Mark Lane - (#140)

[Ben Holmes]

In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out the amazing fact
that the WC refused to allow Weitzman to examine the alleged rifle
during his testimony...

"The Report stated that Weitzman, after 'little more than a glimpse',
thought the rifle 'looked like a 7.65 Mauser' but did not disclose
that Weitzman swore to the description he gave in substantial detail.
It also ignores the fact that his identification of the weapon as a
Mauser was supported by the testimony of a number of other officers.
The Commission did not once address itself to the other officers who
had also described the weapon as a Mauser but whose comments I had not
been able to make public. Two men discovered the weapon — Weitzman and
Boone — and both of them described it as a 7.65 Mauser. When Captain
Fritz arrived he knelt down on the floor to examine the rifle, and he
too, according to Boone, declared it was a 7.65 Mauser.

Deputy Sheriff Boone testified, 'I thought it was 7.65 Mauser'. When
he was asked, 'Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?', Boone
replied, 'I believe Captain Fritz.' Boone said that Fritz had '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 back and forth. And he [Fritz] said it looks like a 7.65
Mauser. Boone, unlike Weitzman, was shown the Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle, which he was unable to identify as the weapon he and Weitzman
had found. Deputy Sheriff Mooney, who arrived on the scene seconds
after the weapon was discovered, testified immediately before Boone.
The Mannlicher-Carcano was presumably in the hearing room, or it could
not have been far away, but Mooney was not shown the weapon and he was
not asked about the conversation that took place in his presence when
the rifle was described as a 7.65 Mauser."

Mark Lane is showing the corroboration for Weitzman's assertion, as
well as the lies of omission by the Warren Commission... amusingly,
"lies of omission" are what is claimed for Mark Lane, despite the
problem of providing examples. And, as usual, dead silence on the part
of the LNT'ers.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out the amazing fact
> that the WC refused to allow Weitzman to examine the alleged rifle
> during his testimony...

Which we determined was an untruth by Lane. They didn’t refuse to allow Weitzman the opportunity to examine the rifle, because he never asked to examine the rifle.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refuse
== quote ==
Refuse - transitive verb
1 : to express oneself as unwilling to accept
refuse a gift
refuse a promotion
2a : to show or express unwillingness to do or comply with
refused to answer the question
b : to not allow someone to have or do (something) : DENY
they were refused admittance to the game
== unquote ==

>
> "The Report stated that Weitzman, after 'little more than a glimpse',
> thought the rifle 'looked like a 7.65 Mauser' but did not disclose
> that Weitzman swore to the description he gave in substantial detail.

Lane doesn’t disclose that Weitzman’s description matches the CE139 rifle in the archives in all aspects that he could be expected to see and that Weitzman said the action looked like the Mauser action, which it does, because the Carcano is based on the Mauser design.

> It also ignores the fact that his identification of the weapon as a
> Mauser was supported by the testimony of a number of other officers.

No, he didn’t identify it as a Mauser. He said it looked like a Mauser. And the Carcano does look like a Mauser.

None of the men who admitted to saying it looked like a Mauser handled it.

The one man who did take possession of it and did inspect it closely was J.C.Day, and he identified it was an Italian rifle with the serial number C2766.

> The Commission did not once address itself to the other officers who
> had also described the weapon as a Mauser

As looking like a Mauser. Which it does.
== quote ==
Mr. BALL - There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day?
Mr. BOONE - Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was 7.65 Mauser
.
== unquote ==

> but whose comments I had not
> been able to make public. Two men discovered the weapon — Weitzman and
> Boone — and both of them described it as a 7.65 Mauser.

Films and photos taken both inside and outside the building show a Carcano.

> When Captain
> Fritz arrived he knelt down on the floor to examine the rifle, and he
> too, according to Boone, declared it was a 7.65 Mauser.

So hearsay. But we’ll allow it. Here’s the actual quote:
== quote==

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.
== unquote ==

It looks like a Mauser. Yes, a Carcano does. I’m glad to clear up your 58 years of confusion on this issue. Let Mark Lane when you next see him.

>
> Deputy Sheriff Boone testified, 'I thought it was 7.65 Mauser'. When
> he was asked, 'Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?', Boone
> replied, 'I believe Captain Fritz.' Boone said that Fritz had '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 back and forth. And he [Fritz] said it looks like a 7.65
> Mauser. Boone, unlike Weitzman, was shown the Mannlicher-Carcano
> rifle, which he was unable to identify as the weapon he and Weitzman
> had found.

