Shell CE 543 update
charles wallace
EST update
Footnote to the theory (EST) below:
First, I want to say that the shell CE 543 means Oswald was not the
shooter and it further means he did not act in concert with the TWO
shooters that killed JFK. You will have to fully understand the shell
markings to appreciate my view of his innocence in the assassination and
use a little logic also. The most important characteristic of the Oswald
rifle shells is an impression on the side of the casings in the same
location on each which is referenced here in discussions as a
'chambering mark'. It should be an accepted fact by researchers that the
shells CE 544, CE 545, and FBI test shells have this mark, dent, or
impression in the side of the shell casing because they were fired in
Oswald's rifle. CE 543 does not have this mark, dent, or impression and
therefore means it was not fired in Oswald's rifle. The live round (CE
141) found in Oswald's rifle chamber also has a similar mark that is not
as noticeable and appears to be slightly different in its location. I am
not convinced that this mark is from the same chamber anomaly as the
others. But assume for the sake of argument that it is. I contend that
the live bullet was put into the chamber more forcefully than a person
putting CE 543 into the chamber by hand. Also CE 141 has less give than
an empty brass shell and therefore more likely to receive an impression
without firing. CE 543 simply did not have any forces on it while it was
in the chamber of Oswald's rifle to imprint this mark. The wall simply
bends and then springs back. One can easily disprove my theory by
placing an empty shell into Oswald's rifle by hand, closing the bolt
carefully, then extract it. If a chamber mark exists as on the others
(or like the bullet) then my theory is WRONG! Another supporting thing
to my theory about CE 543 is the marks that indicate it was extracted
three times from a rifle. First, it was extracted after it was
discharged in the rifle of Oswald's ammunition source. Second, it was
extracted by Oswald out of its last position in the clip. Third, it was
extracted in a panic (causing the dented lip) during the assassination
after receiving its second firing pin mark.
The Empty Shell Theory (EST)
From:
ccwa...@webtv.net (charles wallace)
Three empty shells were found in the SN. One of the three (CE 543)
support Oswald's innocence.
The empty shell, (Warren Commission Exhibit)
CE 543 characteristics:
1) It has marks indicating it was in another rifle at some point in
time.
2) It has a dented lip that would prevent it from holding a bullet and
fitting in the firing chamber.
3) It has marks indicating it was at one point in time in the bottom
position in the clip of Oswald's rifle.
4) It is missing a mark that occurs when a shell is fired in the firing
chamber of Oswald's rifle.
5) It has a double firing pin mark indicating it was fired then
attempted at firing again.
6) It has three sets of marks that indicate it was extracted from a
rifle three times.
My EST answers and explains these marks or lack of them. I theorize
Oswald's source of ammunition is an individual who also has a MC rifle.
He sells Oswald a clip of bullets that was in his rifle. His clip has at
its bottom round position an empty shell, CE 543. He explains to Oswald
that he does this to allow firing all the live rounds and that the empty
shell keeps the clip from falling out of the rifle after the last shot.
He also uses the empty shell in the clip by itself when transporting the
rifle to hold the clip in but avoids trouble with assumed Texas law that
having a loaded rifle in public would be breaking the law.
Oswald, I theorize when preparing the rifle and its package for trading
Thursday night in Ruth Paine's garage put the empty shell in the chamber
by hand and what ammunition he had in the clip. Friday morning before
placing the rifle in its bag, Oswald wiped down his rifle with his shirt
but caught his front shirt tail in the butt plate of his rifle. He
jerked it loose tearing his shirt and leaving some shirt fibers trapped
behind the butt plate. Oswald carried his rifle disassembled and
wrapped in a brown paper taped bag to work Friday morning. The TSBD
shooter and Oswald's trading partner took Oswald's rifle out of the
agreed upon rear dock storage closet Friday a little after noon. Upon
assembly of the rifle, the shooter just partly opened the breech enough
to see the rear end of the shell and thought it was loaded. Then at the
window at approximately (in time) Zapruder frame number 130 he has JFK
filling the crosshairs of the scope. He has prearranged with his
co-conspirator on the grassy knoll that he will not shoot unless he sees
the knoll shooting position occupied first and also that the knoll
shooter should not fire first. The TSBD shooter squeezes the trigger.
'Snap'. Nothing happened. The shooter panics and ejects the round as
fast as he can. In doing so the shell gets dented in the lip during the
ejection process. The TSBD shooter quickly fires at Z180 before JFK is
completely clear of the tree in front of the TSBD. The witness on the
floor below, Harold Norman heard 'Boom, click-click, boom, click-click,
boom'. The shooter waits till Norman and the others on the fifth floor
have moved away from the area and then ejects the last shell on his way
to the stairs. He pockets the last shell as a souvenir. This EST
scenario explains all of the 6 characteristics listed above for CE 543.
"He didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil
rights......Its--It had to be some silly little communist". Mrs.
Kennedy, November 22, 1963; "I'm just a patsy". Lee H. Oswald,
November, 1963.
President Kennedy was assassinated " as a result of the hatred
and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by
bigots." Chief Justice Earl Warren, November 22, 1963. Dallas Morning
News
http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/JFKAssassins
charles wallace
From: charles wallace (ccwa...@webtv.net)
Subject: The shooting scenario theory in Dealey Plaza
copyright January, 2003
This scenario is based on the Zapruder frame shot sequence theory of
JFK assassination researcher (acoustic information specialist), Anthony
Marsh. He concludes that the shots were fired at Zapruder frame numbers
Z180, Z210, Z230, Z313, and Z330. I have taken this information and
other information to form the shooting sequence theory that follows:
1. The first shot is fired at approximately Zapruder frame number 180.
This is from Oswald's rifle and fired from the most southeastern window
on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository building. It hits
JFK in the back. It lodges just under the skin, no more than a finger's
depth. The FBI report says it entered at a 45 to 60 degree angle
downward and stopped. JFK looks towards the rear of the limousine at
Z198 to see if someone has stabbed him in the back. Mrs. Kennedy has
turned upon hearing noise and is staring intently at JFK at Z198. Dr.
E. Forrest Chapman found something defective about one of the primer
indentations on the three found empty cartridges. I postulate a partial
dud for this first shot. This bullet is CE 399. It will be found later
in Parkland Hospital on the little boy's (Ronald Fuller) stretcher. It
was pushed out of JFK's body during resuscitating efforts apparently.
It became trapped in the folds of the sheet when the sheet was wadded up
and carried to the dirty clothes area, I theorize. The medical orderly
(possibly David Sanders) or doctor that carried the bloody sheet, laid
it down temporarily on the little boy's stretcher when going into the
men's bathroom, I speculate. Here CE 399 escaped the sheet and was
discovered by Darrell Tomlinson when he pushed the stretcher against the
bathroom door.
2. The second shot is from the grassy knoll and strikes JFK in the
throat. This occurs at approximately Zapruder frame number 210. This
bullet's fragments were reported by autopsy x-ray technician Jerrol
Custer to have been seen on an x-ray that is now missing. I postulate a
small .22 caliber hollow nose short lead bullet. The autopsy doctors
did not know of this bullet entry during its procedures. They learned
from Parkland Hospital's Dr. Perry about the small throat wound that was
obscured by the tracheostomy performed to assist the President's
breathing after the autopsy was completed. I speculate that this
projectile was fired from the lower barrel of a hunter's 'over and
under' rifle. JFK unmistakably reacts to these shots at Z225.
3. The third shot strikes Governor Connally. It is from the Texas
School Book Depository shooter. It enters his back and exits his chest.
The bullet lodges itself in JBC's thigh at approximately Zapruder frame
number 230. It is lost at Parkland Hospital during the efforts to save
JBC's life. JBC thought the bullet was found by a nurse in Trauma Room
no.2. The shot occurs as JFK is in full reaction to his wounds.
Connally's wife, Nellie says she turned upon hearing noise and saw the
President with his hands up towards his throat, then her husband John
was hit. JBC reacts visibly at Zapruder frame number 238.
4. The fourth shot hits JFK in the head at Zapruder frame number 313. It
is from the grassy knoll. It deflects upon entry slightly towards JFK's
right. Its fragments are mostly lost to the left rear of the limousine
causing reports of a bullet striking the street. There are some 40
small lead particles in a path through the brain left from the frangible
lead bullet which threw JFK back and to the left. There are no reports
of copper traces left on skull fragments or scalp tissue. Sherry
Gutierrez, a blood spatter specialist says the evidence is conclusive
that the shot was from the right front. I speculate this shot is from
the top barrel of the 'over and under' and is a .3xx caliber lead
hunting slug.
5. The final shot is from the TSBD at approximately Zapruder frame
number 330 and strikes JBC in the wrist. The bullet breaks up upon exit
and parts of it come to rest in the front seat area after striking the
chrome and front windshield. One of the two fragments found have human
tissue bits and paper like fibers adhering to it. I speculate the
fibers are from JBC's missing hat. Another part of the bullet escaped
the limousine and hit the curb on Main Street causing a concrete chip or
the fragment itself to scratch the cheek of James Tague. Another
fragment of this 6.5mm bullet hits the manhole area on the south side of
Elm and then goes into the grass and is lost.
................................................................
Gil Jesus
THE RIFLE SHELLS
THE DENTED SHELL--CE 543
The Warren Commission based its conclusion that three shots had been fired on
the existence of the three shells found in the TSBD. (Commission Exhibits 543,
544 and 545) It reported that two of the cartridge cases had marks "produced by
the chamber of Oswald's rifle", one which contained marks produced by the
Carcano's magazine follower and the other had markings from the bolt of
Oswald's rifle. Two cases had markings indicating that they had been loaded
into a rifle at least twice. When the rifle was found, an unfired round was in
the chamber, ejected when Capt. Fritz operated the bolt. This is an important
detail when we examine evidence linking the rifle shells to the rifle.
CE 543
This cartridge (Commission Exhibit 543) had a dent on its lip which would have
made it impossible for it to have contained a bullet prior to its being fired.
