's watch said 1:50 as the camera picked
up, long after the initial rifle was gone. He said he ditched the first
rifle and came back.

> See what an absurdly convoluted scenario you have to come up with to
> avoid impeaching your favorite witness?
>
>

Times are very solid. Three people at Tippit around the murder were 1:06.
One was 1:10, but he arrived after he was dead. He was on a strict daily
schedule. James Andrews who was on E. Tenth and met with Tippit right
before his death was on the way back to work from his lunch. He said he
was due back at 1:00. The barber at E. Tenth 4 blocks away,...around
1:00, W.L. Smith took off to lunch at 1:00 and met the murder as he was
walking toward him as he was walking toward Marsalis.

Lt. Day left to go to the TSBD at 1:00 according to his testimony. Fritz
left the hospital and supposedly arrived at the TSBD at 12:58.

The other officers like Boone, Weitzman, Craig and Mooney went right up to
the sixth floor and no other floor, well before 1:00

There wasn't a huge amount of time before the shells were found. There
wasn't a huge amount of time after that, that the rifle was found. There
was a short time only before Fritz and Day were beckoned.

I assume all was done before they all left by 1:15.

The 1:22 was needed just like the 1:16 was needed to buy time to make
scenarios fit for the lone gunman protocol to have possiblities, IMO.

>
> >> > You have a watch. You should feel obligated to deal with that, and
> >> > you have 3 people at the Tippit crime scene saying Tippit was dead at
> >> > 1:06. Actually you have to deal with a lot of stuff.
>
> >> Who besides Craig gave the 1:06 time for Tippit? Quotes,
> >> please!
>
> >Helen Markham, Doris Holan, and a Mrs. Higgins.....all 1:06 er's with
> >Craig.  All can be looked at online.
>
> Are you aware that, in a March 1968 interview with the LOS ANGELES
> FREE PRESS, Craig said that Tippit was shot at "about 1:40," and then
> he allows Penn Jones to correct him to 1:15?
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage10.jpg
>
> But let me guess:  you will blow this off.  You simply flatly refuse
> to believe anything that impeaches your pet witness.
>

I don't blow it off. It's seems dubious on the outset, as I stated 2
months after that Craig was with a prominent author saying he saw the
Mauser, and there is no credibility that JFK researchers can hold their
hat on for the newspaper or the journalist. There is no follow up,
verifications from Craig, Jones, or the newspaper as far as I have seen.
And you want to call this a pet witness?

CJ

[David Von Pein]

CHRIS/MAINFRAME SAID:

The John Hunt examination is really 2 articles.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But Jean's main point is still valid and true -- i.e., John Hunt did
NOT examine CE399 itself. He examined four NARA photos of the bullet.

People like DiEugenio like to spin it into Hunt actually looking at
the BULLET ITSELF at the National Archives, which clearly he did not
do--nor did Hunt ever CLAIM to do that. It's DiEugenio and his ilk who
have claimed that. Not Hunt.

More on Hunt, CE399, and Elmer Todd's initials on the bullet:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-37.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/10/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-79.html

[David Von Pein]

@JOHN F.:

So, John, do you really think Benavides waited TEN full minutes before
getting on Tippit's radio and pumping the mike several times (which
occurred at 1:16)?

And if Tippit was shot at 1:06, it also would mean that it took Bowley
TWELVE full minutes to make his call on Tippit's car radio, which is a
call logged in at 1:18 at the DPD. TWELVE minutes would have passed before
that call. That's an absurdly long time.

IMO, the Benavides 1:16 "mike pumping" and the 1:18 Bowley call seal the
deal regarding the approx. time when J.D. Tippit was shot -- and it sure
wasn't as early as 1:06 or 1:10.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Utter bullshit. No such article.
/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Another WC defender who doesn't know the difference between ABOVE and
BELOW.

[Anthony Marsh]

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.