Roger Craig ID-ed the Weapon He Saw As an M-C

[Jean Davison]

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=searchResult&absPageId=169164

What say you to that, Roger Craig fans?

Jean

[burgundy]

On May 26, 1:23 pm, 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=128...

>
>            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...

>
>             What say you to that, Roger Craig fans?
>
> Jean

I say.... boola-boola.

[mainframetech]

On May 26, 2:23 pm, 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=128...

>
>            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...

>
>             What say you to that, Roger Craig fans?
>
> Jean

With the hazing that Craig no doubt took from everyone after he
first repeated the Mauser statement, he may have wanted to avoid that
by not getting into it since there was no way for him to prove what he
said. After the affidavit of Weitzman's you can be sure that the
deputies spoke among themselves about the MC rifle.

Chris

[curtjester1]

On May 26, 2:23 pm, 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 don't know what stories you are inferring to, but it would be nice
to hear of some of them, what they were, and in attempted factual,
corroborative form.

He had an interview on June of 1968. Still old Mauser account.

>         I decided to look at Roger Craig's testimony about the rifle
> at Clay Shaw's trial in 1969.
>

Note, Craig was being stalked and abused, and right before he went in
to testify, had phone threats about his the safety of his family.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html

> 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.
>
>

"Similar". Aren't Mausers and M-C's similar?

>
> UNQUOTE
>
>  http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=128...

>
>            Craig didn't mention a Mauser or Weitzman at all.
>

Wasn't asked. He primarily was a prosection's witness because he saw
Oswald getting in a car with a driver that was leaving the scene of a
crime, with inferred co-conspirators. He basically was impugned for
not wavering in what he saw and told, and for letting people get close
to interviewing him. It's ironic because through his recollections,
he stumbled upon added corroboration that the Rambler he saw was seen
at the Paine's with out of state license plates like he observed
(twisted by the WC), was close to Buddy Walthers who saw a bullet on
the south side of Elm which had some tissue on it and aligned to the
County Records building, and he was adamant of the time of hearing of
Tippit's death which he also mentions a radio call about a 5'11" man
with bushy hair by someone who had a closeup of the shooting. I say
ironic, because he never was a CT perse, and still thought he did good
by catching Oswald via his observation. He also made implications of
conspiracy by having a car leave the parking lot which he stopped from
the Grassy Knoll. That lot was for DPD and personell and was always
barricaded, with no public transport allowed in. The day of the
assassination, it was inexcusablly let down.

>            State's Exhibit 18 was a Mannlicher-Carcano similar to
> Oswald's weapon:
>

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...

>
>             What say you to that, Roger Craig fans?
>

Craig just thought somebody lost the rifle (Mauser) via bumbling, and
they just brought up the M-C to replace it. ATF Ellsworth seems to
think it was brought up too, from a lower floor.

CJ

> Jean

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 5/26/13 11:09 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On May 26, 2:23 pm, 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 don't know what stories you are inferring to, but it would be nice
> to hear of some of them, what they were, and in attempted factual,
> corroborative form.
>
> He had an interview on June of 1968. Still old Mauser account.
>

June 1968? What interview was that? "*Old* Mauser account"?!
Craig's interview with the LA Free Press was in March of 1968. And he
didn't say anything about a Mauser then.
I don't know of any Roger Craig interview from June 1968.

Google "Roger Craig" "June 1968" interview and see what comes up. (Nada.)

The "old" story is that he didn't know what kind of rifle it was that
was found on the sixth floor.
The Mauser story is the newer one. It first appeared in Craig's 1971
memoir "When They Kill a President" and the detail that Craig suddenly
claimed to remember of the marking on the barrel (sic!) appears first in
his interview for "Two Men in Dallas," produced by Mark Lane, in 1976.

>
>
>
>> I decided to look at Roger Craig's testimony about the rifle
>> at Clay Shaw's trial in 1969.
>>
> Note, Craig was being stalked and abused, and right before he went in
> to testify, had phone threats about his the safety of his family.
>
> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html
>

I guess because this webpage calls Craig "a man who didn't change his
story," you have to believe it.

It is clear to any objective observer that Craig did indeed change his
story.

/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 5/27/13 12:03 AM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 5/26/13 11:09 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>> On May 26, 2:23 pm, 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 don't know what stories you are inferring to, but it would be nice
>> to hear of some of them, what they were, and in attempted factual,
>> corroborative form.
>>
>> He had an interview on June of 1968. Still old Mauser account.
>>
>
> June 1968? What interview was that? "*Old* Mauser account"?!
> Craig's interview with the LA Free Press was in March of 1968. And he
> didn't say anything about a Mauser then.
> I don't know of any Roger Craig interview from June 1968.
>
> Google "Roger Craig" "June 1968" interview and see what comes up. (Nada.)
>
> The "old" story is that he didn't know what kind of rifle it was that
> was found on the sixth floor.
> The Mauser story is the newer one. It first appeared in Craig's 1971
> memoir "When They Kill a President" and the detail that Craig suddenly
> claimed to remember of the marking on the barrel (sic!)

(when on actual Mausers the stamp is on the receiver. Thank you, Anthony!)

> appears first in
> his interview for "Two Men in Dallas," produced by Mark Lane, in 1976.
>

To be exact, an interview that was conducted in 1974.

/sm

[Jean Davison]

That's some rebuttal you got there, Burgundy.

Jean

[curtjester1]

On May 27, 12:03 am, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> On 5/26/13 11:09 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> > On May 26, 2:23 pm, 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 don't know what stories you are inferring to, but it would be nice
> > to hear of some of them, what they were, and in attempted factual,
> > corroborative form.
>
> > He had an interview on June of 1968.  Still old Mauser account.
>
> June 1968? What interview was that? "*Old* Mauser account"?!
> Craig's interview with the LA Free Press was in March of 1968. And he
> didn't say anything about a Mauser then.
> I don't know of any Roger Craig interview from June 1968.
>

None do, but let me tell you it was after March...:)..and from a
reputable source.

> Google "Roger Craig" "June 1968" interview and see what comes up. (Nada.)
>
> The "old" story is that he didn't know what kind of rifle it was that
> was found on the sixth floor.

No, he never said it wasn't a Mauser. He really never was a big propent
of being demonstrative about it, as there were more prominent issues that
he was amidst and were focused on.

> The Mauser story is the newer one. It first appeared in Craig's 1971
> memoir "When They Kill a President" and the detail that Craig suddenly
> claimed to remember of the marking on the barrel (sic!) appears first in
> his interview for "Two Men in Dallas," produced by Mark Lane, in 1976.
>
>

I think over the years he got so fed up with his treatment and abuse, that
he just didn't care anymore...and decided to say the heck with it..and
tell exactly what he saw in an overt way.

>
> >>          I decided to look at Roger Craig's testimony about the rifle
> >> at Clay Shaw's trial in 1969.
>
> > Note, Craig was being stalked and abused, and right before he went in
> > to testify, had phone threats about his the safety of his family.
>
> >http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html
>
> I guess because this webpage calls Craig "a man who didn't change his
> story," you have to believe it.
>

I don't have to believe anything. If I had to grade him as a researcher I
would just give him a low or mediocre grade. He has a ring of truth to
him. Fritz, Decker, Belin, Leavell, are ones who are willing to do
anything to tout the official story. Pity they let pressure dictate their
ways.