== quote ==
Mr. BALL - I show you a rifle which is Commission Exhibit 139. Can you tell us whether or not that looks like the rifle you saw on the floor that day?
Mr. BOONE - It looks like the same rifle. I have no way of being positive.
Mr. BALL - You never handled it?
Mr. BOONE - I did not touch the weapon at all.
== unquote ==

“It looks like the same rifle”.

If Boone’s thinking it was a Mauser was sufficient for Lane, why is Boone’s thinking it looks like the same weapon insufficient?

> Deputy Sheriff Mooney, who arrived on the scene seconds
> after the weapon was discovered, testified immediately before Boone.
> The Mannlicher-Carcano was presumably in the hearing room, or it could
> not have been far away, but Mooney was not shown the weapon and he was
> not asked about the conversation that took place in his presence when
> the rifle was described as a 7.65 Mauser."

How’s that work? The Commission should have known what Boone in his later testimony would say and the Commission should have asked Mooney about it when he testified before Boone testified about that conversation?

It is your final answer, Mark? You sure you don’t want to phone a friend?

Are you sure about that?

>
> Mark Lane is showing the corroboration for Weitzman's assertion, as
> well as the lies of omission by the Warren Commission...

Numerous people said it looks like a Mauser because the Carcano looks a lot like a Mauser. What lies of omission by the Commission?

> amusingly,
> "lies of omission" are what is claimed for Mark Lane, despite the
> problem of providing examples.

Example right here: Lane spends a lot of time talking about the testimony of people who didn’t handle the weapon, but fails to discuss any of the films or photographs taken within the Depository or immediately outside that show a Carcano. He omits discussing the photos. That’s a lie of omission by Lane. The photos would clear up any doubt immediately about what was found, but Lane avoids mentioning them.

> And, as usual, dead silence on the part
> of the LNT'ers.

Hilarious! J.C.Day. C2766. Klein’s business records. Photographs and films of the weapon. The HSCA photographic panel.

Ever feel like Don Quixote, Ben?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 16:49:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out the amazing fact
>> that the WC refused to allow Weitzman to examine the alleged rifle
>> during his testimony...
>
>Which we determined was an untruth by Lane.

There you go again, Huckster.

You can't even admit the TRUTH that normal procedure would have had
the involved people verifying the rifle.

Particularly when the WC went to efforts to downplay the Mouser story.

It's quite stupid of you to deny that the WC refused to allow Weitzman
to examine the rifle BECAUSE HE DIDN'T ASK TO EXAMINE THE RIFLE.

That's simply a moronic argument.

And demonstrates that the WC wasn't "investigating" - they were
covering up.

>> "The Report stated that Weitzman, after 'little more than a glimpse',
>> thought the rifle 'looked like a 7.65 Mauser' but did not disclose
>> that Weitzman swore to the description he gave in substantial detail.

Speculation and logical fallacy deleted.

>> It also ignores the fact that his identification of the weapon as a
>> Mauser was supported by the testimony of a number of other officers.
>
>No, he didn’t identify it as a Mauser. He said it looked like a Mauser

Chuckles is about to slap you with a "distinction without a
difference..."

The rest of your lies deleted...

>> The Commission did not once address itself to the other officers who
>> had also described the weapon as a Mauser

LFD.

>> but whose comments I had not
>> been able to make public. Two men discovered the weapon — Weitzman and
>> Boone — and both of them described it as a 7.65 Mauser.

LFD.

>> When Captain
>> Fritz arrived he knelt down on the floor to examine the rifle, and he
>> too, according to Boone, declared it was a 7.65 Mauser.
>
>So hearsay. But we’ll allow it.

Yet deny the truth in so many other instances...

>> Deputy Sheriff Boone testified, 'I thought it was 7.65 Mauser'. When
>> he was asked, 'Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?', Boone
>> replied, 'I believe Captain Fritz.' Boone said that Fritz had '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 back and forth. And he [Fritz] said it looks like a 7.65
>> Mauser. Boone, unlike Weitzman, was shown the Mannlicher-Carcano
>> rifle, which he was unable to identify as the weapon he and Weitzman
>> had found.
>>

>> Deputy Sheriff Mooney, who arrived on the scene seconds
>> after the weapon was discovered, testified immediately before Boone.
>> The Mannlicher-Carcano was presumably in the hearing room, or it could
>> not have been far away, but Mooney was not shown the weapon and he was
>> not asked about the conversation that took place in his presence when
>> the rifle was described as a 7.65 Mauser."
>
>How’s that work?