Therefore, either one of two possibilities existed: either the shell received
the dent prior to the shooting and was not connected to it (inplying that it
was planted at the scene -- evidence of a conspiracy) or the shell was in fact
evidence and was dented somehow after its bullet had been spent. Faced with a
mandate to dispel rumors of a conspiracy, the Commission at first assumed that
this cartridge received its dent upon being ejected from the rifle and falling
onto the floor. However, solid brass cartridges don't dent when they hit the
floor, as any hunter will tell you. The FBI reported to the Commission that the
dent was made during the firing sequence, WHILE THE BOLT WAS PULLED BACKWARD,
after the shot had been fired. This seemed reasonable enough to the Commission
to explain the existance of the dented lip, but on closer examination, the
evidence does not support this conclusion.
First of all, this cartridge did not have the characteristic marking on its
side which the Carcano's bolt produced on every cartridge fired from it,
indicating that it had never been inside the rifle's firing chamber. Since it
hadn't been inside the firing chamber, the dent could not have been caused
during the firing sequence. Carrying that one step further, never having been
in the firing chamber, this cartridge was never fired from Oswald's rifle. It
did contain three sets of markings inconsistent with the markings produced by
Oswald's rifle, indicating that it had been loaded and ejected three times from
a weapon other than Oswald's.
Secondly, at the primer, where the firing pin strikes the case, CE 543
contained a more concave indentation than the other two, indicating that it had
been empty when "fired".
The FBI reproduced this effect when it loaded an empty shell into Oswald's
rifle. It contained both the dent on the lip (which the FBI found was caused by
the empty shell being slammed forward against the receiver, rather than
rearward) and the the deep impression on the primer that CE 543 contained.
Thirdly, CE 543 contained markings caused by a magazine follower. But when the
Carcano was tested by the FBI, it was found that the magazine follower marked
only the last cartridge in the clip. The last cartridge in the clip of Oswald's
rifle when found on November 22nd was an unfired round.
What this all means is that CE 543 was an empty cartridge which was loaded
into another rifle three times and "fired". The comparison tests conducted by
the FBI supported the conclusion that CE 543 was never in the firing chamber
and thus never fired from Oswald's rifle on November 22nd. At least one of the
three shots had come from some location other than the TSBD. In conclusion, a
conspiracy did exist.
Another interesting fact involving CE 543, is that this cartridge remained in
the possession of the Dallas Police until November 28th, five days after the
other two shells had been turned over to the FBI for examination. Although some
would consider this fact as a sinister coverup on the part of the Dallas PD, it
should be noted that a behind-the-scenes struggle for possession of the
evidence existed between the DPD and the FBI. Capt. Fritz refused to release
it, and Chief Curry backed him up. Only after Lyndon Johnson called Fritz and
ordered him to do so ("You have your man, the investigation is over") did Chief
Curry and Capt. Fritz finally agree to release it.
Despite this agreement, the DPD did not give the FBI all of its evidence on
November 23rd, withholding CE 543 and three of the four bullets removed from
the body of Officer Tippit.
CE 544 & CE 545
Of the three cases found in the TSBD, only CE 544 had markings produced by the
bolt of Oswald's rifle. In addition, CE 544 had the markings of the firing
chamber and from the firing pin of Oswald's rifle, indicating that it had been
fired by Oswald's rifle at some point in time, and that it had been loaded into
the firing chamber and ejected through the bolt action. This is strong
evidence that CE 544 contained a bullet that was fired from Oswald's rifle,
although this not proof that the bullet was fired on November 22nd or for that
matter, that it was Oswald who fired it.
CE 545, on the other hand, did not have the markings of the bolt of Oswald's
rifle nor did it have the marking of the firing pin, strong evidence that this
shell had not been fired from Oswald's rifle. It did have the marking of the
magazine follower, which marked only the last shell in the clip. So CE 545 had
been loaded as the last shell in the clip prior to the assassination of JFK. As
CE 543 had contained three sets of markings indicating that it had been loaded
and ejected three times from a weapon other than Oswald's, both CE 544 and CE
545 had two sets of markings which were made from a rifle other than Oswald's.
In other words, all three shells had been in another rifle, but of the three,
only CE 544
had been fired from Oswald's rifle at some point in time. CE 543 & CE 545 had
not.
"This crime was beyond the capability of any one person, Oswald or anyone else.
And on that basis, there was a conspiracy."--Harold Weisberg
Gil Jesus
that it was fired from Oswald's rifle (by the FBI AFTER the assassination--to
frame Oswald post-mortem), but it showed a minimum of distortion for all of the
damage it did.
Secondly, there was a minimum of protrusion of the lead base, inconsistent
with a bullet that did so many magical things as this one was reported to have
done.
There was no trace of blood, or bone, or clothing material on it, despite the
fact that it had gone thorugh two good-sized men and their suits, causing seven
wounds (two in Kennedy and five in Connally).
And I believe that in his WC testimony, Tomlinson would not identify CE 399 as
the EXACT bullet that he found on the stretcher at Parkland.
Because of the lack of chain-of-possession of this bullet, I have a hard time
accepting it as evidence in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
This is just my opinion of course, others can draw their own conclusions.
Walt
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030125200338...@mb-fx.aol.com...
> I'm not sure that CE 399 was even involved in the assassination. I don't
doubt
> that it was fired from Oswald's rifle (by the FBI AFTER the
assassination--to
> frame Oswald post-mortem), but it showed a minimum of distortion for all
of the
> damage it did.
> Secondly, there was a minimum of protrusion of the lead base,
inconsistent
> with a bullet that did so many magical things as this one was reported to
have
> done.
> There was no trace of blood, or bone, or clothing material on it, despite
the
> fact that it had gone thorugh two good-sized men and their suits, causing
seven
> wounds (two in Kennedy and five in Connally).
> And I believe that in his WC testimony, Tomlinson would not identify CE
399 as
> the EXACT bullet that he found on the stretcher at Parkland.
You're right Gil.... Tomlinson said he couldn't be 100% certain bevause he
never paid much attention to it, and he never examined the bullet real
close, and he never marked the bullet. Many have twisted Tomlinsons
statement to mean he said CE 399 was NOT the bullet he found. Tomlinson
did NOT say that...He said he couldn't be sure. He said he THOUGHT the
bullet MIGHT have been more pointed. His testimony came months after the
assassination.....In the long interval between the murder and his appearance
before the W.C. he easily could have forgot exactly what the bullet looked
like.
Tomlinson's statement isn't anything to build a case on.
I've heard that Tomlinson was not at all sorry that JFK was murdered. He
would not talk to reporters or researchers about the discovery of CE 399.
However a researcher did manage to gain Tomlinsons confidence and got
Tomlinson to talk about the discovery of the bullet. After a few beers and
in an unguarded moment he blurted out...." what the hell difference does it
make? ....The Son of a Bitch had it coming"...
Walt
Walt
You obviously know nothing about rifles and ammo.
In your ignorance you use FBI information and your imagination to create a
theory.... The FBI information is DISINFORMATION and you're a fool.
Walt
"charles wallace" <ccwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2902-3E3...@storefull-2358.public.lawson.webtv.net...
charles wallace
You appear to actually make sense from time to time but I can not take
your beliefs seriously. You do not accept any of the evidence to be
true. You need to accept that Oswald's rifle was fired three times.
Regards, Charles
charles wallace
and started to look around and then felt being hit without hearing the
shot. Then later as we know there was the shot that hit JFK in the
head. I believe the evidence really shows 5 shots. I think that the
first shot that JBC heard was accompanied with echoes; mixed in with
those echoes was the .22 JFK throat shot. Then later with the JFK head
shot so close in time with the last shot, it too was thought of as a
loud shot with loud echoes.
Walt
Walt,
You appear to actually make sense from time to time but I can not take
your beliefs seriously. You do not accept any of the evidence to be
true. You need to accept that Oswald's rifle was fired three times.
Regards, Charles
That's ironic Charles because you never make sense as far as I'm concerned.
I don't mean to insult you or alienate you....I'm just stating it the way I
see it.
Since you don't believe Oswald did it, you basically on the right
track....Unfortunately you can't seem to stay on track.
I'm tellin ya....your theory is a bunch of crap....give it up.
Walt
Gil Jesus
From: ccwa...@webtv.net (charles wallace)
Date: 1/25/2003 10:17 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <20643-3E...@storefull-2351.public.lawson.webtv.net>
Walt,
You appear to actually make sense from time to time but I can not take
your beliefs seriously. You do not accept any of the evidence to be
true. You need to accept that Oswald's rifle was fired three times.
Regards, Charles
Charles: There has never been any evidence to prove that Oswald's rifle was
fired three times that day. There was eyewitness testimony indicating theat
three shots were fired, there three shells found in the TSBD, but to say that
the three shots were fired from Oswald's rifle, and only Oswald's rifle, is
stating something that has never been proven.
Unless of course you have the proof that they were (which, as a conspiracy
theorist, I'd be eager to see).
charles wallace
I have no doubt that I , you and everyone else can be fooled into
thinking anything given enough time, money and lies. So I can not prove
Oswald's rifle was even fired that day If I agree that the bullet
evidence was planted. Walt does not even accept that any weapon was
fired from that window. Norman heard three shots directly above him and
said so. Walt would say that was somebody dropping firecrackers and
planting shells. He says no one was in the window during the shooting.
The guy that was in the window firing Oswald's rifle is pictured on my
webpage.
I don't give a damn about people saying that it is not real. History
will chuck them in the dust bin.
Regards, Charles
Walt
Gil,
I have no doubt that I , you and everyone else can be fooled into thinking
anything given enough time, money and lies. So I can not prove Oswald's
rifle was even fired that day If I agree that the bullet evidence was
planted.
Walt does not even accept that any weapon was
fired from that window.
That's true...... The "Dillard" photo was snapped DURING the shooting and
there is nobody visible firing from that window.
Norman heard three shots directly above him and
said so.
Norman had no experience with gunfire......He wouldn't have the ability to
recognize the difference betwen the muzzle blast and a bullet breaking the
sound barrier...or the bullet striking a target....
The three stooges heard sounds which they THOUGHT was muzzle blasts. When
in reality they heard bullets breaking the sound barrier and one striking
right over Williams head..... " It even shook the building....rattled the
windows on the side we were on...It even knocked pieces of brick and stuff
in Bonnie Ray's hair."
What they DESCRIBED was a bullet strike.....NOT a muzzle blast. Hell ...If
a Sniper had been above them he'd have to have been firing a howitzer to
knock "pieces of brick and cement and plaster like stuff" onto their
heads......
Walt would say that was somebody dropping firecrackers ( A Firecracker )
and planting shells. He says no one was in the window during the shooting.