> It is clear to any objective observer that Craig did indeed change his
> story.
>

I( guess if you believe a tabloid you can say that, but you can say
that about any issue or thing.

CJ

[curtjester1]

On May 27, 10:48 am, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Yes, and the "made in Italy" is not, and both are very plain to see
even in a casual way. It amuses me to think these guys were studying
the rilfe for minutes and failed to 'discern' that. Hmmmm??!!

CJ

[Anthony Marsh]

Phony. If you see "Made in Italy" stamped on that rifle you need to rush
to your eye doctor and get some new glasses. It says, "MADE ITALY"
Seems someone forgot the "IN" I have yet to see another one marked just
MADE ITALY"

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/27/2013 12:05 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On May 27, 12:03 am, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> On 5/26/13 11:09 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>
>>> On May 26, 2:23 pm, 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 don't know what stories you are inferring to, but it would be nice
>>> to hear of some of them, what they were, and in attempted factual,
>>> corroborative form.
>>
>>> He had an interview on June of 1968. Still old Mauser account.
>>
>> June 1968? What interview was that? "*Old* Mauser account"?!
>> Craig's interview with the LA Free Press was in March of 1968. And he
>> didn't say anything about a Mauser then.
>> I don't know of any Roger Craig interview from June 1968.
>>
>
> None do, but let me tell you it was after March...:)..and from a
> reputable source.
>
>> Google "Roger Craig" "June 1968" interview and see what comes up. (Nada.)
>>
>> The "old" story is that he didn't know what kind of rifle it was that
>> was found on the sixth floor.
>
> No, he never said it wasn't a Mauser. He really never was a big propent
> of being demonstrative about it, as there were more prominent issues that
> he was amidst and were focused on.
>

Ok, so now that we've proven that Roger Craig was a liar, you are
backing away from the story. That's a small step.

>> The Mauser story is the newer one. It first appeared in Craig's 1971
>> memoir "When They Kill a President" and the detail that Craig suddenly
>> claimed to remember of the marking on the barrel (sic!) appears first in
>> his interview for "Two Men in Dallas," produced by Mark Lane, in 1976.
>>
>>
>
> I think over the years he got so fed up with his treatment and abuse, that
> he just didn't care anymore...and decided to say the heck with it..and
> tell exactly what he saw in an overt way.
>

But didn't he want to become rich and famous?

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 5/27/13 12:05 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On May 27, 12:03 am, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> On 5/26/13 11:09 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>
>>> On May 26, 2:23 pm, 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 don't know what stories you are inferring to, but it would be nice
>>> to hear of some of them, what they were, and in attempted factual,
>>> corroborative form.
>>
>>> He had an interview on June of 1968. Still old Mauser account.
>>
>> June 1968? What interview was that? "*Old* Mauser account"?!
>> Craig's interview with the LA Free Press was in March of 1968. And he
>> didn't say anything about a Mauser then.
>> I don't know of any Roger Craig interview from June 1968.
>>
>
> None do, but let me tell you it was after March...:)..and from a
> reputable source.
>

You mean *rather* than someone who happened to believe there was a
conspiracy behind JFK's asassination, like Penn Jones?

>> Google "Roger Craig" "June 1968" interview and see what comes up. (Nada.)
>>
>> The "old" story is that he didn't know what kind of rifle it was that
>> was found on the sixth floor.
>
> No, he never said it wasn't a Mauser.

Who said he did?
He said he *didn't know* what kind of rifle it was.

> He really never was a big propent
> of being demonstrative about it, as there were more prominent issues that
> he was amidst and were focused on.
>
>> The Mauser story is the newer one. It first appeared in Craig's 1971
>> memoir "When They Kill a President" and the detail that Craig suddenly
>> claimed to remember of the marking on the barrel (sic!) appears first in
>> his interview for "Two Men in Dallas," produced by Mark Lane, in 1976.
>>
>>
>
> I think over the years he got so fed up with his treatment and abuse, that
> he just didn't care anymore...and decided to say the heck with it..and
> tell exactly what he saw in an overt way.
>

You can make up whatever story you like and you clearly have no trouble
believing whatever you make up, but the most plausible explanation is
simply that Roger Craig embellished his story years after the event.

>>
>>>> I decided to look at Roger Craig's testimony about the rifle
>>>> at Clay Shaw's trial in 1969.
>>
>>> Note, Craig was being stalked and abused, and right before he went in
>>> to testify, had phone threats about his the safety of his family.
>>
>>> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html
>>
>> I guess because this webpage calls Craig "a man who didn't change his
>> story," you have to believe it.
>>
>
> I don't have to believe anything. If I had to grade him as a researcher I
> would just give him a low or mediocre grade. He has a ring of truth to
> him.

That's often the way it is with pathological liars. They convince
themselves.

> Fritz, Decker, Belin, Leavell, are ones who are willing to do
> anything to tout the official story. Pity they let pressure dictate their
> ways.
>

Your fantasy.

>> It is clear to any objective observer that Craig did indeed change his
>> story.
>>
>
> I( guess if you believe a tabloid you can say that, but you can say
> that about any issue or thing.
>
> CJ
>

No, I cannot say that about any of the wild ideas you've parroted here,
from your usual sources.

/sm

[richard...@comcast.net]

IT WAS A 7.65 MAUSER - CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY SEYMOUR WEITZMAN AND ROGER CRAIG. EVEN WALTER CRONKITE AND OTHER NEWSCASTERS SAID SO IN THEIR FIRST REPORTS. BUT THEY ALREADY HAD CHOSEN THE "PATSY" OSWALD - WHO NEVER OWNED A RIFLE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XNHtUDEDAI

[Jean Davison]

Nobody but Craig ever said these guys were studying the
rifle for minutes.

The first two photos below are supposed to show "Made
Italy" (not "Made in Italy"). Can you find it?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0133a.htm

According to the FBI's Frazier, who introduced this exhibit,

"Photograph No. 3 is also of the top of the rifle, showing a portion
of the inscription on the telescopic sight, and the figures 1940,
which is the manufacturer's date, the words "Made Italy" and a figure
in the form of a crown, under that the letters "R-E," and then a
portion of the word Terni." .... and...

"Photograph No. 4 is again of the top of the weapon showing the same
information--1940, "Made Italy,'' the crown, the place it was made,
and the inscription "Caliber 6.5" across the top of the rear sight."

Photos 3 and 4 are the top two photos.

So, according to your sources, the inscription "Made in Italy"
was on the butt of the rifle and very plain to see? Did your sources
offer any photos supporting this? (Let me guess -- Of course they
didn't!)


Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/27/2013 12:03 AM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 5/26/13 11:09 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>> On May 26, 2:23 pm, 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 don't know what stories you are inferring to, but it would be nice
>> to hear of some of them, what they were, and in attempted factual,
>> corroborative form.
>>
>> He had an interview on June of 1968. Still old Mauser account.
>>
>
> June 1968? What interview was that? "*Old* Mauser account"?!
> Craig's interview with the LA Free Press was in March of 1968. And he
> didn't say anything about a Mauser then.
> I don't know of any Roger Craig interview from June 1968.
>

Is Google the only search engine you know?