It's called an "investigation." Surely you've heard of it.

>> Mark Lane is showing the corroboration for Weitzman's assertion, as
>> well as the lies of omission by the Warren Commission...

LFD.

>> amusingly,
>> "lies of omission" are what is claimed for Mark Lane, despite the
>> problem of providing examples.

LFD.

>> And, as usual, dead silence on the part
>> of the LNT'ers.
>
> Hilarious! J.C.Day. C2766. Klein’s business records. Photographs
> and films of the weapon. The HSCA photographic panel.

I can list evidence too. Did you accomplish anything?

>Ever feel like Don Quixote, Ben?

I've never thought that I could turn a dishonest person into an honest
one, no.

[Bud]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 10:05:42 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 16:49:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out the amazing fact
> >> that the WC refused to allow Weitzman to examine the alleged rifle
> >> during his testimony...
> >
> >Which we determined was an untruth by Lane.
> There you go again, Huckster.
>
> You can't even admit the TRUTH that normal procedure would have had
> the involved people verifying the rifle.

You are asserting things as fact that you haven`t shown. What is that fallacy called?

> Particularly when the WC went to efforts to downplay the Mouser story.

Spin. Making an effort to determine the truth would necessarily downplay false information.

> It's quite stupid of you to deny that the WC refused to allow Weitzman
> to examine the rifle BECAUSE HE DIDN'T ASK TO EXAMINE THE RIFLE.

They refused almost the whole world at the time the opportunity to examine the rifle.

> That's simply a moronic argument.
>
> And demonstrates that the WC wasn't "investigating" - they were
> covering up.

Begged.

> >> "The Report stated that Weitzman, after 'little more than a glimpse',
> >> thought the rifle 'looked like a 7.65 Mauser' but did not disclose
> >> that Weitzman swore to the description he gave in substantial detail.
> Speculation and logical fallacy deleted.
> >> It also ignores the fact that his identification of the weapon as a
> >> Mauser was supported by the testimony of a number of other officers.
> >
> >No, he didn’t identify it as a Mauser. He said it looked like a Mauser
> Chuckles is about to slap you with a "distinction without a
> difference..."

<snicker> Ben can`t make a distinction between the concept of someone stating it was a Mauser and the concept of someone saying it looked like one.

This is why poor thinkers like Ben are rarely tapped to conduct investigations.

> The rest of your lies deleted...

You run the points that Hank makes in every post. Are you trying to convince people you are a coward that can`t discuss ideas? Mission accomplished.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 10:05:42 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 16:49:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out the amazing fact
> >> that the WC refused to allow Weitzman to examine the alleged rifle
> >> during his testimony...
> >
> >Which we determined was an untruth by Lane.
> There you go again, Huckster.
>
> You can't even admit the TRUTH that normal procedure would have had
> the involved people verifying the rifle.

That was followed. Day took possession of the rifle, initialed it, and testified that was the weapon recovered from the Depository. If you want to make the case that all the onlookers should have had an opportunity to identify the rifle, go right ahead. Make that case. I’d love to see you try.

We already know how Mark Lane would have treated it, because he ignored Boone’s saying it looks like the weapon and pretended that was sufficient to eliminate the Carcano.

>
> Particularly when the WC went to efforts to downplay the Mouser story.

There was never a Mauser. That’s established by the films and photographs and the testimony of Day and others, like Weitzman who admitted he was mistaken, and Boone, who said that looks like the weapon when he was shown CE139.

>
> It's quite stupid of you to deny that the WC refused to allow Weitzman
> to examine the rifle BECAUSE HE DIDN'T ASK TO EXAMINE THE RIFLE.

Straw man. The Commission never refused to show him the rifle, and it would not have accomplished anything anyway. He was never close enough to see a serial number, so he could neve4 have IDed the weapon as the one recovered from the Depository.

>
> That's simply a moronic argument.

It’s your straw man.

>
> And demonstrates that the WC wasn't "investigating" - they were
> covering up.

How so? Please establish it’s standard operating procedure to ask LEOs who never handled the weapon to identify it somehow, a procedure that is bound to lack any validity.

> >> "The Report stated that Weitzman, after 'little more than a glimpse',
> >> thought the rifle 'looked like a 7.65 Mauser' but did not disclose
> >> that Weitzman swore to the description he gave in substantial detail.
> Speculation and logical fallacy deleted.