That's true..........
The guy that was in the window firing Oswald's rifle is pictured on my
webpage.
No Charles ......The "man" you think is there is only a figment of your
imagination.
I don't give a damn about people saying that it is not real. History will
chuck them in the dust bin.
Regards, Charles
Perhaps........ One thing for sure the truth will eventually surface.
Regardless of the details you can take satisfaction in knowing that you
played a small part in forcing it to the surface.....for it's through debate
and discussion that knowledge is gained.
Walt
Vern Pascal
from the 6th floor SN on Norman's testimony. But suppose he was
coaxed/coerced into lying? After all, on the fourth floor, only one
floor below, all four "earwitnesses", were sure the shots came from
"down and to the right" of them, i.e. the grassy knoll/ overpass area.
They were also quite positive the sounds "did not come from above and
to the left of them. They were unanimous and just as positive in their
beliefs as Norman, and remember only one floor below. Why the huge
discrepancy? In fact most of the earwitnesses in and around the TSBD
don't support Norman either, but rather the fourth floor ladies'
recollections. -------------Vern
Gil Jesus
Good point Vern, not only did a majority of earwitnesses claim that the shots
sounded like they came from the monument west of the TSBD, but their
recollections of the sounds of the shot sequence was vastly different than
Norman's, who said that he heard the "booms" evenly spaced.
A majority of the witnesses said that the last two "booms" were right on top
of each other.
Sounds like these guys were told what to say by the FBI.
Walt
> Actually, Charles, you appear to base your case that a rifle was fired
> from the 6th floor SN on Norman's testimony. But suppose he was
> coaxed/coerced into lying? After all, on the fourth floor, only one
> floor below, all four "earwitnesses", were sure the shots came from
> "down and to the right" of them, i.e. the grassy knoll/ overpass area.
> They were also quite positive the sounds "did not come from above and
> to the left of them. They were unanimous and just as positive in their
> beliefs as Norman, and remember only one floor below. Why the huge
> discrepancy? In fact most of the earwitnesses in and around the TSBD
> don't support Norman either, but rather the fourth floor ladies'
> recollections. -------------Vern
>
> Good point Vern, not only did a majority of earwitnesses claim that the
shots
> sounded like they came from the monument west of the TSBD, but their
> recollections of the sounds of the shot sequence was vastly different than
> Norman's, who said that he heard the "booms" evenly spaced.
> A majority of the witnesses said that the last two "booms" were right on
top
> of each other.
> Sounds like these guys were told what to say by the FBI.
I agree Gil..... Those three young guys would have said they saw Oswald
thowin hand grenades if the FBI had wanted them to......
But the fact remains that both Norman and Jarman said they saw the debris of
BRICK, CEMENT, and a white PLASTER like material in Bonnie Ray Williams
hair....
The Warren Commission lawyer attempted to downplay that material and say it
was just "dust" which fell from between the flooring above their heads.
There is evidence in the "Dillard" photo to support their DESCRIPTION of a
bullet hitting the window ledge above BRW's head.....
Walt
charles wallace
I'm convinced that there were shots from at least two different places
in Dealey Plaza and echoes all over the place. The guy in the railroad
tower beyond the grassy knoll said that it had been his experience at
hearing sounds in Dealey Plaza that you could not distinguish where
sounds came from. He said he knew sounds that were made at the TSBD
sounded like they came from the triple underpass and vice versa. Norman
was like 10 feet from the muzzle that witnesses saw firing. The shots
that he must have heard from the knoll was surely considered an echo
when comparing the closeness of the shot sounds directly above him. I
don't find it unreasonable to believe three shots were fired from there
when no physical evidence disputes it. Even though one of the shells
found was not fired from Oswald's rifle, my EST explains the reason for
that.
Regards, Charles
Re: Shell CE 543 update
Group: alt.conspiracy.jfk Date: Sun, Jan 26, 2003, 8:44am (CST-2) From:
lazu...@webtv.net (Vern Pascal)
"He didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil
Ben Holmes
Pascal) wrote:
>Actually, Charles, you appear to base your case that a rifle was fired
>from the 6th floor SN on Norman's testimony. But suppose he was
>coaxed/coerced into lying? After all, on the fourth floor, only one
>floor below, all four "earwitnesses", were sure the shots came from
>"down and to the right" of them, i.e. the grassy knoll/ overpass area.
It's quite likely that Bonnie Ray Williams, Harold Norman, and James
Jarman *also* thought the shots came from the grassy knoll. Actions
speak louder than words, and the first thing that they *did* after
hearing the shots, was to run to the other end of the building to get
a better look at the crowd running up the GK. Seems like a rather
strange reaction to hearing shots directly above you. Also
interesting to note is that only Harold Norman seems to have initially
thought the shots came from inside the TSBD...
The *earliest* affidavit that I can locate, that of James Jarman on
11/23 doesn't mention hearing shots above them. The *earliest*
mention of this is Harold Norman's affidavit on 12/4, which is a week
and a half later... hmmm...
I cannot seem to locate an affidavit from Bonnie Ray Williams. I find
that rather strange, since I *know* that one was taken by Det. Senkel.
Can anyone point to it for me?
O.H. LEE
gjj...@aol.com (Gil Jesus) wrote:
>Actually, Charles, you appear to base your case that a rifle was fired
>from the 6th floor SN on Norman's testimony. But suppose he was
>coaxed/coerced into lying? After all, on the fourth floor, only one
>floor below, all four "earwitnesses", were sure the shots came from
>"down and to the right" of them, i.e. the grassy knoll/ overpass area.
>They were also quite positive the sounds "did not come from above and
>to the left of them. They were unanimous and just as positive in their
>beliefs as Norman, and remember only one floor below. Why the huge
>discrepancy? In fact most of the earwitnesses in and around the TSBD
>don't support Norman either, but rather the fourth floor ladies'
>recollections. -------------Vern
>
>Good point Vern, not only did a majority of earwitnesses claim that the
shots
>sounded like they came from the monument west of the TSBD, but their
>recollections of the sounds of the shot sequence was vastly different than
>Norman's, who said that he heard the "booms" evenly spaced.
> A majority of the witnesses said that the last two "booms" were right on
top
>of each other.
> Sounds like these guys were told what to say by the FBI.
Hello Vern, Gil:
This is very interesting subject matter and I find myself rather closely
aligned with the points that each of you have made. Try to picture all of
this from the viewpoint of the official investigators at the time. They MUST
put forth the case that there is solid evidence of a 6th floor gunman in
that so-called "Sniper's Nest". They have some apparently valid physical
evidence in place, but they would certainly like to supplement that with
a consensus of earwitness accounts regarding the source of the shots. Many
of the witnessess at street level who prove problematic as to the source
of the shots they can "write off" as "mistaken" due to confusing echo patterns.
But those on the 4th floor also end up providing unwelcome testimony as to
the source of the shots. Now they ascertain that there are three 5th floor
witnesses. Moreover, they learn that these 5th floor witnesses were directly
below the very "Sniper's Nest"! Imagine the consternation of these investigators
if the testimony of Jarman, Williams, and Norman also jibed with the 4th
floor witnesses? Indeed, wasn't it Jarman who began going in this direction
when he offered his opinion about the first shot he heard? Yes, I agree fully
gentlemen: it would have been IMPERATIVE for those 5th floor witnesses to
"toe the official line" here and indicate the strong possibility of shots
fired from a point just above them, whether this would have required F.B.I.
coercion or not. For a key area of the official investigation may well have
begun to unravel had they not.
Regards,
O.H. LEE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"This crime was beyond the capability of any one person, Oswald or anyone
else.
>And on that basis, there was a conspiracy."--Harold Weisberg
O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
O.H. LEE
Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 08:44:42 -0800 (PST), lazu...@webtv.net (Vern
>Pascal) wrote:
>
>>Actually, Charles, you appear to base your case that a rifle was fired
>>from the 6th floor SN on Norman's testimony. But suppose he was
>>coaxed/coerced into lying? After all, on the fourth floor, only one
>>floor below, all four "earwitnesses", were sure the shots came from
>>"down and to the right" of them, i.e. the grassy knoll/ overpass area.
>
>It's quite likely that Bonnie Ray Williams, Harold Norman, and James
>Jarman *also* thought the shots came from the grassy knoll. Actions
>speak louder than words, and the first thing that they *did* after
>hearing the shots, was to run to the other end of the building to get
>a better look at the crowd running up the GK. Seems like a rather
>strange reaction to hearing shots directly above you. Also
>interesting to note is that only Harold Norman seems to have initially
>thought the shots came from inside the TSBD...
Hello Ben,
Right you are. No hailing of an officer or anything of the kind from
these three 5th floor fellows. Walt refers to these gentlemen as
The Three Stooges. Perhaps he overstates things a bit, but there certainly
appears to be something puzzling about the history of their early accounts
and actions that day, as you point out. Vern and Gil are writing of these
discrepancies in this thread as well, but I also wanted to acknowledge your
solid input here.
Regards,
O.H. LEE
>The *earliest* affidavit that I can locate, that of James Jarman on
>11/23 doesn't mention hearing shots above them. The *earliest*
>mention of this is Harold Norman's affidavit on 12/4, which is a week
>and a half later... hmmm...
>
>I cannot seem to locate an affidavit from Bonnie Ray Williams. I find
>that rather strange, since I *know* that one was taken by Det. Senkel.
>Can anyone point to it for me?
>
>>They were also quite positive the sounds "did not come from above and
>>to the left of them. They were unanimous and just as positive in their
>>beliefs as Norman, and remember only one floor below. Why the huge
>>discrepancy? In fact most of the earwitnesses in and around the TSBD
>>don't support Norman either, but rather the fourth floor ladies'
>>recollections. -------------Vern
>
O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
Walt
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:qha83vs03bvur6ags...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 08:44:42 -0800 (PST), lazu...@webtv.net (Vern
> Pascal) wrote:
>
> >Actually, Charles, you appear to base your case that a rifle was fired
> >from the 6th floor SN on Norman's testimony. But suppose he was
> >coaxed/coerced into lying? After all, on the fourth floor, only one
> >floor below, all four "earwitnesses", were sure the shots came from
> >"down and to the right" of them, i.e. the grassy knoll/ overpass area.