> Google "Roger Craig" "June 1968" interview and see what comes up. (Nada.)
>
> The "old" story is that he didn't know what kind of rifle it was that
> was found on the sixth floor.
> The Mauser story is the newer one. It first appeared in Craig's 1971
> memoir "When They Kill a President" and the detail that Craig suddenly
> claimed to remember of the marking on the barrel (sic!) appears first in
> his interview for "Two Men in Dallas," produced by Mark Lane, in 1976.
>

That's the clue that lets us know that he is lying.
"MAUSER" is almost always stamped on the receiver, not the barrel.
Like James Files, professional liars always feel compelled to add some
little unnecessary detail to make their story seem more believable.

>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I decided to look at Roger Craig's testimony about the rifle
>>> at Clay Shaw's trial in 1969.
>>>
>> Note, Craig was being stalked and abused, and right before he went in
>> to testify, had phone threats about his the safety of his family.
>>
>> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html
>>
>
> I guess because this webpage calls Craig "a man who didn't change his
> story," you have to believe it.
>
> It is clear to any objective observer that Craig did indeed change his
> story.
>

So did Brennan, but you rely on him.

> /sm

[curtjester1]

Maybe they can swap it in the Archives and take it to Pawn Stars and
make a hefty profti, then?! BTAIM, it's hard to think German when you
see something like that.

CJ

[curtjester1]

No, you haven't been following. I don't assume anything in a LA paper is
legit until there is some verification of who wrote it and some
corroboration from the people profiled in the story to say what they said
was true or not. Kinda like the WC, huh? Craig at least in some point in
time got to see the volumes and then reacted to say that 14 things weren't
correct. And another tactic they used was when things were 'off the
record', it wasn't told to the interviewee, either.

> >> The Mauser story is the newer one. It first appeared in Craig's 1971
> >> memoir "When They Kill a President" and the detail that Craig suddenly
> >> claimed to remember of the marking on the barrel (sic!) appears first in
> >> his interview for "Two Men in Dallas," produced by Mark Lane, in 1976.
>
> > I think over the years he got so fed up with his treatment and abuse, that
> > he just didn't care anymore...and decided to say the heck with it..and
> > tell exactly what he saw in an overt way.
>
> But didn't he want to become rich and famous?
>
>

Who knows, because he was shot at and bombed and whatever so much that he
was in and out of doctor's offices, hospitals, and jobs that it's a wonder
he was strong enough to put up with it. The point though, was he told a
reputable writer a few months after this about the Mauser as his viewpoint
of what he saw. And in 1968 he had no aspirations of making any money
other than getting on his feet and supporting his family.

CJ

[curtjester1]

On May 27, 6:19 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 5/27/13 12:05 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 27, 12:03 am, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >> On 5/26/13 11:09 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>> On May 26, 2:23 pm, 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 don't know what stories you are inferring to, but it would be nice
> >>> to hear of some of them, what they were, and in attempted factual,
> >>> corroborative form.
>
> >>> He had an interview on June of 1968.  Still old Mauser account.
>
> >> June 1968? What interview was that? "*Old* Mauser account"?!
> >> Craig's interview with the LA Free Press was in March of 1968. And he
> >> didn't say anything about a Mauser then.
> >> I don't know of any Roger Craig interview from June 1968.
>
> > None do, but let me tell you it was after March...:)..and from a
> > reputable source.
>
> You mean *rather* than someone who happened to believe there was a
> conspiracy behind JFK's asassination, like Penn Jones?
>

Not the right one, but BTAIM, Penn Jones didn't think of conspiracy on
any singular point like a Mauser. There was plenty more from Craig
and other avenues for that.

> >> Google "Roger Craig" "June 1968" interview and see what comes up. (Nada.)
>
> >> The "old" story is that he didn't know what kind of rifle it was that
> >> was found on the sixth floor.
>
> > No, he never said it wasn't a Mauser.
>
> Who said he did?
> He said he *didn't know* what kind of rifle it was.
>

From 'that' unrereputable source. It's kinda hard not to believe even if
he knew nothing about rifles, that he saw in print, "Mauser", unless you
just want to believe he made it up to satisfy your own slant on things.

> >  He really never was a big propent
> > of being demonstrative about it, as there were more prominent issues that
> > he was amidst and were focused on.
>
> >> The Mauser story is the newer one. It first appeared in Craig's 1971
> >> memoir "When They Kill a President" and the detail that Craig suddenly
> >> claimed to remember of the marking on the barrel (sic!) appears first in
> >> his interview for "Two Men in Dallas," produced by Mark Lane, in 1976.
>
> > I think over the years he got so fed up with his treatment and abuse, that
> > he just didn't care anymore...and decided to say the heck with it..and
> > tell exactly what he saw in an overt way.
>
> You can make up whatever story you like and you clearly have no trouble
> believing whatever you make up, but the most plausible explanation is
> simply that Roger Craig embellished his story years after the event.
>
>

I think if you read his unfinished book online, you would see what it
meant to people on the LNT side of things to live a normal life on an
everyday basis. All he had to do was renege and follow the party line,
but didn't.

>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>           I decided to look at Roger Craig's testimony about the rifle
> >>>> at Clay Shaw's trial in 1969.
>
> >>> Note, Craig was being stalked and abused, and right before he went in
> >>> to testify, had phone threats about his the safety of his family.
>
> >>>http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html
>
> >> I guess because this webpage calls Craig "a man who didn't change his
> >> story," you have to believe it.
>
> > I don't have to believe anything.  If I had to grade him as a researcher I
> > would just give him a low or mediocre grade.  He has a ring of truth to
> > him.
>
> That's often the way it is with pathological liars. They convince
> themselves.
>

Well, ok Sigmund, but anyone who has lived life can see that people will
lie for their own advantage at the drop of a hat many a time. The WC was
willing all the time to be liars. They even said that Weitzman never
picked up the weapon at all, when everyone said he did. What made them so
desperate, time after time, to change testimonies, and outright lie? The
only reason is that they didn't want a conspiracy theory to be brought to
the attention of the American Public. If you don't want to see that,
you're just lying to one's self.

> >  Fritz, Decker, Belin, Leavell, are ones who are willing to do
> > anything to tout the official story.  Pity they let pressure dictate their
> > ways.
>
> Your fantasy.
>

Not until the girls said htere was no meeting ever with those two.
The WC lied, Shelly and Lovelady lied, the officer who stalked Adams
lied, and then Belin lied.

> >> It is clear to any objective observer that Craig did indeed change his
> >> story.
>
> > I( guess if you believe a tabloid you can say that, but you can say
> > that about any issue or thing.
>
> > CJ
>
> No, I cannot say that about any of the wild ideas you've parroted here,
> from your usual sources.
>

And you believe the WC, if there story doesn't even make sense, and when
witnesses come forward and show you it not only doesn't make sense, it was
purposefully distorted.

CJ

[curtjester1]

On May 27, 6:21 pm, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sunday, May 26, 2013 2:23:02 PM UTC-4, Jean Davison 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=128...

>
> >            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...

>
> >             What say you to that, Roger Craig fans?
>
> > Jean
>
> IT WAS A 7.65 MAUSER - CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY SEYMOUR WEITZMAN AND ROGER CRAIG. EVEN WALTER CRONKITE AND OTHER NEWSCASTERS SAID SO IN THEIR FIRST REPORTS. BUT THEY ALREADY HAD CHOSEN THE "PATSY" OSWALD - WHO NEVER OWNED A RIFLE:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XNHtUDEDAI

They probably got word that Klein's didn't carry any Mausers, so they
went to Plan B, eh?