Translation: You can’t rebut the point made here:

Lane doesn’t disclose that Weitzman’s description matches the CE139 rifle in the archives in all aspects that he could be expected to see and that Weitzman said the action looked like the Mauser action, which it does, because the Carcano is based on the Mauser design.

> >> It also ignores the fact that his identification of the weapon as a
> >> Mauser was supported by the testimony of a number of other officers.
> >
> >No, he didn’t identify it as a Mauser. He said it looked like a Mauser
> Chuckles is about to slap you with a "distinction without a
> difference..."
>

You don’t understand what the word “identification” means in law, or are pretending not to. Weitzman never identified the weapon as a Mauser, he said it looked like a Mauser action. And it does, because the Carcano is based on the Mauser design.

> The rest of your lies deleted...

Translation: You can’t rebut anything else I said either, so you deleted it.

> >> The Commission did not once address itself to the other officers who
> >> had also described the weapon as a Mauser
> LFD.

Translation: You can’t rebut anything else I said either, so you deleted it.

> >> but whose comments I had not
> >> been able to make public. Two men discovered the weapon — Weitzman and
> >> Boone — and both of them described it as a 7.65 Mauser.
> LFD.

Translation: You can’t rebut anything else I said either, so you deleted it.

> >> When Captain
> >> Fritz arrived he knelt down on the floor to examine the rifle, and he
> >> too, according to Boone, declared it was a 7.65 Mauser.
> >
> >So hearsay. But we’ll allow it.
> Yet deny the truth in so many other instances...

Hearsay is not necessarily the truth. You haven’t established your assertion.

> >> Deputy Sheriff Boone testified, 'I thought it was 7.65 Mauser'. When
> >> he was asked, 'Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?', Boone
> >> replied, 'I believe Captain Fritz.' Boone said that Fritz had '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 back and forth. And he [Fritz] said it looks like a 7.65
> >> Mauser. Boone, unlike Weitzman, was shown the Mannlicher-Carcano
> >> rifle, which he was unable to identify as the weapon he and Weitzman
> >> had found.
> >>
> >> Deputy Sheriff Mooney, who arrived on the scene seconds
> >> after the weapon was discovered, testified immediately before Boone.
> >> The Mannlicher-Carcano was presumably in the hearing room, or it could
> >> not have been far away, but Mooney was not shown the weapon and he was
> >> not asked about the conversation that took place in his presence when
> >> the rifle was described as a 7.65 Mauser."
> >
> >How’s that work?
> It's called an "investigation." Surely you've heard of it.

Translation: You can’t rebut anything else I said either, so you deleted it.

This is the problem I pointed out, which you and Mark Lane failed to recognize and simply ignore.

“How’s that work? The Commission should have known what Boone in his later testimony would say and the Commission should have asked Mooney about it when he testified before Boone testified about that conversation?

It is your final answer, Mark? You sure you don’t want to phone a friend?

Are you sure about that?”

> >> Mark Lane is showing the corroboration for Weitzman's assertion, as
> >> well as the lies of omission by the Warren Commission...
> LFD.
> >> amusingly,
> >> "lies of omission" are what is claimed for Mark Lane, despite the
> >> problem of providing examples.
> LFD.

Translation: You can’t rebut anything else I said either, so you deleted it.

> >> And, as usual, dead silence on the part
> >> of the LNT'ers.
> >
> > Hilarious! J.C.Day. C2766. Klein’s business records. Photographs
> > and films of the weapon. The HSCA photographic panel.
> I can list evidence too. Did you accomplish anything?

I pointed out what the evidence establishes in previous posts, advanced an argument supporting my position, and summarized it here. You fail to do that. So pointing out the difference between yo7 and I accomplishes something for any lurkers here.

> >Ever feel like Don Quixote, Ben?
> I've never thought that I could turn a dishonest person into an honest
> one, no.

Ok, add references to Don Quixote to the list of things you don’t understand.

I think you’re confusing DQ with Diogenes, but god knows.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:00:53 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 10:05:42 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 16:49:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out the amazing fact
>>>> that the WC refused to allow Weitzman to examine the alleged rifle
>>>> during his testimony...
>>>
>>>Which we determined was an untruth by Lane.
>> There you go again, Huckster.
>>
>> You can't even admit the TRUTH that normal procedure would have had
>> the involved people verifying the rifle.
>
>That was followed.