>
> It's quite likely that Bonnie Ray Williams, Harold Norman, and James
> Jarman *also* thought the shots came from the grassy knoll. Actions
> speak louder than words, and the first thing that they *did* after
> hearing the shots, was to run to the other end of the building to get
> a better look at the crowd running up the GK. Seems like a rather
> strange reaction to hearing shots directly above you. Also
> interesting to note is that only Harold Norman seems to have initially
> thought the shots came from inside the TSBD...
>
> The *earliest* affidavit that I can locate, that of James Jarman on
> 11/23 doesn't mention hearing shots above them. The *earliest*
> mention of this is Harold Norman's affidavit on 12/4, which is a week
> and a half later... hmmm...
>
> I cannot seem to locate an affidavit from Bonnie Ray Williams. I find
> that rather strange, since I *know* that one was taken by Det. Senkel.
> Can anyone point to it for me?
>
men who had been looking out of the fifth floor window at the time of the
shooting
There is a picture ( ppg 549 POTP) of BRW and Danny Arce in police custody
in a police car.
Brennan had seen a man with a rifle on an upper floor of the TSBD before the
shooting....He initally thought that one of those guys had been on the 6th
floor with the man with the gun...
Walt
Vern Pascal
I won't quarrel with the bulk of your last response, except in one area
which has always had me puzzled, where you say:
"Norman was like 10 ft. from the muzzle that witnesses saw firing."
Please recount the names of witnesses, leaving Brennan aside for the
moment, who actually saw someone firing from the SN. The list must be
scant indeed. Surely, the bulk of the Elm Street bystanders would not
have been fooled by an echo after the first report, and would
automatically look up, thus easily spotting a rifeman, instead of what
they actually did ----by focussing their attention towards the
gk,/overpass/railroad yards area.. Unless, of course, you think the echo
from an SN shot went around the corner of the bldg. towards the
northwest?!!---------Vern
Gil Jesus
rifle was fired from the TSBD, the point I was trying to make was that two of
THOSE THREE SHELLS that were found in that building were never fired from
Oswald's rifle since they didn't have the marks of the bolt on them.
I'm not saying that a Mauser or a .22 couldnt have been fired from there. In
fact, some of the witnesses said that they saw the barrel sticking out of the
window, which would have been a good distraction to take attention away from
the real shooters located somewhere else.
charles wallace
Brennan, I think you accept and didn't Amos Euins claim he saw the rifle
fire? Didn't the Mayor's wife, Mrs. Cabel claim the same as Euins? The
photographers, Jackson, etc. just claimed seeing the rifle being
withdrawn I believe.
Regards, Charles
charles wallace
Two of the shells have an impression mark that happens only to bullets
FIRED in Oswald's rifle chamber. The fact that one of those does not
have a bolt mark does not mean that it was not in Oswald's rifle. If
you think it means that it was never in Oswad's rifle, then are you
saying that Josiah Thompson and his observations mean nothing? The FBI
test shell mark was some kind of strange coincidence?
Vern Pascal
No, I don't accept that either Brennan or Euins saw a rifle being fired
from the SN window. I suspect the window in which they saw a rifleman
was towards the west end of the bldg.
As for Mrs. Cabell, I'd have to check her testimony. I'll give you her,
but that's still slim pickins compared to those earwitnesses who heard
shots from the knoll area. The photographers saw the patsy weapon being
"withdrawn", for exposure purposes only. I'm not convinced any shots
came from the TSBD 6th floor east end, Norman, et al
notwithstanding.--------Vern
charles wallace
I'll have to recheck testimony about Brennan and Euins. I used to
believe that there was a shooter at the 10th window from the SN as well
as a shooter in the SN. That was when I used to believe in a big
conspiracy that killed JFK. I thought there was like 11 or 12 involved
in Dealey Plaza alone. I also thought a large cover-up ensued
afterwards. I've come to believe now that it was a small conspiracy and
a unconnected cover-up that followed. The two shooter suspects that I
chose to investigate are still viable suspects but I'll have to report
that now I don't know where they are or whether they are even alive. I
can not prove they were the shooters. I did find a piece of information
that seems to point to the TSBD shooter as being a racist like DOK said.
The reason we are all here discussing this is that most CTers are
chasing large organizations like CIA, Mafia, etc. and the two good old
local boys that did it getaway with it.
Regards, Charles
Re: Shell CE 543 update
Group: alt.conspiracy.jfk Date: Sun, Jan 26, 2003, 5:52pm (CST-2) From:
lazu...@webtv.net (Vern Pascal)
"He didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil
Sam McClung
> I cannot seem to locate an affidavit from Bonnie Ray Williams.
perhaps he wasn't questioned if he had gigantic dandruff
(which caused other illfounded suspicions)
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030126132213...@mb-cr.aol.com...
Gil Jesus
Message-id: <9196-3E3...@storefull-2353.public.lawson.webtv.net>
Gil,
Two of the shells have an impression mark that happens only to bullets
FIRED in Oswald's rifle chamber. The fact that one of those does not
have a bolt mark does not mean that it was not in Oswald's rifle. If
you think it means that it was never in Oswad's rifle, then are you
saying that Josiah Thompson and his observations mean nothing? The FBI
test shell mark was some kind of strange coincidence?
Regards, Charles
Charles. your missing what I'm saying here, my friend. If the shell does not
have the mark of the the BOLT, then it was never fired from Oswald's rifle
because he would have had to use the bolt to load and unload it. It may well
have been in the rifle, even in the clip, but without the mark from the bolt it
was NOT FIRED from the rifle, which means it was planted..that's what I'm
trying to say.
Two of those three shells, CE 543 and CE 545 did not have the markings of the
BOLT and as such could not have been fired from Oswald's rifle AT ANY TIME.
I apologize that sometimes I don't explain things clearly and I hope I've made
my position a little clearer.
Best always, Gil.
charles wallace
I'm not clear also. CE 545 has a chamber mark from Oswald's rifle just
like CE 544 that happens to the shell when it is fired in ONLY Oswald's
rifle. FBI test shells also show this mark from Oswald's rifle. I
suspect CE 545 was the suspected short charge shell that Dr. E. Forrest
Chapman said had something wrong with the primer. That shell if
confirmed as Chapman's choice for the partial dud then I believe that is
why no bolt mark is seen if that happens during the force of discharge.
I postulate that the the first shot fired from Oswald's rifle is a
partial dud and lodged in JFK's back at Zapruder frame no. 180.
Regards, Charles
Re: Shell CE 543 update
gjj...@aol.com (Gil Jesus)
Subject: Re: Shell CE 543 update
From: ccwa...@webtv.net (charles wallace)
Date: 1/26/2003 7:42 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <9196-3E3...@storefull-2353.public.lawson.webtv.net>
Gil,
Two of the shells have an impression mark that happens only to bullets
FIRED in Oswald's rifle chamber. The fact that one of those does not
have a bolt mark does not mean that it was not in Oswald's rifle. If you
think it means that it was never in Oswad's rifle, then are you saying
that Josiah Thompson and his observations mean nothing? The FBI test
shell mark was some kind of strange coincidence? Regards, Charles
Gil wrote:
Charles. your missing what I'm saying here, my friend. If the
shell does not have the mark of the the BOLT, then it was never fired
from Oswald's rifle because he would have had to use the bolt to load
and unload it. It may well have been in the rifle, even in the clip, but
without the mark from the bolt it was NOT FIRED from the rifle, which
means it was planted..that's what I'm trying to say.
Two of those three shells, CE 543 and CE 545 did not have the
markings of the BOLT and as such could not have been fired from Oswald's
rifle AT ANY TIME.
I apologize that sometimes I don't explain things clearly and I
hope I've made my position a little clearer.
Best always, Gil.
"This crime was beyond the capability of any one person, Oswald or
anyone else. And on that basis, there was a conspiracy."--Harold
Weisberg
"He didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil
Gil Jesus
shell CAN be in the chamber and not be fired.
The shell COULD have been placed into the chamber by hand and then removed the
same way.
The BOLT marks are usually what the investigators would go by because the
shell cannot be fired in a bolt-action rifle without the operation of the bolt.
If the bolt marks are not present on the shells, either they were fired from
the rifle without the bolt making the marks ( which they would then have NO
evidentiary value) , or they were fired from another rifle entirely (which
means they were planted).
Only the shells with the BOLT marks would have been acceptable as evidence in
a court of law. The others were worthless whether they were in the chamber or
not.
"Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor, Defend the fatherless,
Plead for the widow." Isaiah 1:17 (New King James Version)
charles wallace
If CE 545's no bolt marks mean it was not fired in Oswald's rifle does
it not also mean that it was not fired in any rifle with a bolt? It was
then planted but for what reason if it can't be tied to the patsy's
rifle?
Regards, Charles
Ben Holmes
Well, I haven't located it, but I did find someone else's quote of
it... here it is, BRW's affidavit of 11/22:
****************************************************************************
I went to work at 8AM this morning. I worked on the 6th floor today
with Mr. Bill, Danny, Charles and a [cross out] Billy Lovelady.
Charles was outside and couldn't get back in, so I guess he went home.
We worked up until about 10 minutes to 12. Then we went downstairs. We
rode the elevator to the 1st floor and got our lunches. I went back up
on the 5th floor with a fellow called Hank and Junior. I don't know
his last name. Just after we got on the fifth floor we saw the
President coming around the corner on Houston from Main street. I
heard 2 shots it sounded like they came from just above us. We ran to
the west side of the building. We didn't see anybody. We looked [cross
out] down and saw people running and hollering. We stayed there and in
a little while some officers came up. They left and then we took the
elevator to the 4th floor. We stayed there awhile and then went on
out. Lee Oswald was there when I got to work this morning at 8AM. He
fills orders and goes all over the building. I didn't see Oswald any
more, that I remember, after I saw him at 8:00. I recognized him just
a few minutes ago when the officers brought him in the office. Oswald
has been working at the book depository for about 6 weeks.
****************************************************************************
Interesting to note that he only heard *two* shots... and once again,
we see that his actions belie his words...
Walt
as it appears in the records....It was typed up by Patsy Collins so the
typed version doesn't show the cross outs.
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:9lvb3vgip50qcu4i1...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 06:09:42 GMT, Sam McClung <sa...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >
> >> I cannot seem to locate an affidavit from Bonnie Ray Williams.