CJ

[curtjester1]

He said it was only there for a few minutes, then it was gone. He
said Day, and Fritzs' viewing were not long, and Weitzman's was much
more "close".

>          The first two photos below are supposed to show "Made
> Italy" (not "Made in Italy").  Can you find it?
>

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
>

I see something like Cal for caliiber?....Didn't Day 'testify' that he
just lifted this up in the air, and saw all this identification for the
M-C?! IF he saw it, why didn't he squelch these other officers that were
saying it wa a "Mauser"? I really think if anyone is going up and down a
weapon and looking for some identification, there going to see it. I find
it difficutlt that they or anybody couldn't. It's not like they made it
to 'not be seen' like it seems like your slanting your inferral.

>          According to the FBI's Frazier, who introduced this exhibit,
>
> "Photograph No. 3 is also of the top of the rifle, showing a portion
> of the inscription on the telescopic sight, and the figures 1940,
> which is the manufacturer's date, the words "Made Italy" and a figure
> in the form of a crown, under that the letters "R-E," and then a
> portion of the word Terni."  .... and...
>
>  "Photograph No. 4 is again of the top of the weapon showing the same
> information--1940, "Made Italy,'' the crown, the place it was made,
> and the inscription "Caliber 6.5" across the top of the rear sight."
>
>         Photos 3 and 4 are the top two photos.
>
>         So, according to your sources, the inscription "Made in Italy"
> was on the butt of the rifle and very plain to see?   Did your sources
> offer any photos supporting this?   (Let me guess -- Of course they
> didn't!)
>

Does it matter, when all the information on the gun would be dramatically
different than the information on the Mauser? How could they even 'get' a
7.65, such a precise, unusual number out of thin air. How could one see a
word like "Terni" and think of it as German? Enquiring minds want to
know?

CJ

[David Von Pein]

CJ SAID:

I really think if anyone is going up and down a weapon and looking for

some identification, there [sic] going to see it.


DVP SAYS:

They were looking for fingerprints. They weren't specifically
searching for the weapon's type. What difference would it make what
KIND of weapon it was? While they were in the TSBD building, Fritz and
Day were using a magnifying glass to search for the gunman's prints
(as the Alyea film clearly shows).

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 5/27/13 7:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On May 27, 6:19 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On 5/27/13 12:05 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 27, 12:03 am, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 5/26/13 11:09 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 26, 2:23 pm, 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 don't know what stories you are inferring to, but it would be nice
>>>>> to hear of some of them, what they were, and in attempted factual,
>>>>> corroborative form.
>>
>>>>> He had an interview on June of 1968. Still old Mauser account.
>>
>>>> June 1968? What interview was that? "*Old* Mauser account"?!
>>>> Craig's interview with the LA Free Press was in March of 1968. And he
>>>> didn't say anything about a Mauser then.
>>>> I don't know of any Roger Craig interview from June 1968.
>>
>>> None do, but let me tell you it was after March...:)..and from a
>>> reputable source.
>>
>> You mean *rather* than someone who happened to believe there was a
>> conspiracy behind JFK's asassination, like Penn Jones?
>>
>
> Not the right one, but BTAIM, Penn Jones didn't think of conspiracy on
> any singular point like a Mauser. There was plenty more from Craig
> and other avenues for that.
>

Utterly irrelevant mutterings.

Yes, you can find as many CT sources as you want that say a Mauser was
found. If that's even what you're trying to say. So what? You can add
10,000 zeros and the total is still zero.

>>>> Google "Roger Craig" "June 1968" interview and see what comes up. (Nada.)
>>
>>>> The "old" story is that he didn't know what kind of rifle it was that
>>>> was found on the sixth floor.
>>
>>> No, he never said it wasn't a Mauser.
>>
>> Who said he did?
>> He said he *didn't know* what kind of rifle it was.
>>
>
> From 'that' unrereputable source.

Look at the sources you consider reputable. All, to a man, absolute
jokes to real journalists and researchers. Anderson, Lifton, Marrs...
total laughing stocks.

(Not to mention Lane, the father of them all.)

> It's kinda hard not to believe even if
> he knew nothing about rifles, that he saw in print, "Mauser", unless you
> just want to believe he made it up to satisfy your own slant on things.
>

No, it's all too easy to believe that he was just talking thru his ass.
It's the obvious conclusion.


/sandy

[Anthony Marsh]

Some people think that truth is a popularity poll.

>
>
>
>>>>> Google "Roger Craig" "June 1968" interview and see what comes up.
>>>>> (Nada.)
>>>
>>>>> The "old" story is that he didn't know what kind of rifle it was that
>>>>> was found on the sixth floor.
>>>
>>>> No, he never said it wasn't a Mauser.
>>>
>>> Who said he did?
>>> He said he *didn't know* what kind of rifle it was.
>>>
>>
>> From 'that' unrereputable source.
>
> Look at the sources you consider reputable. All, to a man, absolute
> jokes to real journalists and researchers. Anderson, Lifton, Marrs...

Another cheap Argument by Authority. And naturally when you say real
journalists you mean controlled by the CIA.

[Anthony Marsh]

You don't think that cops look to see what brand and model a gun is? How
else would they track it to who bought it. Looking for prints without
dusting it first? Go back to crime school.

[Sandy McCroskey]

What "authority" did I cite... besides my own (impeccable) judgment?

And are you going to tell me the originator of the preposterous "two
Oswalds" theory isn't an utter crackpot?

Are you going to insist that the fellow who dreamed up the body-alteration
theory (and who at one time posited that a camouflaged wooden platform was
built on the grassy knoll for the supposed assassin) is not a wildly
imaginative fabricator?

Are you going to defend the intellectual integrity of the author of (among
others) "Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies," "Rule by Secrecy:
The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the
Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids" and "Alien Agenda: Investigating the
Extraterrestrial Presence Among Us" is not a shameless huckster and
mountebank?

Well, I know you constantly defend Lane's lies. So anything's possible.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

He couldn't identify the make of the rifle. Mausers were made in many
countries. He never said it was a Mauser. He didn't call it a
Mannlicher-Carcano, because that is not how the rifle is marked.

> weapon and looking for some identification, there going to see it. I find
> it difficutlt that they or anybody couldn't. It's not like they made it
> to 'not be seen' like it seems like your slanting your inferral.
>

Not always. Some people won't understand what the markings mean and some
may be hidden under the stock. You need an expert.

>
>
>> According to the FBI's Frazier, who introduced this exhibit,
>>
>> "Photograph No. 3 is also of the top of the rifle, showing a portion
>> of the inscription on the telescopic sight, and the figures 1940,
>> which is the manufacturer's date, the words "Made Italy" and a figure
>> in the form of a crown, under that the letters "R-E," and then a
>> portion of the word Terni." .... and...
>>
>> "Photograph No. 4 is again of the top of the weapon showing the same
>> information--1940, "Made Italy,'' the crown, the place it was made,
>> and the inscription "Caliber 6.5" across the top of the rear sight."
>>
>> Photos 3 and 4 are the top two photos.
>>
>> So, according to your sources, the inscription "Made in Italy"
>> was on the butt of the rifle and very plain to see? Did your sources
>> offer any photos supporting this? (Let me guess -- Of course they
>> didn't!)
>>
>
> Does it matter, when all the information on the gun would be dramatically
> different than the information on the Mauser? How could they even 'get' a
> 7.65, such a precise, unusual number out of thin air. How could one see a
> word like "Terni" and think of it as German? Enquiring minds want to
> know?
>

How dramatically? And how is the average cop supposed to know that Terni
is in Italy? And why couldn't he think it was an Italian Mauser?