You're lying again, Huckster...

>> Particularly when the WC went to efforts to downplay the Mouser story.

LFD.

>> It's quite stupid of you to deny that the WC refused to allow Weitzman
>> to examine the rifle BECAUSE HE DIDN'T ASK TO EXAMINE THE RIFLE.
>
>Straw man.

Your argument.

And indeed, a silly one.

>> That's simply a moronic argument.
>
>It’s your straw man.

It's *YOUR* moronic one...

>> And demonstrates that the WC wasn't "investigating" - they were
>> covering up.
>
>How so?

Sorry stupid, Mark Lane just told you. If you can't read, you can't
blame me.

>>>> "The Report stated that Weitzman, after 'little more than a glimpse',
>>>> thought the rifle 'looked like a 7.65 Mauser' but did not disclose
>>>> that Weitzman swore to the description he gave in substantial detail.
>> Speculation and logical fallacy deleted.

>>>> It also ignores the fact that his identification of the weapon as a
>>>> Mauser was supported by the testimony of a number of other officers.
>>>
>>>No, he didn’t identify it as a Mauser. He said it looked like a Mauser
>>
>> Chuckles is about to slap you with a "distinction without a
>> difference..."
>

>You don’t understand...


I just proved that I do.

>> The rest of your lies deleted...
>>

>>>> The Commission did not once address itself to the other officers who
>>>> had also described the weapon as a Mauser
>> LFD.

>>>> but whose comments I had not
>>>> been able to make public. Two men discovered the weapon — Weitzman and
>>>> Boone — and both of them described it as a 7.65 Mauser.
>> LFD.

>>>> When Captain
>>>> Fritz arrived he knelt down on the floor to examine the rifle, and he
>>>> too, according to Boone, declared it was a 7.65 Mauser.
>>>
>>>So hearsay. But we’ll allow it.
>> Yet deny the truth in so many other instances...

LFD.

>>>> Deputy Sheriff Boone testified, 'I thought it was 7.65 Mauser'. When
>>>> he was asked, 'Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?', Boone
>>>> replied, 'I believe Captain Fritz.' Boone said that Fritz had '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 back and forth. And he [Fritz] said it looks like a 7.65
>>>> Mauser. Boone, unlike Weitzman, was shown the Mannlicher-Carcano
>>>> rifle, which he was unable to identify as the weapon he and Weitzman
>>>> had found.
>>>>
>>>> Deputy Sheriff Mooney, who arrived on the scene seconds
>>>> after the weapon was discovered, testified immediately before Boone.
>>>> The Mannlicher-Carcano was presumably in the hearing room, or it could
>>>> not have been far away, but Mooney was not shown the weapon and he was
>>>> not asked about the conversation that took place in his presence when
>>>> the rifle was described as a 7.65 Mauser."
>>>
>>>How’s that work?
>> It's called an "investigation." Surely you've heard of it.

>>>> Mark Lane is showing the corroboration for Weitzman's assertion, as
>>>> well as the lies of omission by the Warren Commission...
>> LFD.
>>>> amusingly,
>>>> "lies of omission" are what is claimed for Mark Lane, despite the
>>>> problem of providing examples.
>> LFD.

>>>> And, as usual, dead silence on the part
>>>> of the LNT'ers.
>>>
>>> Hilarious! J.C.Day. C2766. Klein’s business records. Photographs
>>> and films of the weapon. The HSCA photographic panel.
>> I can list evidence too. Did you accomplish anything?
>

>I pointed out...

And I pointed out ...

>>>Ever feel like Don Quixote, Ben?
>>
>> I've never thought that I could turn a dishonest person into an honest
>> one, no.

LFD.

[Hank Sienzant]

I count seven LFD's, and at least a dozen instances of Ben simply deleting my comments in whole or great part.
Ben doesn't want to discuss the assassination. He wants a monologue.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 17:49:32 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

>I count...

So do very young kids... it's not that difficult.

What's difficult is to support your lies.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ

[Hank Sienzant]

Note Ben deletes and ignores my point and changes the subject. Logical fallacy #1.

>
> What's difficult is to support your lies.

Note Ben begs the question. Logical fallacy #2.


>
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ

Note Ben changes the subject. Logical fallacy #3.

We started with my response here, which Ben had an opportunity to refute with evidence and argument, but he choose to avoid all that and just ignore the bulk of my points and cited evidence.