> >
> >perhaps he wasn't questioned if he had gigantic dandruff
> >(which caused other illfounded suspicions)
>
> Well, I haven't located it, but I did find someone else's quote of
> it... here it is, BRW's affidavit of 11/22:
>
>
****************************************************************************
> I went to work at 8AM this morning. I worked on the 6th floor today
> with Mr. Bill,( Bill Shelly) Danny, ( Danny Arce) Charles ( Charles
Givens) and a [cross out] Billy Lovelady.
> Charles was outside and couldn't get back in, so I guess he went home.
Hey LNer's.... Notice that Oswald wasn't the only employee unaccounted
for.......
> We worked up until about 10 minutes to 12. Then we went downstairs. We
> rode the elevator to the 1st floor and got our lunches. I went back up
> on the 5th floor with a fellow called Hank and Junior.
Notice that Bonnie Ray Williams didn't say anything about going to the
sixth floor......
I don't know
> his last name. Just after we got on the fifth floor we saw the
> President coming around the corner on Houston from Main street. I
> heard 2 shots it sounded like they came from just above us. We ran to
> the west side of the building. We didn't see anybody. We looked [cross
> out] down and saw people running and hollering. We stayed there and in
> a little while some officers came up. They left and then we took the
> elevator to the 4th floor. We stayed there awhile and then went on
> out. Lee Oswald was there when I got to work this morning at 8AM. He
> fills orders and goes all over the building. I didn't see Oswald any
> more, that I remember, after I saw him at 8:00. I recognized him just
> a few minutes ago when the officers brought him in the office. Oswald
> has been working at the book depository for about 6 weeks.
>
****************************************************************************
>
> Interesting to note that he only heard *two* shots... and once again,
> we see that his actions belie his words...
BRW's affidavit on 11 -22-63 excludes a whole bunch of information that he
"remembered" after talkin to the FBI...
Walt
Gil Jesus
If CE 545's no bolt marks mean it was not fired in Oswald's rifle does
it not also mean that it was not fired in any rifle with a bolt? It was
then planted but for what reason if it can't be tied to the patsy's
rifle?
Regards, Charles
Charles, first of all your assuming that the frame up happened before the
shooting. I believe these particular shells appeared AFTER the shooting, when
the DPD was questioning Oswald as to why he left the building. These shells
were used by the DPD in an attempt to get Oswald to talk about who killed
Kennedy. Either he knew something and wouldn't say, or he didn't know anything.
But they used these shells to try to intimidate him into talking. Something
like, "OK pal, you don't wanna tell us what we want to know, then we'll charge
YOU with the killing, how's that ?" They were never supposed to be evidence,
they were just props. When Ruby killed him and the FBI wanted the evidence, the
DPD hesitated sending it, probably because they knew that it was fake.
Just like their line-ups.
Hoover, already pissed off at Curry for saying that the FBI knew Oswald was in
town, took some of the "evidence" that the DPD sent them and made the DPD look
stupid.
This was one of those cases, where Hoover stated in his memo to Rankin dated
2 June 1964 that two of the shells did not have the bolt markings.
What he was saying was that two of the shells were not fired from Oswald's
rifle.
charles wallace
You got Williams saying two shots and Norman saying three shots. What
does Jarman say? If Williams was accurate then the LNers have a problem
because I think most of them agree with JBC saying that without any
doubt in his mind that there was at least three shots.
charles wallace
Until you can prove that every test bullet fired in Oswald's rifle left
a bolt mark, I will assume that a bolt mark may or may not be left when
firing a bullet in Oswald's rifle. CE 544 and CE 545 were fired in
Oswald's rifle because they each have a chamber mark that matches FBI
test shells. CE 543 does not have a chamber mark and therefore was not
fired in Oswald's rifle but was in the rifle as an empty shell.
Gil Jesus
to explain it to you and you seem settled in your position, so I will honor
that and not debate it with you as you are entitled to your opinion.
I hope however, that you realize that by continuing forward in your
speculation that the bolt did not make marks on EVERY shell fired with it, will
someday require you to prove that assumption as true.
I've also tried to explain to you that CE 545 did not have the marks of the
firing pin of Oswald's rifle in the primer, which indicates that it was NOT
fired from Oswald's rifle, but you seem to want to ignore that also.
Regardless, I wish you luck with your theory.
Walt
>
> Charles, first of all your assuming that the frame up happened before the
> shooting. I believe these particular shells appeared AFTER the shooting,
when
> the DPD was questioning Oswald as to why he left the building. These
shells
> were used by the DPD in an attempt to get Oswald to talk about who killed
> Kennedy. Either he knew something and wouldn't say, or he didn't know
anything.
> But they used these shells to try to intimidate him into talking.
Something
> like, "OK pal, you don't wanna tell us what we want to know, then we'll
charge
> YOU with the killing, how's that ?" They were never supposed to be
evidence,
> they were just props.
Hello Gil..... This theory isn't sound..... the evidence doesn't support it.
The evidence does support TWO of the shells being planted....
Walt
Ted Gittinger
"charles wallace" <ccwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:9196-3E3...@storefull-2353.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Ben,
You got Williams saying two shots and Norman saying three shots. What
does Jarman say? If Williams was accurate then the LNers have a problem
because I think most of them agree with JBC saying that without any
doubt in his mind that there was at least three shots.
Regards, Charles
And if JBC, his wife, and the many others who think there were at least
three shots are right, then perhaps Williams is the one with the problem.
Think?
Or does it only work one way?
ted
Ben Holmes
wallace) wrote:
>Ben,
>You got Williams saying two shots and Norman saying three shots. What
>does Jarman say?
*********************************************************
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County,
State of Texas, on this day personally appeared James Earl Jarman,
Jr., c/m 33, 3942 Atlanta Street, Dallas, Texas HA8-1837 who, after
being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
I work for the Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, as a
Checker on the first floor for Mr. Roy S. Truly. On Friday, November
22, 1963, I got to work at 8:05 a.m. The first time I saw Lee Oswald
on Friday, November 22, 1963 was about 8:15 a.m. He was filling orders
on the first floor. A little after 9:00 a.m. Lee Oswald asked me what
all the people were doing standing on the street. I told him that the
President was supposed to come this way sometime this morning. He
asked me, "Which way do you think he is coming?". I told him that the
President would probably come down Main Street and turn on Houston and
then go down Elm Street. He said, "Yes, I see". I only talked with him
for about three or four minutes. The last time I saw Lee Oswald on
Friday, November 22, 1963 was between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon when
he was taking the elevator upstairs to go get some boxes. At about
11:45 a.m. all of the employees who were working on the 6th floor came
downstairs and we were all out on the street at about 12:00 o'clock
noon. These employees were: Bill Shelley, Charles Givens, Billy
Lovelady, Bonnie Ray (last name not known) and a Spanish boy (his name
I cannot remember). To my knowledge Lee Oswald was not with us while
we were watching the parade.
/s/ James Earl Jarman, Jr.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 23rd DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
*********************************************************
>If Williams was accurate then the LNers have a problem
>because I think most of them agree with JBC saying that without any
>doubt in his mind that there was at least three shots.
>Regards, Charles
I'm quite convinced that there were between 4-6 shots.
charles wallace
BRW being wrong sounds reasonable since its between him and Norman. Ben
just posted a statement by Jarman where does not even say he was on the
fifth floor. Mr. and Mrs. Connally's conviction of a minimum of three
shots and no single bullet wounding JFK and the Governor have my vote.
Regards, Charles
charles wallace
The impression mark on the side of CE 544 and CE 545 is caused by a
protrusion in the firing chamber of Oswald's rifle when the shell is
fired. This happened also to FBI test shells. Josiah Thomson
discovered this. CE 543 does not have this impression mark. Tell me
what I have said that is not the truth.
charles wallace
Thanks for posting that statement by Jarman . Surely he has another
statement or something that corrects it because he was on the 5th floor
during the shooting, right? He shows up in Dillard's photo, right?
Regards, Charles
Ben Holmes
wallace) wrote:
>Ben,
>Thanks for posting that statement by Jarman . Surely he has another
>statement or something that corrects it because he was on the 5th floor
>during the shooting, right? He shows up in Dillard's photo, right?
>Regards, Charles
Here's a small portion of his WC testimony:
Mr. JARMAN - After the motorcade turned, going west on Elm, then there
was a loud shot, or backfire, as I thought it was then--I thought it
was a backfire.
Mr. BALL - You thought it was what?
Mr. JARMAN - A backfire or an officer giving a salute to the
President. And then at that time I didn't, you know, think too much
about it. And then the second shot was fired, and that is when the
people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped
forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second
one.
Mr. BALL - Were you still on your knees looking up?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, after the third shot was fired, I think I got up
and I run over to Harold Norman and Bonnie Ray Williams, and told
them, I said, I told them that it wasn't a backfire or anything, that
somebody was shooting at the President.
Mr. BALL - And then did they say anything?
Mr. JARMAN - Hank said, Harold Norman, rather, said that he thought
the shots had came from above us, and I noticed that Bonnie Ray had a
few debris in his head. It was sort of white stuff, or something, and
I told him not to brush it out, but he did anyway.
Mr. BALL - He had some white what, like plaster?
Mr. JARMAN - Like some come off a brick or plaster or something.
Mr. BALL - Did Norman say anything else that you remember?
Mr. JARMAN - He said that he was sure that the shot came from inside
the building because he had been used to guns and all that, and he
said it didn't sound like it was too far off anyway. And so we ran
down to the west side of the building.
I think it's most interesting to see that stories changed over time.
Reading his affidavit, you'd have no idea whatsoever that he had just
been one floor under the assassin of the President. That's why I find
it so fascinating to read the *earliest* accounts that people had.
Walt
Walt,
The impression mark on the side of CE 544 and CE 545 is caused by a
protrusion in the firing chamber of Oswald's rifle when the shell is fired.
Tell me about this "protrusion" in the firing chamber.
What was it?
What caused it?
Do you have any experience firing a bolt action rifle?
Have you ever attempted to load a dirty cartridge into a firing chamber?
This happened also to FBI test shells. Josiah Thomson
discovered this.
What does Josiah know about rifles? Is he qualified to to offer a
plausible THEORY? Is the THEORY plausible to a knowledgable person?