> CJ
>

[Anthony Marsh]

You're just not trying hard enough.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not all Mausers are German.

> CJ
>

[Anthony Marsh]

And Frazier admitted that he did not know what all the markings meant. I
doubt that he understood the Fascist date system marking. Do you?

[Anthony Marsh]

Newscasters say a lot of stupid things.

[Anthony Marsh]

"real journalists and researchers."

> And are you going to tell me the originator of the preposterous "two
> Oswalds" theory isn't an utter crackpot?
>

If you mean Armstrong, yes we already knew that he is a kook. What's new?

> Are you going to insist that the fellow who dreamed up the
> body-alteration theory (and who at one time posited that a camouflaged
> wooden platform was built on the grassy knoll for the supposed assassin)
> is not a wildly imaginative fabricator?
>

Always with your vague references. Is that because you are afraid of
being sued? I have worked with David Lifton and I don't call him a kook.
I don't have to agree with his theories.
I worked with Bob Cutler and often disagreed with him. So did Steve
Barber, but I never see you criticize him. Why? Is that because you love
to suck up to WC defenders.

> Are you going to defend the intellectual integrity of the author of
> (among others) "Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies," "Rule by
> Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the
> Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids" and "Alien Agenda: Investigating the
> Extraterrestrial Presence Among Us" is not a shameless huckster and
> mountebank?
>

You can can it with your condescending constructions. I don't have to
justify anything I say or do to a person like you.

> Well, I know you constantly defend Lane's lies. So anything's possible.
>

Funny how you can never show any lies.
Just smear everyone who questions the government.
Nice job you got there. No heavy lifting, no thinking required.

> /sm

[curtjester1]

Gee, Day was holding the rifle way up in the air. And eventually in a
relatively short time found the Made Italy stuff then as he would
later state. I think folks finding a weapon are going to look at the
type of weapon and see if they recognize it in any discernable way.
They aren't fingerprint people are they? So, I am sure you will go
through all these testimonies and see how much fingerprint wordage you
wil find, won't you?...:)

CJ

[curtjester1]

On May 27, 11:32 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net>

Glad you piped in. We always think of you as a Voice of Reason....:O

> Yes, you can find as many CT sources as you want that say a Mauser was
> found. If that's even what you're trying to say. So what? You can add
> 10,000 zeros and the total is still zero.
>

I know, when we run out of LNT sources, we have to go to them. Wait a
minute....all they use is the inadequate, and often manipulated WC
report...Ouch!

> >>>> Google "Roger Craig" "June 1968" interview and see what comes up. (Nada.)
>
> >>>> The "old" story is that he didn't know what kind of rifle it was that
> >>>> was found on the sixth floor.
>
> >>> No, he never said it wasn't a Mauser.
>
> >> Who said he did?
> >> He said he *didn't know* what kind of rifle it was.
>
> >  From 'that' unrereputable source.
>
> Look at the sources you consider reputable. All, to a man, absolute
> jokes to real journalists and researchers. Anderson, Lifton, Marrs...
> total laughing stocks.
>
> (Not to mention Lane, the father of them all.)
>

I think this soapbox has to be getting quite unsturdy at this point.

> >  It's kinda hard not to believe even if
> > he knew nothing about rifles, that he saw in print, "Mauser", unless you
> > just want to believe he made it up to satisfy your own slant on things.
>
> No, it's all too easy to believe that he was just talking thru his ass.
> It's the obvious conclusion.
>

I'm going to look for some Oswald-Mauser testimony from someone, so
you can feel a part of things...:)

CJ

> /sandy

[curtjester1]

Doesn't matter when he said the information that he said he saw was
tied to a M-C. And a 7.65 caliber was pulled out of a hat? How do
you do that unless you see something or know an awful lot about
rifles?

> > weapon and looking for some identification, there going to see it.  I find
> > it difficutlt that they or anybody couldn't.  It's not like they made it
> > to 'not be seen' like it seems like your slanting your inferral.
>
> Not always. Some people won't understand what the markings mean and some
> may be hidden under the stock. You need an expert.
>
>

I don't think of somebody 'unexpert' as finding a unique caliber of a
weapon.

>
>
>
>
>
> >>           According to the FBI's Frazier, who introduced this exhibit,
>
> >> "Photograph No. 3 is also of the top of the rifle, showing a portion
> >> of the inscription on the telescopic sight, and the figures 1940,
> >> which is the manufacturer's date, the words "Made Italy" and a figure
> >> in the form of a crown, under that the letters "R-E," and then a
> >> portion of the word Terni."  .... and...
>
> >>   "Photograph No. 4 is again of the top of the weapon showing the same
> >> information--1940, "Made Italy,'' the crown, the place it was made,
> >> and the inscription "Caliber 6.5" across the top of the rear sight."
>
> >>          Photos 3 and 4 are the top two photos.
>
> >>          So, according to your sources, the inscription "Made in Italy"
> >> was on the butt of the rifle and very plain to see?   Did your sources
> >> offer any photos supporting this?   (Let me guess -- Of course they
> >> didn't!)
>
> > Does it matter, when all the information on the gun would be dramatically
> > different than the information on the Mauser?  How could they even 'get' a
> > 7.65, such a precise, unusual number out of thin air.  How could one see a
> > word like "Terni" and think of it as German?  Enquiring minds want to
> > know?
>
> How dramatically? And how is the average cop supposed to know that Terni
> is in Italy? And why couldn't he think it was an Italian Mauser?
>
>

They wouldn't necessarily. But they sure wouldn't say something
unGerman was German.

CJ

>
> > CJ

[curtjester1]

On May 28, 8:32 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

Well, we did try harder than the average bear to find that the
paperwork didn't match a suspect getting an M-C.

CJ

[curtjester1]

If you show me an Italian Mauser, I'm going to have a good cry.

CJ

[mainframetech]

Yes, odd that Weitzman would give a detailed description of the
'Mauser' he saw and then swear to it the next day, only to take it all
back later.

Chris

[mainframetech]

They had Weitzman who had experience working in a sporting goods
business and by his own statement he was "fairly familiar" with guns.
But the average person can find markings of one kind or another on
most rifles, some which would identify the maker. But it will have no
effect on the case in the long run whether the rifle was an MC or a
Mauser.

[mainframetech]

If you listen to Craig telling his story, you won't hear him say
anything about studying the rifle for "minutes". Go to 5:00:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XNHtUDEDAI

> >           The first two photos below are supposed to show "Made
> > Italy" (not "Made in Italy").  Can you find it?
>

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

[curtjester1]

Not to the CT Community. And they don't care if the set up was by a
Doppleganger on the CT side to set up the patsy, or if it was a Gov't
Project as the CIA whistleblower told us.