Which we determined was an untruth by Lane. They didn’t refuse to allow Weitzman the opportunity to examine the rifle, because he never asked to examine the rifle.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refuse
== quote ==
Refuse - transitive verb
1 : to express oneself as unwilling to accept
refuse a gift
refuse a promotion
2a : to show or express unwillingness to do or comply with
refused to answer the question
b : to not allow someone to have or do (something) : DENY
they were refused admittance to the game
== unquote ==


>

> "The Report stated that Weitzman, after 'little more than a glimpse',
> thought the rifle 'looked like a 7.65 Mauser' but did not disclose
> that Weitzman swore to the description he gave in substantial detail.

Lane doesn’t disclose that Weitzman’s description matches the CE139 rifle in the archives in all aspects that he could be expected to see and that Weitzman said the action looked like the Mauser action, which it does, because the Carcano is based on the Mauser design.

> It also ignores the fact that his identification of the weapon as a
> Mauser was supported by the testimony of a number of other officers.

No, he didn’t identify it as a Mauser. He said it looked like a Mauser. And the Carcano does look like a Mauser.

None of the men who admitted to saying it looked like a Mauser handled it.

The one man who did take possession of it and did inspect it closely was J.C.Day, and he identified it was an Italian rifle with the serial number C2766.

> The Commission did not once address itself to the other officers who
> had also described the weapon as a Mauser

As looking like a Mauser. Which it does.
== quote ==
Mr. BALL - There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day?

Mr. BOONE - Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was 7.65 Mauser
.
== unquote ==

> but whose comments I had not
> been able to make public. Two men discovered the weapon — Weitzman and
> Boone — and both of them described it as a 7.65 Mauser.

Films and photos taken both inside and outside the building show a Carcano.

> When Captain
> Fritz arrived he knelt down on the floor to examine the rifle, and he
> too, according to Boone, declared it was a 7.65 Mauser.

So hearsay. But we’ll allow it. Here’s the actual quote:
== quote==

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.
== unquote ==

It looks like a Mauser. Yes, a Carcano does. I’m glad to clear up your 58 years of confusion on this issue. Let Mark Lane when you next see him.


>

> Deputy Sheriff Boone testified, 'I thought it was 7.65 Mauser'. When
> he was asked, 'Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?', Boone
> replied, 'I believe Captain Fritz.' Boone said that Fritz had '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 back and forth. And he [Fritz] said it looks like a 7.65
> Mauser. Boone, unlike Weitzman, was shown the Mannlicher-Carcano
> rifle, which he was unable to identify as the weapon he and Weitzman
> had found.

== quote ==
Mr. BALL - I show you a rifle which is Commission Exhibit 139. Can you tell us whether or not that looks like the rifle you saw on the floor that day?
Mr. BOONE - It looks like the same rifle. I have no way of being positive.
Mr. BALL - You never handled it?
Mr. BOONE - I did not touch the weapon at all.
== unquote ==

“It looks like the same rifle”.

If Boone’s thinking it was a Mauser was sufficient for Lane, why is Boone’s thinking it looks like the same weapon insufficient?

> Deputy Sheriff Mooney, who arrived on the scene seconds
> after the weapon was discovered, testified immediately before Boone.
> The Mannlicher-Carcano was presumably in the hearing room, or it could
> not have been far away, but Mooney was not shown the weapon and he was
> not asked about the conversation that took place in his presence when
> the rifle was described as a 7.65 Mauser."

How’s that work? The Commission should have known what Boone in his later testimony would say and the Commission should have asked Mooney about it when he testified before Boone testified about that conversation?

It is your final answer, Mark? You sure you don’t want to phone a friend?

Are you sure about that?


>

> Mark Lane is showing the corroboration for Weitzman's assertion, as
> well as the lies of omission by the Warren Commission...

Numerous people said it looks like a Mauser because the Carcano looks a lot like a Mauser. What lies of omission by the Commission?

> amusingly,
> "lies of omission" are what is claimed for Mark Lane, despite the
> problem of providing examples.

Example right here: Lane spends a lot of time talking about the testimony of people who didn’t handle the weapon, but fails to discuss any of the films or photographs taken within the Depository or immediately outside that show a Carcano. He omits discussing the photos. That’s a lie of omission by Lane. The photos would clear up any doubt immediately about what was found, but Lane avoids mentioning them.

> And, as usual, dead silence on the part
> of the LNT'ers.