Walt
Ben Holmes
<TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"charles wallace" <ccwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:9196-3E3...@storefull-2353.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>Ben,
>You got Williams saying two shots and Norman saying three shots. What
>does Jarman say? If Williams was accurate then the LNers have a problem
>because I think most of them agree with JBC saying that without any
>doubt in his mind that there was at least three shots.
>Regards, Charles
>
>And if JBC, his wife, and the many others who think there were at least
>three shots are right, then perhaps Williams is the one with the problem.
>Think?
>
>Or does it only work one way?
>
>ted
Nope... doesn't work one way at *all*. I'm sure you'll agree that
it's easier to fit someone who heard just two shots into a picture
where three were fired - as opposed to trying to figure out how
someone heard three shots when it was known only two were fired.
This is why it's so interesting to see how many people testified *not*
to three shots, but to four or more. Four does seem to be the most
common number other than 3...
Ted Gittinger
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 01:45:50 GMT, "Ted Gittinger"
> <TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"charles wallace" <ccwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> >news:9196-3E3...@storefull-2353.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> >Ben,
> >You got Williams saying two shots and Norman saying three shots. What
> >does Jarman say? If Williams was accurate then the LNers have a problem
> >because I think most of them agree with JBC saying that without any
> >doubt in his mind that there was at least three shots.
> >Regards, Charles
> >
> >And if JBC, his wife, and the many others who think there were at least
> >three shots are right, then perhaps Williams is the one with the problem.
> >Think?
> >
> >Or does it only work one way?
> >
> >ted
>
> Nope... doesn't work one way at *all*. I'm sure you'll agree that
> it's easier to fit someone who heard just two shots into a picture
> where three were fired - as opposed to trying to figure out how
> someone heard three shots when it was known only two were fired.
>
> This is why it's so interesting to see how many people testified *not*
> to three shots, but to four or more. Four does seem to be the most
> common number other than 3...
Which proves what?
Why, it might be good evidence that there were more than one shot, and fewer
than ten.
ted
Ben Holmes
Why, exactly the same thing that your comment about JBC proved...
Ted Gittinger
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
> >> This is why it's so interesting to see how many people testified *not*
> >> to three shots, but to four or more. Four does seem to be the most
> >> common number other than 3...
> >
> >Which proves what?
>
> Why, exactly the same thing that your comment about JBC proved...
>
> >Why, it might be good evidence that there were more than one shot, and
fewer
> >than ten.
> >
> >ted
Yeah. And what have you added to the discussion?
Enlighten me. I am slower than most, apparently.
ted
Ben Holmes
Always happy to explain my reasoning...
Charles ventured the idea that if Williams said he heard two shots,
then perhaps there were only two.
You countered with JBC, his wife, and many others, who think there
were at least three shots... (I'm ignoring the fact that JBC only
heard two shots - not germane.) The implication of your statement was
that Williams was not accurate in his hearing of only two shots
(because others heard *more* shots)
I then pointed out why the higher number of shots heard has perhaps a
better chance of being correct, (agreeing with you) and then commented
that many people heard 4 or more shots.
IOW's, I used *precisely* the same argument that you used, but with
*more* shots.
You asked me what my statement proved, I replied "Why, exactly the
same thing that your comment about JBC proved..." Which, since I used
precisely the same argument that you had, certainly *does* prove
precisely the same thing...
I trust it's clear now...
Ben Holmes
wrote:
>"charles wallace" <ccwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:9600-3E3...@storefull-2354.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>Walt,
>The impression mark on the side of CE 544 and CE 545 is caused by a
>protrusion in the firing chamber of Oswald's rifle when the shell is fired.
>
>Tell me about this "protrusion" in the firing chamber.
This was certainly the responsibility of the HSCA, since they were
aware of Josiah Thompson's theory. It's an area of complete silence
from *all* of the investigations...
>What was it?
A "protrusion". You cannot 'dent' a brass cartridge shell without
applying pressure to it with an object of some sort.
>What caused it?
Probably a poor manufacturing process. Without being able to examine
the rifle, one can only guess.
>Do you have any experience firing a bolt action rifle?
Don't know about Charles, but I have. Not much, to be honest, but
some.
>Have you ever attempted to load a dirty cartridge into a firing chamber?
Never. But I hope you're not suggesting that these marks were all
caused by dirty cartridges?
>This happened also to FBI test shells. Josiah Thomson
>discovered this.
>
>What does Josiah know about rifles? Is he qualified to to offer a
>plausible THEORY?
What requirement do you need to offer a "plausible" theory? Wouldn't
the fact that it *is* plausible demonstrate that the person offering
it was qualified 'enough'?
In any case, his theory is the *only* one I've seen that I'd consider
plausible.
>Is the THEORY plausible to a knowledgable person?
I consider myself to be at least minimumly qualified around firearms,
and yes, I think the theory that these marks are "chamber marks"
caused by some defect in the chamber the theory that *best* accounts
for the evidence. I've not seen another that can account for the
cartridges that the FBI fired...
Walt
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:34:46 -0800, "Walt" <Papakoc...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"charles wallace" <ccwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> >news:9600-3E3...@storefull-2354.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> >Walt,
> >The impression mark on the side of CE 544 and CE 545 is caused by a
> >protrusion in the firing chamber of Oswald's rifle when the shell is
fired.
> >
> >Tell me about this "protrusion" in the firing chamber.
>
> This was certainly the responsibility of the HSCA, since they were
> aware of Josiah Thompson's theory. It's an area of complete silence
> from *all* of the investigations...
>
> >What was it?
>
> A "protrusion". You cannot 'dent' a brass cartridge shell without
> applying pressure to it with an object of some sort.
>
> >What caused it?
>
> Probably a poor manufacturing process. Without being able to examine the
rifle, one can only guess.
C'mon Ben..... you don't believe that... You're familar with rifles..... you
know that even the cheapest firearms are subject to quality control and
inspections before the ever leave the manufacturer....
>
> >Do you have any experience firing a bolt action rifle?
>
> Don't know about Charles, but I have. Not much, to be honest, but some.
>
> >Have you ever attempted to load a dirty cartridge into a firing chamber?
>
> Never. But I hope you're not suggesting that these marks were all caused
by dirty cartridges?
No... what I'm getting at is a dirty cartridge is very hard to chamber....
The firing chamber is a PRECISION cavity and it is difficult to close the
bolt if you try to load a dirty cartridge. If there was a protrusion in
the chamber it's doubful if Sampson Strongman could close the bolt.
>
> >This happened also to FBI test shells. Josiah Thomson discovered this.
> >
> >What does Josiah know about rifles? Is he qualified to to offer a
> >plausible THEORY?
>
> What requirement do you need to offer a "plausible" theory? Wouldn't the
fact that it *is* plausible demonstrate that the person offering
> it was qualified 'enough'?
>
> In any case, his theory is the *only* one I've seen that I'd consider
plausible.
>
> >Is the THEORY plausible to a knowledgable person?
>
> I consider myself to be at least minimumly qualified around firearms,
> and yes, I think the theory that these marks are "chamber marks"
> caused by some defect in the chamber the theory that *best* accounts
> for the evidence. I've not seen another that can account for the
> cartridges that the FBI fired...
>
If the FBI was reliable.... we wouldn't be discussing this case......
Walt
Ben Holmes
>
>
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:9r1h3vg51bplrpb8r...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:34:46 -0800, "Walt" <Papakoc...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"charles wallace" <ccwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> >news:9600-3E3...@storefull-2354.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>> >Walt,
>> >The impression mark on the side of CE 544 and CE 545 is caused by a
>> >protrusion in the firing chamber of Oswald's rifle when the shell is
>fired.
>> >
>> >Tell me about this "protrusion" in the firing chamber.
>>
>> This was certainly the responsibility of the HSCA, since they were
>> aware of Josiah Thompson's theory. It's an area of complete silence
>> from *all* of the investigations...
>>
>> >What was it?
>>
>> A "protrusion". You cannot 'dent' a brass cartridge shell without
>> applying pressure to it with an object of some sort.
>>
>Elementary..... but what was this "protrusion"?
Metal.
>> >What caused it?
>>
>> Probably a poor manufacturing process. Without being able to examine the
>rifle, one can only guess.
>
>C'mon Ben..... you don't believe that...
Okay... ramming empty cartridge shells into the chamber repeatedly. Without
examining the rifle, there's NO WAY TO KNOW.
>You're familar with rifles..... you
>know that even the cheapest firearms are subject to quality control and
>inspections before the ever leave the manufacturer....
I'm not convinced by this argument...
>> >Do you have any experience firing a bolt action rifle?
>>
>> Don't know about Charles, but I have. Not much, to be honest, but some.
>>
>> >Have you ever attempted to load a dirty cartridge into a firing chamber?
>>
>> Never. But I hope you're not suggesting that these marks were all caused
>by dirty cartridges?
>
>No... what I'm getting at is a dirty cartridge is very hard to chamber....
>The firing chamber is a PRECISION cavity and it is difficult to close the
>bolt if you try to load a dirty cartridge.
Who's claiming they were dirty cartridges?
>If there was a protrusion in
>the chamber it's doubful if Sampson Strongman could close the bolt.
Nonsense. Have you *looked* at the dents Josiah Thompson showed on the photos?
It's not much, and if a chamber deformity existed, you certainly *could* chamber
rounds in and dent them.
>> >This happened also to FBI test shells. Josiah Thomson discovered this.
>> >
>> >What does Josiah know about rifles? Is he qualified to to offer a
>> >plausible THEORY?
>>
>> What requirement do you need to offer a "plausible" theory? Wouldn't the
>fact that it *is* plausible demonstrate that the person offering
>> it was qualified 'enough'?
>>
>> In any case, his theory is the *only* one I've seen that I'd consider
>plausible.
>>
>> >Is the THEORY plausible to a knowledgable person?
>>
>> I consider myself to be at least minimumly qualified around firearms,
>> and yes, I think the theory that these marks are "chamber marks"
>> caused by some defect in the chamber the theory that *best* accounts
>> for the evidence. I've not seen another that can account for the
>> cartridges that the FBI fired...
>>
>If the FBI was reliable.... we wouldn't be discussing this case......
Please explain just what you think the FBI did. Did they use a different rifle?
If so, just what caused those shells to dent IDENTICALLY to the shells found in
the TSBD? What caused these dents anyway? You need to provide an alternative
hypothesis if you don't like the "chamber" theory.