> > Are you going to insist that the fellow who dreamed up the
> > body-alteration theory (and who at one time posited that a camouflaged
> > wooden platform was built on the grassy knoll for the supposed assassin)
> > is not a wildly imaginative fabricator?
>
> Always with your vague references. Is that because you are afraid of
> being sued? I have worked with David Lifton and I don't call him a kook.
> I don't have to agree with his theories.
> I worked with Bob Cutler and often disagreed with him. So did Steve
> Barber, but I never see you criticize him. Why? Is that because you love
> to suck up to WC defenders.
>
> > Are you going to defend the intellectual integrity of the author of
> > (among others) "Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies," "Rule by
> > Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the
> > Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids" and "Alien Agenda: Investigating the
> > Extraterrestrial Presence Among Us" is not a shameless huckster and
> > mountebank?
>
> You can can it with your condescending constructions. I don't have to
> justify anything I say or do to a person like you.
>
> > Well, I know you constantly defend Lane's lies. So anything's possible.
>
> Funny how you can never show any lies.
> Just smear everyone who questions the government.
> Nice job you got there. No heavy lifting, no thinking required.
>
>

Nice!! From the 'Both-Sides's Man' to the 'Magic-Wand Man'

CJ

>
> > /sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

You clearly have no such concept, not even in its most rudimentary form.
/sm

[curtjester1]

At least people actually do try harder than you.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a190706804fba03f/7ac9af7ecde9d7b2?lnk=gst&q=sam+mclung+alyea+film#7ac9af7ecde9d7b2

CJ

[Sandy McCroskey]

You may note that I refer to each person in the order in which I
previously listed them. I didn't expect I'd have to point this out.

> yes we already knew that he is a kook. What's new?
>


>> Are you going to insist that the fellow who dreamed up the
>> body-alteration theory (and who at one time posited that a camouflaged
>> wooden platform was built on the grassy knoll for the supposed assassin)
>> is not a wildly imaginative fabricator?
>>
>
> Always with your vague references.

I fail to see what is vague about that reference, if I am addressing to
someone who is so familiar with the subject as you. Are you actually
denying that Lifton had the crazy notion about wooden platform? In any
case, Lifton's body-alteration theory is just as kooky as Armstrong's "two
Oswalds."

> Is that because you are afraid of
> being sued? I have worked with David Lifton and I don't call him a kook.
> I don't have to agree with his theories.

I called him a "wildly imaginative fabricator." Let him sue me, because
I can prove it.

> I worked with Bob Cutler and often disagreed with him. So did Steve
> Barber, but I never see you criticize him. Why? Is that because you love
> to suck up to WC defenders.
>

Has this Bob Cutler written a book?

>> Are you going to defend the intellectual integrity of the author of
>> (among others) "Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies," "Rule by
>> Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the
>> Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids" and "Alien Agenda: Investigating the
>> Extraterrestrial Presence Among Us" is not a shameless huckster and
>> mountebank?

Oops. I send before I had finished editing.
How about:

Are you going to defend the intellectual integrity of the author of (among
others) "Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies," "Rule by Secrecy:
The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the
Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids" and "Alien Agenda: Investigating the

Extraterrestrial Presence Among Us" and pretend that he is not a shameless

huckster and mountebank?

>>
>
> You can can it with your condescending constructions. I don't have to
> justify anything I say or do to a person like you.
>

"A person like" me!
Oh, dear!

>> Well, I know you constantly defend Lane's lies. So anything's possible.
>>
>
> Funny how you can never show any lies.

Excuse me?

I know that every time I and others highlight them, you come up with
some preposterously convoluted double-talk to attempt to justify his
misrepresentations, deliberate omissions and outright, brazen falsehoods.

As far as Robert Harris is concerned, no one has ever refuted his
argument about "startle reactions" and frame 285.
As far as Ralph Cinque is concerned, everybody is running away from his
"proof" that Oswald was standing in the doorway of the TSDB during the
motorcade.
And as far as Anthony Marsh is concerned, no one will ever catch Mark
Lane in a lie.
Birds of a feather.

> Just smear everyone who questions the government.
> Nice job you got there. No heavy lifting, no thinking required.
>

Excuse me? I've question the government all my life.
I've marched and demonstrated against the government. I've even been
arrested for it. (You?)



/sandy

[curtjester1]

Here's some more rudiments so as to not feel so left out.

Rifle And Tippit Timelines (1:06)

http://ww.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds_2.html (Bartholomew/Graf
Upstairs Rifle)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6322 (Tippit
Died at 1:00 EF)

http://www.ctka.net/pr198-jfk.html (Police transcript 1:10 National
Archives)

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html (Craig's Unfinished
Manuscript. see ch. 2

http://whokilledjfk.net/tom_alyea_film.htm (Kritzberg, Alyea, Rossley
Letter and Page)

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

CJ

[Anthony Marsh]

Default MAUSER MOD. 1899 ITALIAN NAVY #6

Here’s my last find, Mauser C96 mod. 1899 Italian Navy, serial
number 6. I was very lucky: while surfing on “Armiusate.it†, an
Italian site about firearms, I noted an ad from a little armory of
Correggio, a town only 100 km far from my home. They didn’t mention
SN, but a Mauser Italian Navy is a rare find, however. Next morning I
went there and…..surprise! The Mauser was in fantastic conditions, but
the real discovery was the serial number: 6.
A brief summary of the Mauser C96 Italian Navy Contract campaigns
(we call it Mod. 1899): First C96 military contract, Mausers mod. 1899
saw action in 1900 during the Boxer revolution, both in the Beijing
embassy and in our Chinese legation of Tien Tsin, HQ of the Marines of
“Battaglione San Marco†. “Legation†was a nice word to say
“Colony†. Then these pistols returned at the front in Libya,
conquered in 1911-12 after a war against Turkey. And once again in the
hands of our boys in the Great War, mainly officers and NCOs of the Navy
landing forces. After the war they were stored in arsenal, replaced by
Berettas. We can calculate about 1200 pistols lost in action, sunk with
ships and submarines, damaged or destroyed, etc. They remained in the
Navy arsenals many years, then the tragedy: in the 50s about 3000
surviving Mod 1899 were cold-pressed and destroyed by order of the
Defence Department (no more War Department). I think that the surviving
rate is 500 guns, no more. The Mod 1899 shows two important proof marks:
DV on left side of frame, probably “Dopo Verifica†(after
inspection), and crowned AV under the barrel, probably “Accettata e
Verificata†(accepted and verified). These marks were punched at
Oberndorf from the Italian Commission that accepted the pistols, leaded
from 1lieutenant Enrico Dolcini.
A brief history of this gun, from official documents: when the
Italian Navy purchased the famous 5000 Mauser C96, the first military
contract in Mauser history, bought ammo also, charged with Wolff powder
from DWM. Well, our Navy tested some other powders to start production
of 7.63 mm in Italy. The powders were: balistite, solenite and lanite.
The factory charged for powder production was the Dinamite Nobel of
Avigliana. The pistols chosen for the tests at the Direzione
d’Artiglieria (Artillery Direction) of Venice were #2 and #6. The
date: 01/14/1904. Tests started 02/02/1904. A known pistol. It is in exc
conditions and completely matching, including grips. Holster stock shows
#4!!! Rear sight and safety lever still retain the famous “Mauser blue†.

http://luger.gunboards.com/uploaded/ranger-cpt/200783154832_Italian%20Navy%204.JPG

[curtjester1]

>      Here’s my last find, Mauser C96 mod. 1899 Italian Navy, serial
> number 6. I was very lucky: while surfing on “Armiusate.it”, an