Hilarious! J.C.Day. C2766. Klein’s business records. Photographs and films of the weapon. The HSCA photographic panel.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 06:56:29 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


When a response is nearly triple the size of the post - you know that
there's going to be a lot to delete...

>> What's difficult is to support your lies.
>>

>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ


And of course, Huckster runs away again...

>> "The Report stated that Weitzman, after 'little more than a glimpse',
>> thought the rifle 'looked like a 7.65 Mauser' but did not disclose
>> that Weitzman swore to the description he gave in substantial detail.

LFD.

>> It also ignores the fact that his identification of the weapon as a
>> Mauser was supported by the testimony of a number of other officers.
>
>No, he didn’t identify it as a Mauser. He said it looked like a Mauser.

There's that distinction without a difference again. Where's Chuckles
when you need him?

>> The Commission did not once address itself to the other officers who
>> had also described the weapon as a Mauser

LFD.

>> When Captain
>> Fritz arrived he knelt down on the floor to examine the rifle, and he
>> too, according to Boone, declared it was a 7.65 Mauser.

LFD.

>> Deputy Sheriff Boone testified, 'I thought it was 7.65 Mauser'. When
>> he was asked, 'Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?', Boone
>> replied, 'I believe Captain Fritz.' Boone said that Fritz had '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 back and forth. And he [Fritz] said it looks like a 7.65
>> Mauser. Boone, unlike Weitzman, was shown the Mannlicher-Carcano
>> rifle, which he was unable to identify as the weapon he and Weitzman
>> had found.

LFD.

>> Deputy Sheriff Mooney, who arrived on the scene seconds
>> after the weapon was discovered, testified immediately before Boone.
>> The Mannlicher-Carcano was presumably in the hearing room, or it could
>> not have been far away, but Mooney was not shown the weapon and he was
>> not asked about the conversation that took place in his presence when
>> the rifle was described as a 7.65 Mauser."
>>

>> Mark Lane is showing the corroboration for Weitzman's assertion, as

>> well as the lies of omission by the Warren Commission... amusingly,

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben again rebuts nothing, deletes all the points and all the evidence cited, and then pretends he’s a knowledgeable critic willing to debate. Yet still refuses to debate anything.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:08:12 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

End post whining deleted.

[Hank Sienzant]

So exactly what I said. “ Ben again rebuts nothing, deletes all the points and all the evidence cited, and then pretends he’s a knowledgeable critic willing to debate. Yet still refuses to debate anything.”

Thanks for proving my point by doing it once more.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 19:12:54 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

>So...

Endpost whining deleted.

[Hank Sienzant]

What Ben deleted and what his latest post doubles down on:

So exactly what I said. “ Ben again rebuts nothing, deletes all the points and all the evidence cited, and then pretends he’s a knowledgeable critic willing to debate. Yet still refuses to debate anything.”

Thanks for proving my point by doing it once more. (Now twice more!)

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 09:19:34 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Endpost whining deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 07:35:30 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 10:05:42 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 16:49:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out the amazing fact
>>>> that the WC refused to allow Weitzman to examine the alleged rifle
>>>> during his testimony...
>>>
>>>Which we determined was an untruth by Lane.
>> There you go again, Huckster.
>>
>> You can't even admit the TRUTH that normal procedure would have had
>> the involved people verifying the rifle.
>

> You are asserting ...


Yep.

>> Particularly when the WC went to efforts to downplay the Mouser story.
>

> Spin...


Truth.

>> It's quite stupid of you to deny that the WC refused to allow Weitzman
>> to examine the rifle BECAUSE HE DIDN'T ASK TO EXAMINE THE RIFLE.
>

> They refused ...


Yep.

>> That's simply a moronic argument.
>>
>> And demonstrates that the WC wasn't "investigating" - they were
>> covering up.
>>

>>>> "The Report stated that Weitzman, after 'little more than a glimpse',
>>>> thought the rifle 'looked like a 7.65 Mauser' but did not disclose
>>>> that Weitzman swore to the description he gave in substantial detail.
>> Speculation and logical fallacy deleted.
>>>> It also ignores the fact that his identification of the weapon as a
>>>> Mauser was supported by the testimony of a number of other officers.
>>>
>>>No, he didn’t identify it as a Mauser. He said it looked like a Mauser
>>
>> Chuckles is about to slap you with a "distinction without a
>> difference..."

LFD.

>> The rest of your lies deleted...
>

> You ...


Me.