It has to explain not only the TSBD cartridges shells and bullet, but also the
ones the FBI fired through the rifle.
charles wallace
I agree with what Ben has been saying in his post exchanges with you
about the protrusion in the chamber. You would think somebody would
measure the location and describe the features of the protrusion.
Walt
BRASS cartrides are gonna score steel??? Check with a metalurgist......
>
> >You're familar with rifles..... you
> >know that even the cheapest firearms are subject to quality control and
> >inspections before the ever leave the manufacturer....
>
> I'm not convinced by this argument...
>
Well you should be.... If you're as experienced as you claim to be...
> >> >Do you have any experience firing a bolt action rifle?
> >>
> >> Don't know about Charles, but I have. Not much, to be honest, but
some.
> >>
> >> >Have you ever attempted to load a dirty cartridge into a firing
chamber?
> >>
> >> Never. But I hope you're not suggesting that these marks were all
caused
> >by dirty cartridges?
> >
> >No... what I'm getting at is a dirty cartridge is very hard to
chamber....
> >The firing chamber is a PRECISION cavity and it is difficult to close the
> >bolt if you try to load a dirty cartridge.
>
> Who's claiming they were dirty cartridges?
I'm saying that just a little dirt on a cartridge makes it difficult to
close the bolt... a PROTRUSION ( a lump of something ) in the chamber would
make it nearly impossible to close the bolt... The cartridge has to be free
to rotate with the bolt as the bolt is closed ...A protrusion in the firing
chamber would prevent the cartridge from rotating .....The extractor would
gouge into the rim of the cartridge and make it difficult and dangerous to
close the bolt..... Therefore I doubt that there was any "protrusion" in the
firing chamber.
>
> >If there was a protrusion in
> >the chamber it's doubful if Sampson Strongman could close the bolt.
>
> Nonsense. Have you *looked* at the dents Josiah Thompson showed on the
photos?
Yes ....Those dents are NOT chamber marks and they were made while the
shells were side by side, as in a clip, and not in a rifle.....
> It's not much, and if a chamber deformity existed, you certainly *could*
chamber
> rounds in and dent them.
>
I strongly disdagree.....
> >> >This happened also to FBI test shells. Josiah Thomson discovered
this.
> >> >
> >> >What does Josiah know about rifles? Is he qualified to to offer a
> >> >plausible THEORY?
> >>
> >> What requirement do you need to offer a "plausible" theory? Wouldn't
the
> >fact that it *is* plausible demonstrate that the person offering
> >> it was qualified 'enough'?
> >>
> >> In any case, his theory is the *only* one I've seen that I'd consider
> >plausible.
> >>
> >> >Is the THEORY plausible to a knowledgable person?
> >>
> >> I consider myself to be at least minimumly qualified around firearms,
> >> and yes, I think the theory that these marks are "chamber marks"
> >> caused by some defect in the chamber the theory that *best* accounts
> >> for the evidence. I've not seen another that can account for the
> >> cartridges that the FBI fired...
> >>
> >If the FBI was reliable.... we wouldn't be discussing this case......
>
> Please explain just what you think the FBI did. Did they use a different
rifle?
> If so, just what caused those shells to dent IDENTICALLY to the shells
found in
> the TSBD? What caused these dents anyway? You need to provide an
alternative
> hypothesis if you don't like the "chamber" theory.
>
I don't have to do any such thing..... I'm just telling you those DENTS are
NOT chamber marks....
Walt
Walt
Walt,
I agree with what Ben has been saying in his post exchanges with you
about the protrusion in the chamber. You would think somebody would
measure the location and describe the features of the protrusion.
Regards, Charles
Charles..... I love ya man...but you are uneducated about firearms.... You
don't know what yer talkin about....
Walt
Ben Holmes
wrote:
Yeah, not the greatest idea. But the idea that the dents were formed
while they were in a clip simply doesn't explain the facts.
>> >You're familar with rifles..... you
>> >know that even the cheapest firearms are subject to quality control and
>> >inspections before the ever leave the manufacturer....
>>
>> I'm not convinced by this argument...
>>
> Well you should be.... If you're as experienced as you claim to be...
I find it much easier to be honest about my life. That way I don't
have to remember what "story" I'd have told.
Then the FBI must have done the SAME thing that caused those marks
with the cartridges that THEY test fired.
But before I believe in a wild theory like that one, I'm going to go
buy a lottery ticket. My odds are better...
Well, if you cannot provide an alternative explanation for those
dents, then you're not going to be winning the minds of lurkers who
read Josiah Thompson's theory, and your "non-theory".
Your "In the clip" hypothesis also doesn't provide any reason for the
dent to be smaller on the non-fired round.
>I'm just telling you those DENTS are NOT chamber marks....
>
>Walt
You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. We all have 'em...
Walt
>
> Well, if you cannot provide an alternative explanation for those
> dents, then you're not going to be winning the minds of lurkers who
> read Josiah Thompson's theory, and your "non-theory".
>
> Your "In the clip" hypothesis also doesn't provide any reason for the
> dent to be smaller on the non-fired round.
>
> >I'm just telling you those DENTS are NOT chamber marks....
> >
> >Walt
>
> You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. We all have 'em...
>
Hello Ben....Yer obviously not stupid....but you seem to be more than a
little stubborn....
Most of us don't like to admit we're wrong....(The reluctance to admit we're
wrong seems to be a problem that decreases with age and maturity)
But if you seeking the truth in this case you have to accept that some hot
ideas are going to be quenched with the cold water of facts....when that
happens accept it as a theory that has been disproved and realize that
you're a step closer to the truth.
Walt
Gil Jesus
wrong seems to be a problem that decreases with age and maturity)
But if you seeking the truth in this case you have to accept that some hot
ideas are going to be quenched with the cold water of facts....when that
happens accept it as a theory that has been disproved and realize that
you're a step closer to the truth.
Walt
Amen Walt..and if we have to dispel the falsehoods to get at the truth so be
it. Maybe only by process of elimination will the truth be known someday.
Ben Holmes
>
>
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:hssj3v82mvdu8bn6b...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:10:08 -0800, "Walt" <Papakoc...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, if you cannot provide an alternative explanation for those
>> dents, then you're not going to be winning the minds of lurkers who
>> read Josiah Thompson's theory, and your "non-theory".
>>
>> Your "In the clip" hypothesis also doesn't provide any reason for the
>> dent to be smaller on the non-fired round.
>>
>> >I'm just telling you those DENTS are NOT chamber marks....
>> >
>> >Walt
>>
>> You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. We all have 'em...
>>
>Hello Ben....Yer obviously not stupid....but you seem to be more than a
>little stubborn....
>
>Most of us don't like to admit we're wrong....(The reluctance to admit we're
>wrong seems to be a problem that decreases with age and maturity)
Be happy to admit I'm wrong. By all means, GIVE ME A REASON!!
All cartridge cases, and one unfired bullet, that went through that rifle have
an identical 'dent' in the same place. When I say *all* cartridge cases, I'm
ALSO referring to the ones that the FBI stated that they had fired through the
rifle. There's only *one* exception, CE 543. I open the floor to you, Walt, to
either deny that set of facts, or PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION.
Walt
If you own a bolt action rifle put a drop of epoxy at the bevel of the
firing chamber. Let the epoxy harden overnight, and then try to chamber a
spent cartridge.
You can burn the epoxy out after the exoeriment with a propane torch.
Walt
Ben Holmes
wrote:
No, Walt, this is not either a denial of the basic facts, or an
alternative explanation. You can argue until you're blue in the face,
but until you either deny the basic facts as I presented them above,
or provide an alternative explanation, I rather doubt if you're going
to convince anyone. You're not giving anyone a *reason* to want to
believe your explanation (since there *isn't* one!)
Walt
If you have a bolt action rifle try the experiment...If you can chamber a
spent round with a little PROTRUSION of epoxy in the chamber then we can
continue with this THEORY... If you can't chamber a spent round, then that
THEORY can be thrown in the trash can ( where it belongs)
Walt
Ted Gittinger
"Walt" <Papakoc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >
> If you own a bolt action rifle put a drop of epoxy at the bevel of the
> firing chamber. Let the epoxy harden overnight, and then try to chamber
a
> spent cartridge.
>
> You can burn the epoxy out after the exoeriment with a propane torch.
>
> Walt
>
case, the epoxy will not adhere very strongly. If you press the bolt
against it and rotate it, it may well break off. Look at the directions on
the glue container.
Next, why submit your weapon to a propane torch? Use a solvent if
necessary, although as I implied above, the glue will probably break away
cleanly if pushed with a wooden dowel or similar tool.
ted
Walt
"Ted Gittinger" <TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BcW_9.6009$xc.5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> "Walt" <Papakoc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >
> > If you own a bolt action rifle put a drop of epoxy at the bevel of the
> > firing chamber. Let the epoxy harden overnight, and then try to
chamber
> a
> > spent cartridge.
> >
> > You can burn the epoxy out after the exoeriment with a propane torch.
> >
> > Walt
> >
> First, if the bevel you refer to is rather highly polished, as is often
the
> case, the epoxy will not adhere very strongly. If you press the bolt
> against it and rotate it, it may well break off.
Huh ??? What the hell kinda rifle you got??? The bolt makes contact with
the beveled area of the firing chamber??? That's a real unique
rifle.......
Look at the directions on
> the glue container.
Glue??? My fault... I should have allowed for idiots.. Epoxy as in liquid
steel ... J.B. Weld fer example.
> Next, why submit your weapon to a propane torch?
Are you kidding?? What temperture and pressure is a 30.06 subjected to
every time it is fired.
Use a solvent if necessary,
.... Name a solvent that will desolve liquid steel but won't harm the
rifle??
although as I implied above, the glue will probably break away cleanly if
pushed with a wooden dowel or similar tool.
>
If the epoxy is applied per the instructions.... I've got a "C" note that
says you can't break the epoxy off with a wooden dowel.
Walt
> ted
>
>
Ben Holmes
wrote:
Making the assumption that the chamber didn't cause this dent, what
did?
Tossing Josiah Thompson's *credible* theory out - and replacing it
with either nothing, or an hypothesis that doesn't explain the known
facts - doesn't accomplish anything.
Since I don't own a bolt action rifle, I can't try your experiment.
But I just don't have a single doubt that bolt action chambers can be
imperfect.