> Italian site about firearms, I noted an ad from a little armory of

> Correggio, a town only 100 km far from my home. They didn’t mention

> SN, but a Mauser Italian Navy is a rare find, however. Next morning I

> went there and…..surprise! The Mauser was in fantastic conditions, but

> the real discovery was the serial number: 6.
>      A brief summary of the Mauser C96 Italian Navy Contract campaigns
> (we call it Mod. 1899): First C96 military contract, Mausers mod. 1899
> saw action in 1900 during the Boxer revolution, both in the Beijing
> embassy and in our Chinese legation of Tien Tsin, HQ of the Marines of

> “Battaglione San Marco”. “Legation” was a nice word to say
> “Colony”. Then these pistols returned at the front in Libya,

> conquered in 1911-12 after a war against Turkey. And once again in the
> hands of our boys in the Great War, mainly officers and NCOs of the Navy
> landing forces. After the war they were stored in arsenal, replaced by
> Berettas. We can calculate about 1200 pistols lost in action, sunk with
> ships and submarines, damaged or destroyed, etc. They remained in the
> Navy arsenals many years, then the tragedy: in the 50s about 3000
> surviving Mod 1899 were cold-pressed and destroyed by order of the
> Defence Department (no more War Department). I think that the surviving
> rate is 500 guns, no more. The Mod 1899 shows two important proof marks:

> DV on left side of frame, probably “Dopo Verifica” (after
> inspection), and crowned AV under the barrel, probably “Accettata e
> Verificata” (accepted and verified). These marks were punched at

> Oberndorf from the Italian Commission that accepted the pistols, leaded
> from 1lieutenant Enrico Dolcini.
>      A brief history of this gun, from official documents: when the
> Italian Navy purchased the famous 5000 Mauser C96, the first military
> contract in Mauser history, bought ammo also, charged with Wolff powder
> from DWM. Well, our Navy tested some other powders to start production
> of 7.63 mm in Italy. The powders were: balistite, solenite and lanite.
> The factory charged for powder production was the Dinamite Nobel of
> Avigliana. The pistols chosen for the tests at the Direzione

> d’Artiglieria (Artillery Direction) of Venice were #2 and #6. The

> date: 01/14/1904. Tests started 02/02/1904. A known pistol. It is in exc
> conditions and completely matching, including grips. Holster stock shows

> #4!!! Rear sight and safety lever still retain the famous “Mauser blue”.
>
> http://luger.gunboards.com/uploaded/ranger-cpt/200783154832_Italian%2...

I'm crying now. They'll always have 'something' against me.

CJ

[Anthony Marsh]

>> Here?s my last find, Mauser C96 mod. 1899 Italian Navy, serial
>> number 6. I was very lucky: while surfing on ?Armiusate.it?, an

>> Italian site about firearms, I noted an ad from a little armory of

>> Correggio, a town only 100 km far from my home. They didn?t mention

>> SN, but a Mauser Italian Navy is a rare find, however. Next morning I

>> went there and?..surprise! The Mauser was in fantastic conditions, but

>> the real discovery was the serial number: 6.
>> A brief summary of the Mauser C96 Italian Navy Contract campaigns
>> (we call it Mod. 1899): First C96 military contract, Mausers mod. 1899
>> saw action in 1900 during the Boxer revolution, both in the Beijing
>> embassy and in our Chinese legation of Tien Tsin, HQ of the Marines of

>> ?Battaglione San Marco?. ?Legation? was a nice word to say
>> ?Colony?. Then these pistols returned at the front in Libya,

>> conquered in 1911-12 after a war against Turkey. And once again in the
>> hands of our boys in the Great War, mainly officers and NCOs of the Navy
>> landing forces. After the war they were stored in arsenal, replaced by
>> Berettas. We can calculate about 1200 pistols lost in action, sunk with
>> ships and submarines, damaged or destroyed, etc. They remained in the
>> Navy arsenals many years, then the tragedy: in the 50s about 3000
>> surviving Mod 1899 were cold-pressed and destroyed by order of the
>> Defence Department (no more War Department). I think that the surviving
>> rate is 500 guns, no more. The Mod 1899 shows two important proof marks:

>> DV on left side of frame, probably ?Dopo Verifica? (after
>> inspection), and crowned AV under the barrel, probably ?Accettata e
>> Verificata? (accepted and verified). These marks were punched at

>> Oberndorf from the Italian Commission that accepted the pistols, leaded
>> from 1lieutenant Enrico Dolcini.
>> A brief history of this gun, from official documents: when the
>> Italian Navy purchased the famous 5000 Mauser C96, the first military
>> contract in Mauser history, bought ammo also, charged with Wolff powder
>> from DWM. Well, our Navy tested some other powders to start production
>> of 7.63 mm in Italy. The powders were: balistite, solenite and lanite.
>> The factory charged for powder production was the Dinamite Nobel of
>> Avigliana. The pistols chosen for the tests at the Direzione

>> d?Artiglieria (Artillery Direction) of Venice were #2 and #6. The

>> date: 01/14/1904. Tests started 02/02/1904. A known pistol. It is in exc
>> conditions and completely matching, including grips. Holster stock shows

>> #4!!! Rear sight and safety lever still retain the famous ?Mauser blue?.

>>
>> http://luger.gunboards.com/uploaded/ranger-cpt/200783154832_Italian%2...
>
> I'm crying now. They'll always have 'something' against me.
>
> CJ
>

I let you off easy. I could also have mentioned the many Mausers left
behind or surrendered by the Nazis which Italy scooped up and used to join
the Allies in fighting the Nazis.

So not made in Italy, but used by Italy therefore Italian Mausers as
opposed to Nazi Mausers.

Originally hoping to have their chance at the spoils of war, Italy agreed
to fight on the side of the Axis forces and moved into North Africa.
Allied powers entered North Africa in August of 1942 and reached Sicily by
August 1943. The following month, Italian Leaders surrenders to the Allied
forces. October 13, 1943. After strategic and military conditions
deteriorated, Italy, along with several other nations, changed sides and
declared war on the Axis Powers.

[curtjester1]

Self-depreciating humor is the funniest, I say!

> And are you going to tell me the originator of the preposterous "two
> Oswalds" theory isn't an utter crackpot?
>

How can you when there are 100's of sightings of Oswald with
intersting people in the JFK case story? Even the WC gave a little
time for that, well until they knew it would be a can of worms and
weaseled out of it.

> Are you going to insist that the fellow who dreamed up the body-alteration
> theory (and who at one time posited that a camouflaged wooden platform was
> built on the grassy knoll for the supposed assassin) is not a wildly
> imaginative fabricator?
>

Heck, no. He took on Dulles at UCLA, and Dulles was the dreamer who
said the head shot to JFK never went backwards.

> Are you going to defend the intellectual integrity of the author of (among
> others) "Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies," "Rule by Secrecy:
> The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the
> Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids" and "Alien Agenda: Investigating the
> Extraterrestrial Presence Among Us" is not a shameless huckster and
> mountebank?
>

You would have to declare JFK then a brain-deficient CT, as he warned
against those elitists in magnificent speech.

> Well, I know you constantly defend Lane's lies. So anything's possible.
>

Yeah, like the driver did it.

CJ


> /sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

You are very naive.

There have been thousands of sightings of Elvis after his death.
Some people will tell you they have been abducted by aliens.
You can't believe what everyone tells you.