Ted Gittinger
"Walt" <Papakoc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > First, if the bevel
you refer to is rather highly polished, as is often
> the
> > case, the epoxy will not adhere very strongly. If you press the bolt
> > against it and rotate it, it may well break off.
>
> Huh ??? What the hell kinda rifle you got???
Why, several. You?
The bolt makes contact with
> the beveled area of the firing chamber??? That's a real unique
> rifle.......
Well, perhaps you could use more precise language to describe what you are
rather amateurishly trying to describe. I had to guess at what you meant.
Do you mean the *chamber?*
>
> Look at the directions on
> > the glue container.
>
> Glue??? My fault... I should have allowed for idiots.. Epoxy as in liquid
> steel ... J.B. Weld fer example.
>
>
> > Next, why submit your weapon to a propane torch?
>
> Are you kidding?? What temperture and pressure is a 30.06 subjected to
> every time it is fired.
>
> Use a solvent if necessary,
>
> .... Name a solvent that will desolve liquid steel but won't harm the
> rifle??
Okay. It is called Attack, and it will dissolve (note spelling) epoxy.
>
> although as I implied above, the glue will probably break away cleanly if
> pushed with a wooden dowel or similar tool.
> >
> If the epoxy is applied per the instructions.... I've got a "C" note that
> says you can't break the epoxy off with a wooden dowel.
The "instructions" invariably advise that the surfaces be roughened prior to
applying the glue. Is the surface you referred to polished, or not?
ted
Walt
>
> "Walt" <Papakoc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > First, if the bevel
> you refer to is rather highly polished, as is often
> > the
> > > case, the epoxy will not adhere very strongly. If you press the bolt
> > > against it and rotate it, it may well break off.
> >
> > Huh ??? What the hell kinda rifle you got???
>
> Why, several. You?
>
contact the beveled area of the firing chamber??
> The bolt makes contact with
> > the beveled area of the firing chamber??? That's a real unique
> > rifle.......
>
> Well, perhaps you could use more precise language to describe what you are
> rather amateurishly trying to describe. I had to guess at what you meant.
>
> Do you mean the *chamber?*
Listen Mush Jr. .... I specifically said the BEVELED area of the firing
chamber......
>
> >
> > Look at the directions on
> > > the glue container.
> >
> > Glue??? My fault... I should have allowed for idiots.. Epoxy as in
liquid
> > steel ... J.B. Weld fer example.
> >
> >
> > > Next, why submit your weapon to a propane torch?
> >
> > Are you kidding?? What temperture and pressure is a 30.06 subjected to
> > every time it is fired.
> >
> > Use a solvent if necessary,
> >
> > .... Name a solvent that will desolve liquid steel but won't harm the
> > rifle??
>
> Okay. It is called Attack, and it will dissolve (note spelling) epoxy.
Thank you for the spelling lesson..... But "Attack" won't dissolve HARDENED
epoxy. It will remove epoxy that has not cured.
>
> >
> > although as I implied above, the glue will probably break away cleanly
if
> > pushed with a wooden dowel or similar tool.
> > >
> > If the epoxy is applied per the instructions.... I've got a "C" note
that
> > says you can't break the epoxy off with a wooden dowel.
>
> The "instructions" invariably advise that the surfaces be roughened prior
to
> applying the glue. Is the surface you referred to polished, or not?
>
Ok.... If the chamber is polished in you rifle just use a emory board to
roughen it a little. ( My Carcanos don't have polished firing chambers. They
have a machine finish. My guess is the epoxy will adhere to even a polished
surface.... I've used it on chrome, and it sticks like gum in a diaper.
Walt
> ted
>
>
charles wallace
Its pretty obvious from your posts that you don't have a copy of " Six
seconds in Dallas" by Josiah Thompson. The brass shell configuration is
such that the diameter which holds the bullet goes for a short length
then slopes (you call this a bevel) to a larger diameter of longer
length. In SSID on page 145 Thompson shows a photograph of the dented
lip shell CE 543, the full unfired bullet CE 141, and the two shells CE
544 and CE 545. On this photo he shows arrows pointing to the chamber
mark (dent or impression). The mark is on the large diameter near the
slope. Thompson says the two test shells fired in Oswald's rifle
designated CE 577 also has these marks. CE 543 does not have a
chambering mark and thus was not fired in Oswald's rifle. I contend
that my EST is a valid theory that explains the marks of CE 543 and thus
supports Oswald's contention that he was just a patsy.
Regards, Charles
Re: Shell CE 543 update
Group: alt.conspiracy.jfk Date: Thu, Jan 30, 2003, 4:12pm (CST-2) From:
Papakoc...@yahoo.com (Walt)
Ben Holmes
wrote:
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
Just a little update here:
Reloading dies also present some issues for the 6.5 X 52.
The current specifications for the 6.5 X 52 mm Carcano were developed
by CIP. I have found that the specification for minimum chamber
dimensions does not match that of a large number of rifles. The
problem is in the minimum diameter of the breech end of the chamber.
The minimum CIP dimension for this is .451. After casting the
chambers of a number of rifles I have found chambers with this
dimension as small as .4485. There are also rifles that are within the
CIP specification. The largest chambers I have observed measure .4535.
All other chamber dimensions have been within the specification. I do
not know how this discrepancy has come about. It could be an error in
the CIP specification from the original Italian manufacturing
practices or a result of original chamber reamers being sharpened too
many times. I have also observed this dimesional discrepancy in 7.35 X
51 chambers.
Seems to make nonsense out of your assertion about the quality
control, when it comes to the chamber, as this above quote makes
clear.
You can read the original here:
http://attila.stevens-tech.edu/~glibera1/carcano/emary.html
<the rest of the message snipped>
Ted Gittinger
> > > rifle??
> >
> > Okay. It is called Attack, and it will dissolve (note spelling) epoxy.
>
> Thank you for the spelling lesson..... But "Attack" won't dissolve
HARDENED
> epoxy. It will remove epoxy that has not cured.
Look at the label on the can. I use it to dissolve cured epoxy all the
time.
You are dead wrong.
> My guess is the epoxy will adhere to even a polished
> surface.... I've used it on chrome, and it sticks like gum in a diaper.
>
> Walt
Your "guess." Heh. Epoxy will stick to a polished surface, all
right--until it is stressed. Then it will break cleanly away. Again, read
the label.
Are you related to Marsh?
ted
Walt
Walt,
Its pretty obvious from your posts that you don't have a copy of " Six
seconds in Dallas" by Josiah Thompson.
No don't have SSID..but I've read it and I have photocopies of many of the
pics in it.
The brass shell configuration is such that the diameter which holds the
bullet goes for a short length
then slopes (you call this a bevel) to a larger diameter of longer length.
Actually you've got it backwards Charlie....The case is NECKED DOWN to the
smaller diameter of the projectile.... And the beveled area is called the
shoulder.
It might interest you to know that I own many center fire bolt action rifles
.... I've hunted big game all over the western United States including Moose
and Bear in Alaska....so I really don't need a lesson in cartridge
basics..... But, It's obvious that you could benefit from a course in the
basics of rifles and ammunition...
In SSID on page 145 Thompson shows a photograph of the dented lip shell CE
543, the full unfired bullet CE 141, and the two shells CE 544 and CE 545.
On this photo he shows arrows pointing to the chamber
mark (dent or impression). The mark is on the large diameter near the
slope.
Yes ....That's exactly where a cartridge would be dented if a hard object
came in contact with it with enough force.
Try this experiment....Lay a spent cartridge on a wooden surface then lay a
flat piece of steel on top of the cartridge. ( the steel should be 1/4 inch
or thicker ). Now drop a heavy object like a 8 pound hammer on the steel.
If you conduct this simple test perhaps you'll see that the dent on the
shoulder is a DENT... it is NOT a chamber mark...
Walt
Walt
damned well that there is a tolerance for the minimum and maximum dimensions
for the firing chamber of any rifle....
You know full well we are talking about a GROSS DEFORMITY of a protrusion in
the chamber. That kind of a manufacturing defect would not leave the
factory.
Are you takin lessons from Agent Mush??
Walt
Ben Holmes
wrote:
Yep... this "tolerance for the minimum and maximum dimensions" is
known as the "specifications" of the design.
If you bothered to read my quote, you'll notice that it's talking
about rifles that are OUT OF SPECIFICATION!!
IOW's, rifles that are *OUT* of tolerance range.
Why would you consider me pointing that out to be dishonest?
>You know full well we are talking about a GROSS DEFORMITY of a protrusion in
>the chamber. That kind of a manufacturing defect would not leave the
>factory.
Rifles that didn't meet the normal tolerance values managed to leave
the factory... Seems to me that this is in contradiction to your
argument.
You argue that manufacturing defects would be caught by QC, but here's
an example of rifles that ARE OUT OF TOLERANCE RANGE leaving the
factory.
>Are you takin lessons from Agent Mush??
Beneath you, Walt...
Robert
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote
> Seems to make nonsense out of your assertion about the quality
> control, when it comes to the chamber, as this above quote makes
> clear.
Not without determining if there's an error in the CIP specifications
first, and they've made errors before.
Robert
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote
> Rifles that didn't meet the normal tolerance values managed to leave
> the factory... Seems to me that this is in contradiction to your
> argument.
Ben, those aren't the military specs, they're CIP, the Euro
equivalent of SAMMI.
charles wallace
Perhaps whoever was selling this war surplus military rifle to Kleins
added a drop of molten metal to the chamber cavity to tighten up the the
shell from wiggling in a out of tolerance large cavity diameter.
Regards, Charles
Ben Holmes
wallace) wrote:
>Ben,
>Perhaps whoever was selling this war surplus military rifle to Kleins
>added a drop of molten metal to the chamber cavity to tighten up the the
>shell from wiggling in a out of tolerance large cavity diameter.
>Regards, Charles
Nice suggestion... but I suspect that Kleins was buying in huge lots.
Robert
Ben,
Perhaps whoever was selling this war surplus military rifle to Kleins
added a drop of molten metal to the chamber cavity to tighten up the the
shell from wiggling in a out of tolerance large cavity diameter.
Regards, Charles
----------------
*groan* I can't believe I just read what I just read.....
Walt
"Robert" <rdb...@prtcnet.org> wrote in message
news:b1n475$fu2$1...@nd.eastky.net...
respect the guy.....But he's so uninformed.
Walt
>
>