(To be fair, I think that you, "curtjester1," tend to believe only what
anyone who doesn't agree with the "official story" on anything tells you.)

> Even the WC gave a little
> time for that, well until they knew it would be a can of worms and
> weaseled out of it.
>
>> Are you going to insist that the fellow who dreamed up the body-alteration
>> theory (and who at one time posited that a camouflaged wooden platform was
>> built on the grassy knoll for the supposed assassin) is not a wildly
>> imaginative fabricator?
>>
> Heck, no. He took on Dulles at UCLA, and Dulles was the dreamer who
> said the head shot to JFK never went backwards.
>

Case in point (re what I just said).

>> Are you going to defend the intellectual integrity of the author of (among
>> others) "Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies," "Rule by Secrecy:
>> The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the
>> Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids" and "Alien Agenda: Investigating the
>> Extraterrestrial Presence Among Us" is not a shameless huckster and
>> mountebank?
>>
> You would have to declare JFK then a brain-deficient CT, as he warned
> against those elitists in magnificent speech.
>

If you're saying JFK inveighed against the Trilateral Commission in a
speech somewhere, I think you're imagining things.

>> Well, I know you constantly defend Lane's lies. So anything's possible.
>>
> Yeah, like the driver did it.

Non sequitur. I meant only that anything's possible when it comes to
what Marsh believes.

I will add, though, since you chimed in, that I could say the same about
you, Mr. "curtjester1."

/sandy mccroskey

[curtjester1]

You are trying to compare Elvis with what people have gone to great
lengh's to verify that Oswald was in many places and events before the
assassinatiion? Many of these have Oswald with very prominent figures and
folks who were there to verify it who would be called in to a normal
courtroom setting. And many of those were where Oswald was known to be at
a work establishment or some city that these incidents' were taking place
because of it. And yet, YOU, can just dismiss at the magic wand of a
waving hand.

> (To be fair, I think that you, "curtjester1," tend to believe only what
> anyone who doesn't agree with the "official story" on anything tells you.)
>

Amusing. These one-liner's are on a par with..."I don't mean to be
disrespectful...(and then they go on to disrespect the person's
character)

> > Even the WC gave a little
> > time for that, well until they knew it would be a can of worms and
> > weaseled out of it.
>
> >> Are you going to insist that the fellow who dreamed up the body-alteration
> >> theory (and who at one time posited that a camouflaged wooden platform was
> >> built on the grassy knoll for the supposed assassin) is not a wildly
> >> imaginative fabricator?
>
> > Heck, no.  He took on Dulles at UCLA, and Dulles was the dreamer who
> > said the head shot to JFK never went backwards.
>
> Case in point (re what I just said).
>

And the point being?

> >> Are you going to defend the intellectual integrity of the author of (among
> >> others) "Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies," "Rule by Secrecy:
> >> The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the
> >> Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids" and "Alien Agenda: Investigating the
> >> Extraterrestrial Presence Among Us" is not a shameless huckster and
> >> mountebank?
>
> > You would have to declare JFK then a brain-deficient CT, as he warned
> > against those elitists in magnificent speech.
>
> If you're saying JFK inveighed against the Trilateral Commission in a
> speech somewhere, I think you're imagining things.
>

I don't think the Trilateral Commission was created yet. Yet, the evils
of power were being warned against. Even Ike, the decorated general,
warned against his 'own kind' when he said the military establishment was
getting out of control.

> >> Well, I know you constantly defend Lane's lies. So anything's possible.
>
> > Yeah, like the driver did it.
>
> Non sequitur. I meant only that anything's possible when it comes to
> what Marsh believes.
>

And more to the point, what Sandy just goes and spouts off on, with no
apparent beginning nor end.

> I will add, though, since you chimed in, that I could say the same about
> you, Mr. "curtjester1."
>

I say the Oswald 'clan' didit.

CJ

[Sandy McCroskey]

I'm glad that wasn't over your head.

>>> Even the WC gave a little
>>> time for that, well until they knew it would be a can of worms and
>>> weaseled out of it.
>>>> Are you going to insist that the fellow who dreamed up the body-alteration
>>>> theory (and who at one time posited that a camouflaged wooden platform was
>>>> built on the grassy knoll for the supposed assassin) is not a wildly
>>>> imaginative fabricator?
>>> Heck, no. He took on Dulles at UCLA, and Dulles was the dreamer who
>>> said the head shot to JFK never went backwards.
>> Case in point (re what I just said).
>>
>
> And the point being?
>

OK, OK, I get it!
You're a comedian!

/sandy

[John McAdams]

On 3 Jun 2013 13:19:36 -0400, curtjester1 <curtj...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jun 2, 10:26�pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On 6/2/13 1:08 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>
>>
>> You are very naive.
>>
>> There have been thousands of sightings of Elvis after his death.
>> Some people will tell you they have been abducted by aliens.
>> You can't believe what everyone tells you.
>>
>
>You are trying to compare Elvis with what people have gone to great
>lengh's to verify that Oswald was in many places and events before the
>assassinatiion?

No, buffs don't try to verify any of this. They just accept the
sightings at face value.

>Many of these have Oswald with very prominent figures and
>folks who were there to verify it who would be called in to a normal
>courtroom setting. And many of those were where Oswald was known to be at
>a work establishment or some city that these incidents' were taking place
>because of it. And yet, YOU, can just dismiss at the magic wand of a
>waving hand.
>

Quite typically, they saw Oswald where he COULD NOT have been.

That was true of the Sports Drome sightings, the auto dealership
sightings, and "Maurice Bishop" sighting, and most of the others.

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

[curtjester1]

On Jun 3, 10:39 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 3 Jun 2013 13:19:36 -0400, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 2, 10:26 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> On 6/2/13 1:08 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >> You are very naive.
>
> >> There have been thousands of sightings of Elvis after his death.
> >> Some people will tell you they have been abducted by aliens.
> >> You can't believe what everyone tells you.
>
> >You are trying to compare Elvis with what people have gone to great
> >lengh's to verify that Oswald was in many places and events before the
> >assassinatiion?
>
> No, buffs don't try to verify any of this.  They just accept the
> sightings at face value.
>

I don't know what you mean by 'face value', but sightings are
considered events like any other event. They are not figments of
imagination, and all are 'accounts' that demand scrutiny. The WC soon
discarded 'any' validity even though there were numerous accounts.

> >Many of these have Oswald with very prominent figures and
> >folks who were there to verify it who would be called in to a normal
> >courtroom setting.  And many of those were where Oswald was known to be at
> >a work establishment or some city that these incidents' were taking place
> >because of it.  And yet, YOU, can just dismiss at the magic wand of a
> >waving hand.
>
> Quite typically, they saw Oswald where he COULD NOT have been.
>

That would pique anyone's interest that is following the case...at
least it should.

> That was true of the Sports Drome sightings, the auto dealership
> sightings, and "Maurice Bishop" sighting, and most of the others.
>

Yes, and the M.C. sagas, the order of work done on 'the rifle' at the
Irving Sports Shop, the Top Ten Record Store, the Texas Theater, vs.
The Tippit murder scene, the two Oswalds at the employment agency by
Laura Kittrell...the list is almost endless.

The question is, with a lone gunman, why would any of these crop up?
Did they for Squeaky Fromme?

CJ

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